So now that discs on road bikes is becoming a faultering meme,

>>1046275
>any advantages?
Of course there are technical advantages, but they're not that significant. They should be able to be lighter and possibly stiffer and they give a bit of freedom in frame and fork design as you no longer need to accommodate the through hole above the tyre (that frame in the photo has no cross bridge for example).

But yeah, it's all irrelevant because disc brake master race.

>>1046275
Two weeks ago I purchased a bike with direct mount brakes. They are really good, but the one near the bottom bracket gets really dirty and probably needs to be cleaned a lot. I'm kindra retrogrouch and didn't like the idea of that ´´new tech´´ but the bike was extremely good and cheap I had to buy it.

As far I know the advantages are the aero ones which obviously doesn't matter on the real world, and a better braking power. I haven't noticed any problems with braking for the moment, so maybe it's true. I have read that the rear brake on that position isn't very efficient, but that's the rear brake and usually you brake with the front one or both at the same time.

Disk brakes will be on 90% road bikes in a few years. Only piece of crap supermarket bikes and tryhard hipsters use anything else.

>>1046302
>Disk brakes
You mean dork disks :^)

>>1046319
A new meme has born.

drum brakes best brakes

File: bike_accidents.jpg (41KB, 380x254px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 380x254px

>>1046275
>>1046348
coaster brakes 4 life

>>1046275
>So now that discs on road bikes is becoming a faultering meme
*citation needed*

File: Brakes_MAFAC_RAID.jpg (83KB, 1024x767px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 1024x767px

>>1046275
>They seem to be plan B for manufacturers to cram new required tech down peoples throats

>>1046362
Those are mounted on a bolt in the center. Old as fuck, work great, not the same as op's dumb shit.

File: Ti_X_Racer_900px_11.jpg (186KB, 900x1193px) Image search: [Google]

186KB, 900x1193px

>>1046384
Modern "direct mount" rim brakes work great as well.

File: 88HamBrake.jpg (85KB, 750x561px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 750x561px

>>1046393
>>1046384
pivot-above-the-rim results in less fork/seatstay flex under braking than pivot-below-the-rim (cantis, V-brakes) because the pivots are closer to the fork crown/seatstay bridge. I never understood why they didn't catch on more back in the day.

The one caveat: As the pads wear, the hit point on the rim travels *out* rather than in, so if you don't monitor your pad wear, you can take out your tire sidewall...

>>1046396
moar pics of this bike, pls

>>1046393
No doubt, especially if the arms are casted instead of the old punchout aluminum as in your pic. It's the hyping of it as new tech that got me crabby.

>>1046396
V brakes were a joy to set up/work on compared to just about everything. I'd be surprised if bike mfgs pushed them for so long based on that.

>>1046362
those are cantilever brakes you retard

direct mount has direct pull

File: 88Ham.jpg (170KB, 750x561px) Image search: [Google]

170KB, 750x561px

>>1046397
>moar pics of this bike, pls

Will do! It's an '88 Charlie Cunningham.

>>1046398
Whada you mean, "punchout aluminum"? Those are CNC'd, not stamped. I'd definitely prefer CNC aluminum to cast, although I'd prefer forged over either.

>>1046400
Yeah, V-brakes had a bunch of good things going for them: Massive tire clearance, no fucking straddle cable angle to worry about. Brake cable housing down to the brake itself so no brake judder on the front due to the frame/fork flexing. Setup was always super easy.

That said, if you weren't an idiot and knew how to set them up, cantis were great. I still think my old XTR M900 brakes are some of the finest rim brakes ever made.

>>1046413
No, those are centerpulls/U-brakes. You retard.

>>1046429
I think he was talking about the brakes on the blue bike (the post you were replying to), although on closer inspection those are also cast and not stamped aluminium.

>>1046275
Discs aren't faltering

>>1046288
No, there's really no advantages. They're actually heavier and the frame needs mounts, adding more weight. They look cooler and more integrated though.

>>1046300
Normal mount rim brakes brake very well, especially the most recent generation of Shimanos. So if you're comparing new Shimano direct mounts to older brakes, it's not really a fair comparison.

>>1046302
They're already on crap supermarket bikes.

>>1046393
The ones you posted before weren't direct mount you dumb fuck.

>>1046396
Because single pivots are still lighter, the mounting is simpler, and you don't need cable hangers.

>>1046429
Straddle cable angle doesn't matter a shit on centerpulls. And no, those aren't U brakes retard.

>>1046460
>The ones you posted before weren't direct mount you dumb fuck.

I'm not the person who posted the Mafac brakes

>Because single pivots are still lighter, the mounting is simpler, and you don't need cable hangers.
I wasn't comparing them to road calipers in that comment. Work on your reading comprehension.


>Straddle cable angle doesn't matter a shit on centerpulls.

Fuck yes it does. I recommend drawing some force diagrams and doing some basic trig if you don't understand why.

>And no, those aren't U brakes retard.

To quote Sheldon: "A U brake is a brake that works like a centerpull caliper, only with the pivots mounted directly to the frame or fork. The "L"-shaped arms cross over above the tire, so the left brake shoe is operated by the right side of the transverse cable. A U brake uses studs (bosses) attached to the front fork or frame above the rim, rather than below it, as with V-brakes brakes or conventional cantilever brakes. U brakes use the same type and placement of studs as roller-cam brakes do."

I suppose if we're talking about the Mafac Raid brakes above they would technically be a centerpull caliper rather than a U-brake, but CERTAINLY not a canti brake, as you called them.

>>1046473
>I'm not the person who posted the Mafac brakes
Sure thing bud

>I wasn't comparing them to road calipers in that comment.
Because back in the day bikes were mostly road bikes, and it's only low profile cantis that have shit performance. Your logic also led to shit like chainstay mount brakes because muh stiffness. Canti mounts are also easier to braze because they allow for more error and really don't care how far apart the mounts are.

>Work on your reading comprehension.
Work on having some vague grasp on the subject you pretend to be a know-it-all about

>Fuck yes it does. I recommend drawing some force diagrams and doing some basic trig if you don't understand why.
No it doesn't. It changes very little on centerpulls, unlike cantilevers. You'd realize this if you even knew what a force diagram was

>To quote Sheldon
To quote Sheldon you're wrong


>I suppose if we're talking about the Mafac Raid brakes above they would technically be a centerpull caliper rather than a U-brake, but CERTAINLY not a canti brake, as you called them.
I didn't call them that, and the chain of linked comments goes to the MAFACs. And centerpulls like the MAFAC were invented before U-brakes even existed.

I bet you're a rivfag because you don't even have the sophistication of a heinefag.

>>>1046288
>No, there's really no advantages. They're actually heavier and the frame needs mounts, adding more weight. They look cooler and more integrated though.

DMs have more strenght and less flex.

>>>1046300
>Normal mount rim brakes brake very well

they do but you need to adjust the centering every now and then, with DMs you dont. DMs are superior.

Discs aren't faltering. At least, as long as the UCI keeps the weight limit, they won't.

>>1046491
>DMs have more strenght and less flex.
Not noticeable if you're comparing equivalent brakes, DA9000 to DA9000 direct mount. Obviously DA9000 direct mount will feel better than other brakes, because DA9000 brakes are good in general.

>they do but you need to adjust the centering every now and then, with DMs you dont.
Only if for some reason you keep touching and hitting your brakes.

>>1046611
The frame and fork could theoretically be made stiffer than the part that attaches dual pivots to the single mounting hole. When the brake is applied that part wants to both flex open (opposite to the direction the pads move) as well as in the same direction as the wheel rotation (typically away from the fork and into the frame).

>>1046613
>The frame and fork could theoretically be made stiffer than the part that attaches dual pivots to the single mounting hole.
But the reverse is equally true and stiffening a short length of anything is easier than stiffening a longer anything. And do you really want to have to engineer the seat stays to be both torsionally stiff and flex resistant in addition to just accepting compression forces as they do with conventional brakes?
DM is a solution in search of a problem with lots of collateral damage.

>>1046621
DM or converntional, the seat stays need to be stiff in the direction of the wheel rotation. Conventional brakes however then have additional flex from the mounting plate and at the cross bridge. Direct mount brakes can only flex at the mounting posts, an area that is very easy to stiffen.

>>1046622
No, you misunderstand. With DM you also put torsional stress as well as an outward "bending a part" force on the seatstays. With a conventional brake the torsional stress only applies to the short (and therefore very stiff) crossbridge and there is no bending apart of the seatstay. You're right that there is still a force bending the stays down when braking, but conventional brakes put it rather close to the seat tube end of the stays where it stresses the joint but doesn't much act to bend the stays - it doesn't have the leverage. DM brakes mount further down the stays so this force too is greater with direct mount.

>>1046613
>>1046621
>>1046622
>>1046627
It really doesn't matter. In practice the bridge on single bolt mount brakes is plenty stiff enough. Even if you made the bridge on DM mounts 200% stiffer, the difference would barely be noticeable because there are other weak links in the system.

>>1046275
Nah dude disks are fucking sick. So much tighter, more responsive and consistent compared to rim brakes. Cable is okay but hydraulic is unholy. I wouldn't put them on an aero bike, but most road bikes aren't aero bikes.