Manufacturers return to rim brakes

As a canti-brake user (on commuter) I must object!  Cantis will handily eat rims too.  And my ride will also stop on a sixpence if I can throw one far enough ahead.

The only bike I still have with rim brakes is my old (20yrs+) road bike. It is harder to stop in the wet than my disc braked CX bike (with road tyres on in the summer). By harder I mean I have to squeeze the levers harder, it is more difficult to stop from the hoods. The only reason it doesn't eat rims much now is I take something else out in anything other than dry sunny conditions. 
My MTB of the same vintage ate its rim going down a wet and gritty descent of Doctorsgate. I changed to disks immediately afterwards. No MTB these days has rim brakes - MTB riders are rather less sentimental about the old days!

Rim brakes may arguably be slightly lighter, and they certainly make your bike lighter over time as they grind away at one of the most expensive and safety critical components of the machine. I would agree that they are often quieter, although the loud bang from an exploding wheel is annoying to your fellow riders. 

My MTB of the same vintage ate its rim going down a wet and gritty descent of Doctorsgate

My last exploding wheel fortunately occurred after I'd safely descended a dry Wrynose Pass eastbound in the Lakes, so all that happened was the very loud bang from the front inner and the thin sliver of rim jamming in the brake. The other bit of luck was that someone at the club hut above Coniston had room in her Berlingo to carry me and the bike back to the hut and later down the M6 to Garstang. Disc brakes are fab!

IanMSpencer wrote:

I am sure there will be a market in the future, but it will be premium - boutique bike frames designed around retro bike parts selling premium rim brakes with premium wheel rims. Road rim brakes will not be cheaper as a low volume product and now disk brakes are commodity.

It will be like with Tape Casette players now. Yeah you can still get them, but the big manufacturers stopped making the mechanisms years ago so the only ones you can get are really cheap plasticky and rubbish, they don't work anywhere near as good as the decent ones you could get. I can imagine a sceanario when Shimano and the like no longer make them, and we're stuck with crappy cheap no-name copies put on "retro style" frames and people will just say "oh rim brakes where never good anyway"

There will always be Paul's.

ChuckSneed wrote:

You're easily brainwashed by marketing. Thinner tyres at higher pressures are always faster. That's a FACT.

They're quicker on perfectly flat ground, but that's mainly relevant for velodromes.

When the road surface gets bumpier, thin, hard tyres aren't able to flex enough to absorb the ups and downs and thus the bike and rider get bumped up and down a tiny amount which results in a loss of energy. Having the tyres at a lower pressure can help absorb those bumps and not waste as much energy.

Oh well, now you've typed "fact" in capital letters there is no real point in trying to debate, is there, it's well known that proves every scientific argument.

Rendel Harris wrote:

Oh well, now you've typed "fact" in capital letters there is no real point in trying to debate, is there, it's well known that proves every scientific argument.

But at least he's backed up his opinion with data and research...

Daveyraveygravey wrote:

But at least he's backed up his opinion with data and research...

Ironically, the question of tyre pressures and speeds is remarkably easy to investigate - just find yourself a suitable decline on a non-windy day and time yourself free-wheeling down it with tyres at various pressures. Repeat until you get bored of cycling back up the hill or there's a good selection of data.

Or just go to https://www.bicyclerollingresistance.com/ and get the results you want.
In any case, wider tyres are safer, this is why I run 28mm, and would even if a bit slower.

aitorbk wrote:

Or just go to https://www.bicyclerollingresistance.com/ and get the results you want.
In any case, wider tyres are safer, this is why I run 28mm, and would even if a bit slower.

Pffft. You're just playing into Big Tyre's hands by trusting websites like that.

(I'm a 28mm kind of guy too)

I'm really not bothered.

ChuckSneed wrote:

You're easily brainwashed by marketing. Thinner tyres at higher pressures are always faster. That's a FACT.

Even if thats true (it isnt), I rarely ride my bike to achieve maximum speed.  Beating a PR gives me a sense of satisfaction but frankly so does bimbling along looking forward to the cake stop and admiring the scenery.  The reality is that weather and road conditions make far more of an impact on when I get a PR or not than my tyres do.  Thats without getting into the fact that I quite like my hands and spine un-pretzeled by stupidly hard tyres.  I dont ride to feel like I've been beaten up.

Frankly if speed is your thing you're a) already in the minority of a minority b) should probably go get yourself a racing license and find a race forum to hang out on.

Lastly - 72 posts in and you're already on the trollish edge of the road.cc spectrum - is that really a road you want to carry on down?

Me too. I'm quite happy finding new places to ride to, not bothered how long it takes, just enjoying the view.

ChuckSneed wrote:

What do you mean by trollish? And what is your problem? I didn't realise the number of posts people made mattered nor did I realise you were the one policing it.

I think Secret_squirrel was referring to a problem we have with some topics being pounced on by new accounts (hence the low number of posts reference) just to present an anti-cycling viewpoint (i.e. trolling as they wait to pounce on unsuspecting posters who dare to strike up a discussion with them).

For what it's worth, I disagree with Secret_squirrel and just think you're opinionated which is a good thing for prompting discussion. (As opposed to the trolls that just take contrary and unjustifiable positions on road safety etc).

Well chucksneed takes "contrary and unjustifiable positions on" tyre width.

marmotte27 wrote:

Well chucksneed takes "contrary and unjustifiable positions on" tyre width.

It's valid for smooth surfaces though and used to be the prevailing wisdom. Ultimately, it's a personal decision as to whether posts are trolling or just being opinionated.

hawkinspeter wrote:

marmotte27 wrote:

Well chucksneed takes "contrary and unjustifiable positions on" tyre width.

It's valid for smooth surfaces though and used to be the prevailing wisdom. Ultimately, it's a personal decision as to whether posts are trolling or just being opinionated.

It used to be the prevailing wisdom for a very good reason, roads had much smoother surfaces in the olden days!

ChuckSneed wrote:

What do you mean by trollish?

You are making statement of opinions as if they are fact.  Doggishly sticking to them when challenged, then getting stroppy when thats pointed out.  You may just be opinated - fwiw thats my red flag for trollish behaviors.

Road.cc is generally welcoming (I hope am I too) of new posters - wading in as if you're looking for an argument isnt going to endear you to ppl.  FWIW I hope you find a community here.

I think whenever brake types and tyre widths are mentioned on this forum, it's not necessarily "trolling", it's just "chumming the water", no need for disagreement, just everyone ride what they like and carry on. 

I'm not a roadie, and I've never ridden tyres narrower than 35mm...

ChuckSneed wrote:

You're easily brainwashed by marketing. Thinner tyres at higher pressures are always faster. That's a FACT.

no, that is a *LIE*.

If it was a fact all the pro sprinter will be on 23 mm tires. Maybe in a lab but not real world fatter tire roll over the small bump better in the real world also a comfortable rider will be faster then a rider who gets bumped around on a rough road

ChuckSneed wrote:

You're easily brainwashed by marketing. Thinner tyres at higher pressures are always faster. That's a FACT.

The thinner tyre actually isnt faster. The contact patch offers much less grip and means if you want to sprint youre more likely to slip than transer the power. And since the roads are not perfectly smooth, ever bump, every change in surface the tyre doesnt absorb your wheels bounces up off the ground. If its not touching the surface its not producing momentum. So if your rear wheel is bouncing up and down your losing power. wider tyres reduce the contact patches deformation and absorb road shock. Meaning the tyre stays on the ground for longer allowing more power from your legs to propel you forward. Thats a physics FACT!

Rendel Harris wrote:

Chucksneed wrote:

I ride with 23 mm tyres all year round because they're simply faster

That's been extensively and conclusively proved to be nonsense, you might imagine they are faster from the feel but they are not. It makes me laugh when people still trot out this myth as if pro cyclists and their teams are absolute idiots, spending millions of pounds every year in windtunnel testing to make their bikes faster but deliberately choosing slower tyres.

While I agree with that for tyre widths, is it really true for disk vs rim brakes.  I would have thought there were a lot of reasons why rim brakes were better for pro racing (weight and easy of changing wheels in particular) yet all the teams have switched to disk brakes.  Maybe there's something I'm missing, but it really doesn't seem to make sense to me (and I say that as someone with a disk brake bike who wouldn't want to go back to rim brakes).

Steve K wrote:

While I agree with that for tyre widths, is it really true for disk vs rim brakes.  I would have thought there were a lot of reasons why rim brakes were better for pro racing (weight and easy of changing wheels in particular) yet all the teams have switched to disk brakes.  Maybe there's something I'm missing, but it really doesn't seem to make sense to me (and I say that as someone with a disk brake bike who wouldn't want to go back to rim brakes).

One factor is that disk brake rims can be more optimised for strength/weight/aerodynamics as they don't need to include the brake track.