|
|
Disc brakes, adaptors to increase rotor diameter
The adapters to increase rotor size in a post-post situation (which I
have front and back) look like this: http://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/oK8AAO...Au/s-l1600.jpg My MTB has a factory one from 160 to 180mm up front but I am considering 203mm. That would make the thing even more extreme, like this where the screws would look more cattywompus or out of line than they already do: https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/w4MAA...bTa/s-l500.jpg Why are the spacings so different on both sides while for 160mm their are not? -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ |
Disc brakes, adaptors to increase rotor diameter
On 2017-10-11 14:36, Joerg wrote:
The adapters to increase rotor size in a post-post situation (which I have front and back) look like this: http://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/oK8AAO...Au/s-l1600.jpg My MTB has a factory one from 160 to 180mm up front but I am considering 203mm. That would make the thing even more extreme, like this where the screws would look more cattywompus or out of line than they already do: https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/w4MAA...bTa/s-l500.jpg Why are the spacings so different on both sides while for 160mm their are not? P.S.: Does anyone know whether these go from native 160mm to 203mm? https://erpimgs.idealhere.com/ImageF...963c864243.jpg F/R probably means for front and rear. There are also F203 versions but they look the same. Ideally I'd want 203mm rotors on both wheels because the rack on my MTB is often heavily loaded. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ |
Disc brakes, adaptors to increase rotor diameter
Joerg wrote:
The adapters to increase rotor size in a post-post situation (which I have front and back) look like this: http://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/oK8AAO...Au/s-l1600.jpg My MTB has a factory one from 160 to 180mm up front but I am considering 203mm. That would make the thing even more extreme, like this where the screws would look more cattywompus or out of line than they already do: https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/w4MAA...bTa/s-l500.jpg Why are the spacings so different on both sides while for 160mm their are not? Probably because the axis along which the brake gets extended is not perpendicular to the outer surface of the disk, so as you slide the caliber outwards, you have to rotate it a bit to keep it tangential to the outer surface of the disk. |
Disc brakes, adaptors to increase rotor diameter
On Wednesday, October 11, 2017 at 2:36:03 PM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
The adapters to increase rotor size in a post-post situation (which I have front and back) look like this: http://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/oK8AAO...Au/s-l1600.jpg My MTB has a factory one from 160 to 180mm up front but I am considering 203mm. That would make the thing even more extreme, like this where the screws would look more cattywompus or out of line than they already do: https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/w4MAA...bTa/s-l500.jpg Why are the spacings so different on both sides while for 160mm their are not? The angle of the caliper changes as you get into the larger rotor sizes and thus the disparity. http://www.bikehugger.com/posts/road...vs-post-mount/ The deal with adapters is that they usually assume the resident posts are sized for 160mm rotors. That is a correct assumption for your bike. My CAADX was, amazingly, sized for a 140mm front rotor, so my 180mm adapter was actually a 160mm adapter. -- Jay Beattie. |
Disc brakes, adaptors to increase rotor diameter
On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 18:16:20 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie
wrote: On Wednesday, October 11, 2017 at 2:36:03 PM UTC-7, Joerg wrote: The adapters to increase rotor size in a post-post situation (which I have front and back) look like this: If you keep following that logic, you'll have a disc diameter of 622 mm. Oh, wait.... |
Disc brakes, adaptors to increase rotor diameter
On 12/10/17 14:04, Tim McNamara wrote:
On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 18:16:20 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie wrote: On Wednesday, October 11, 2017 at 2:36:03 PM UTC-7, Joerg wrote: The adapters to increase rotor size in a post-post situation (which I have front and back) look like this: If you keep following that logic, you'll have a disc diameter of 622 mm. Oh, wait.... Haha. I thought that, but couldn't be bothered typing it. -- JS |
Disc brakes, adaptors to increase rotor diameter
On Wednesday, October 11, 2017 at 2:36:03 PM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
The adapters to increase rotor size in a post-post situation (which I have front and back) look like this: http://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/oK8AAO...Au/s-l1600.jpg My MTB has a factory one from 160 to 180mm up front but I am considering 203mm. That would make the thing even more extreme, like this where the screws would look more cattywompus or out of line than they already do: https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/w4MAA...bTa/s-l500.jpg Why are the spacings so different on both sides while for 160mm their are not? Your first adapter is the normal one used on all rear brakes for cross bikes as far as I know. Putting larger disks on road bikes is sort of counter-productive since the problem with them already is excessive power. |
Disc brakes, adaptors to increase rotor diameter
On 2017-10-11 18:16, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, October 11, 2017 at 2:36:03 PM UTC-7, Joerg wrote: The adapters to increase rotor size in a post-post situation (which I have front and back) look like this: http://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/oK8AAO...Au/s-l1600.jpg My MTB has a factory one from 160 to 180mm up front but I am considering 203mm. That would make the thing even more extreme, like this where the screws would look more cattywompus or out of line than they already do: https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/w4MAA...bTa/s-l500.jpg Why are the spacings so different on both sides while for 160mm their are not? The angle of the caliper changes as you get into the larger rotor sizes and thus the disparity. Understood. This is also what Ralph wrote. However, many calipers such as mine have round pads where it doesn't matter if the angle is slighlty different. http://www.bikehugger.com/posts/road...vs-post-mount/ The deal with adapters is that they usually assume the resident posts are sized for 160mm rotors. That is a correct assumption for your bike. My CAADX was, amazingly, sized for a 140mm front rotor, so my 180mm adapter was actually a 160mm adapter. My mounts are both native 160mm so ideally I'd like to go from there to 203mm without stacking two adapters. The front currently has a 160-180mm adapter and for whatever reason that one also adds angle. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ |
Disc brakes, adaptors to increase rotor diameter
On 2017-10-11 18:10, Ralph Barone wrote:
Joerg wrote: The adapters to increase rotor size in a post-post situation (which I have front and back) look like this: http://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/oK8AAO...Au/s-l1600.jpg My MTB has a factory one from 160 to 180mm up front but I am considering 203mm. That would make the thing even more extreme, like this where the screws would look more cattywompus or out of line than they already do: https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/w4MAA...bTa/s-l500.jpg Why are the spacings so different on both sides while for 160mm their are not? Probably because the axis along which the brake gets extended is not perpendicular to the outer surface of the disk, so as you slide the caliber outwards, you have to rotate it a bit to keep it tangential to the outer surface of the disk. I wonder if that's critical for round pads. The 160-180mm that was factory installed up front is angled but the calipers look like it wouldn't have mattered. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ |
Disc brakes, adaptors to increase rotor diameter
On Thursday, October 12, 2017 at 4:04:07 AM UTC+1, Tim McNamara wrote:
On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 18:16:20 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie wrote: On Wednesday, October 11, 2017 at 2:36:03 PM UTC-7, Joerg wrote: The adapters to increase rotor size in a post-post situation (which I have front and back) look like this: If you keep following that logic, you'll have a disc diameter of 622 mm. Oh, wait.... I already have a brake disc diameter of 622mm. You could too. First, buy a bike with standard 622mm rims. Next, fit Magura hydraulic rim brakes (several varieties available for touring, utility and road bikes). Result, powerful but very manageable 622mm disc brakes, economical on "pads" too. Hey presto, your brakes are powerful enough to ride with Joerg. Andre Jute Logic is good, but common sense is essential |
Disc brakes, adaptors to increase rotor diameter
On Thursday, October 12, 2017 at 7:36:15 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-10-11 18:16, jbeattie wrote: On Wednesday, October 11, 2017 at 2:36:03 PM UTC-7, Joerg wrote: The adapters to increase rotor size in a post-post situation (which I have front and back) look like this: http://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/oK8AAO...Au/s-l1600.jpg My MTB has a factory one from 160 to 180mm up front but I am considering 203mm. That would make the thing even more extreme, like this where the screws would look more cattywompus or out of line than they already do: https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/w4MAA...bTa/s-l500.jpg Why are the spacings so different on both sides while for 160mm their are not? The angle of the caliper changes as you get into the larger rotor sizes and thus the disparity. Understood. This is also what Ralph wrote. However, many calipers such as mine have round pads where it doesn't matter if the angle is slighlty different. I don't know your brakes, but the rotor might hit the internals if the caliper is not angled correctly. You want the mechanism following the arc of the rotor, which is what you will get with your spacer. You also want to engage as much of the rotor as possible. I don't think any of this is optional, is it? You just put in the spacer, and you're done. -- Jay Beattie. |
Disc brakes, adaptors to increase rotor diameter
On 2017-10-12 09:26, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, October 12, 2017 at 7:36:15 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote: On 2017-10-11 18:16, jbeattie wrote: On Wednesday, October 11, 2017 at 2:36:03 PM UTC-7, Joerg wrote: The adapters to increase rotor size in a post-post situation (which I have front and back) look like this: http://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/oK8AAO...Au/s-l1600.jpg My MTB has a factory one from 160 to 180mm up front but I am considering 203mm. That would make the thing even more extreme, like this where the screws would look more cattywompus or out of line than they already do: https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/w4MAA...bTa/s-l500.jpg Why are the spacings so different on both sides while for 160mm their are not? The angle of the caliper changes as you get into the larger rotor sizes and thus the disparity. Understood. This is also what Ralph wrote. However, many calipers such as mine have round pads where it doesn't matter if the angle is slighlty different. I don't know your brakes, but the rotor might hit the internals if the caliper is not angled correctly. You want the mechanism following the arc of the rotor, which is what you will get with your spacer. It should also work with this spacer which avoids long screws: https://erpimgs.idealhere.com/ImageF...963c864243.jpg It moves the rotor out plus up so the angle should remain roughly similar. Shimano has these as well but I just got an answer from Jenson USA which carries them. They are flat and only 10mm (looks less though) and my calipers need more "dive room" than that. http://www.jensonusa.com/Shimano-F20...Z47&l=BR407Z47 So I'd need the bellied ones like in the link. You also want to engage as much of the rotor as possible. I don't think any of this is optional, is it? You just put in the spacer, and you're done. Just have to make sure it's the correct adapter. Adding a washer here or there for fine tuning isn't a problem. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ |
Disc brakes, adaptors to increase rotor diameter
On Friday, October 13, 2017 at 8:15:57 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-10-12 09:26, jbeattie wrote: On Thursday, October 12, 2017 at 7:36:15 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote: On 2017-10-11 18:16, jbeattie wrote: On Wednesday, October 11, 2017 at 2:36:03 PM UTC-7, Joerg wrote: The adapters to increase rotor size in a post-post situation (which I have front and back) look like this: http://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/oK8AAO...Au/s-l1600.jpg My MTB has a factory one from 160 to 180mm up front but I am considering 203mm. That would make the thing even more extreme, like this where the screws would look more cattywompus or out of line than they already do: https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/w4MAA...bTa/s-l500.jpg Why are the spacings so different on both sides while for 160mm their are not? The angle of the caliper changes as you get into the larger rotor sizes and thus the disparity. Understood. This is also what Ralph wrote. However, many calipers such as mine have round pads where it doesn't matter if the angle is slighlty different. I don't know your brakes, but the rotor might hit the internals if the caliper is not angled correctly. You want the mechanism following the arc of the rotor, which is what you will get with your spacer. It should also work with this spacer which avoids long screws: https://erpimgs.idealhere.com/ImageF...963c864243.jpg It moves the rotor out plus up so the angle should remain roughly similar. Shimano has these as well but I just got an answer from Jenson USA which carries them. They are flat and only 10mm (looks less though) and my calipers need more "dive room" than that. http://www.jensonusa.com/Shimano-F20...Z47&l=BR407Z47 So I'd need the bellied ones like in the link. You also want to engage as much of the rotor as possible. I don't think any of this is optional, is it? You just put in the spacer, and you're done. Just have to make sure it's the correct adapter. Adding a washer here or there for fine tuning isn't a problem. I'm still having this problem with why you would want disk brakes on a road bike in California. Extra weight, extra rolling resistance, extra cost, far too much power the way it was and there is little rain in California to worry about the slight delay in action between a rim and disk brake. |
Disc brakes, adaptors to increase rotor diameter
On 2017-10-13 08:50, wrote:
On Friday, October 13, 2017 at 8:15:57 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote: On 2017-10-12 09:26, jbeattie wrote: On Thursday, October 12, 2017 at 7:36:15 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote: On 2017-10-11 18:16, jbeattie wrote: On Wednesday, October 11, 2017 at 2:36:03 PM UTC-7, Joerg wrote: The adapters to increase rotor size in a post-post situation (which I have front and back) look like this: http://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/oK8AAO...Au/s-l1600.jpg My MTB has a factory one from 160 to 180mm up front but I am considering 203mm. That would make the thing even more extreme, like this where the screws would look more cattywompus or out of line than they already do: https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/w4MAA...bTa/s-l500.jpg Why are the spacings so different on both sides while for 160mm their are not? The angle of the caliper changes as you get into the larger rotor sizes and thus the disparity. Understood. This is also what Ralph wrote. However, many calipers such as mine have round pads where it doesn't matter if the angle is slighlty different. I don't know your brakes, but the rotor might hit the internals if the caliper is not angled correctly. You want the mechanism following the arc of the rotor, which is what you will get with your spacer. It should also work with this spacer which avoids long screws: https://erpimgs.idealhere.com/ImageF...963c864243.jpg It moves the rotor out plus up so the angle should remain roughly similar. Shimano has these as well but I just got an answer from Jenson USA which carries them. They are flat and only 10mm (looks less though) and my calipers need more "dive room" than that. http://www.jensonusa.com/Shimano-F20...Z47&l=BR407Z47 So I'd need the bellied ones like in the link. You also want to engage as much of the rotor as possible. I don't think any of this is optional, is it? You just put in the spacer, and you're done. Just have to make sure it's the correct adapter. Adding a washer here or there for fine tuning isn't a problem. I'm still having this problem with why you would want disk brakes on a road bike in California. It is for my mountain bike. Currently it has 7" up front and 6" in back. That is only borderline adequate for the loading and riding I do. Yesterday I rode a trail where I taxed them a bit much again. I want to upgrade both wheels to 8". Both are native 160mm and the front has an adapter which I'd have to change out. There is nothing that can replace brake power. Except more brake power. ... Extra weight, extra rolling resistance, extra cost, far too much power the way it was and there is little rain in California to worry about the slight delay in action between a rim and disk brake. In the winter it rains a lot up here in the Sierra foothills. There is also a lot of standing water and creek crossings after which I experience that dreaded 1-2sec "free fall" with rim brakes. Plus dirt where I reach in and while getting some tepid brake response there is a goose bump generating sandpaper noise. So yes, if I ever need a new road bike I have two non-negotiable requirements. Number one is disk brakes and number two is that the frame must accept cyclocross-width tires. And must tolerate a serious rack. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ |
Disc brakes, adaptors to increase rotor diameter
On Friday, October 13, 2017 at 10:15:10 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-10-13 08:50, wrote: On Friday, October 13, 2017 at 8:15:57 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote: On 2017-10-12 09:26, jbeattie wrote: On Thursday, October 12, 2017 at 7:36:15 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote: On 2017-10-11 18:16, jbeattie wrote: On Wednesday, October 11, 2017 at 2:36:03 PM UTC-7, Joerg wrote: The adapters to increase rotor size in a post-post situation (which I have front and back) look like this: http://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/oK8AAO...Au/s-l1600.jpg My MTB has a factory one from 160 to 180mm up front but I am considering 203mm. That would make the thing even more extreme, like this where the screws would look more cattywompus or out of line than they already do: https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/w4MAA...bTa/s-l500.jpg Why are the spacings so different on both sides while for 160mm their are not? The angle of the caliper changes as you get into the larger rotor sizes and thus the disparity. Understood. This is also what Ralph wrote. However, many calipers such as mine have round pads where it doesn't matter if the angle is slighlty different. I don't know your brakes, but the rotor might hit the internals if the caliper is not angled correctly. You want the mechanism following the arc of the rotor, which is what you will get with your spacer. It should also work with this spacer which avoids long screws: https://erpimgs.idealhere.com/ImageF...963c864243.jpg It moves the rotor out plus up so the angle should remain roughly similar. Shimano has these as well but I just got an answer from Jenson USA which carries them. They are flat and only 10mm (looks less though) and my calipers need more "dive room" than that. http://www.jensonusa.com/Shimano-F20...Z47&l=BR407Z47 So I'd need the bellied ones like in the link. You also want to engage as much of the rotor as possible. I don't think any of this is optional, is it? You just put in the spacer, and you're done. Just have to make sure it's the correct adapter. Adding a washer here or there for fine tuning isn't a problem. I'm still having this problem with why you would want disk brakes on a road bike in California. It is for my mountain bike. Currently it has 7" up front and 6" in back. That is only borderline adequate for the loading and riding I do. Yesterday I rode a trail where I taxed them a bit much again. I want to upgrade both wheels to 8". Both are native 160mm and the front has an adapter which I'd have to change out. There is nothing that can replace brake power. Except more brake power. ... Extra weight, extra rolling resistance, extra cost, far too much power the way it was and there is little rain in California to worry about the slight delay in action between a rim and disk brake. In the winter it rains a lot up here in the Sierra foothills. There is also a lot of standing water and creek crossings after which I experience that dreaded 1-2sec "free fall" with rim brakes. Plus dirt where I reach in and while getting some tepid brake response there is a goose bump generating sandpaper noise. So yes, if I ever need a new road bike I have two non-negotiable requirements. Number one is disk brakes and number two is that the frame must accept cyclocross-width tires. And must tolerate a serious rack. Perhaps going balls-to-the-walls on an MTB with a heavy load you can detect a braking delay but as I said before - even coming out of creek crossings I never have problems with rim brakes. The ONLY difference is surface area of the brake shoes. |
Disc brakes, adaptors to increase rotor diameter
On 2017-10-13 11:36, wrote:
On Friday, October 13, 2017 at 10:15:10 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote: On 2017-10-13 08:50, wrote: [...] ... Extra weight, extra rolling resistance, extra cost, far too much power the way it was and there is little rain in California to worry about the slight delay in action between a rim and disk brake. In the winter it rains a lot up here in the Sierra foothills. There is also a lot of standing water and creek crossings after which I experience that dreaded 1-2sec "free fall" with rim brakes. Plus dirt where I reach in and while getting some tepid brake response there is a goose bump generating sandpaper noise. So yes, if I ever need a new road bike I have two non-negotiable requirements. Number one is disk brakes and number two is that the frame must accept cyclocross-width tires. And must tolerate a serious rack. Perhaps going balls-to-the-walls on an MTB with a heavy load you can detect a braking delay but as I said before - even coming out of creek crossings I never have problems with rim brakes. The ONLY difference is surface area of the brake shoes. Getting older I don't ride aggressivley anymore. Maybe because the more I ride the more I see and hear about nasty crashes and their aftermath. Creek crossings usually mean uphill at the other end but they also mean the rims can be muddy. My Wednesday ride was on a very typical singletrack of that kind. Up and down all the time and with a creek at the bottoms. On my old rim brake MTB that would have meant going down the slopes after the uphill section with sandpapering brakes. There are no bike wash stations on the trails. It's a horrid sound because our soil contains a lot of decomposed granite. After about 1000mi the rims of that old MTB look pretty much shot. The white knuckle moment with the rim brakes on my old MTB happened while up on the flat section of a hill. Curvy trail along the rim. Went through a large puddle, towards a sharp turn, hit the brakes, no brakes! Pad size doesn't matter much except that wider pads last longer. So if my brake calipers are through I'll look for ones that have wider pads or maybe even double pads. The pads will cost more but then I hopefully don't have to replace them every 800-1000mi. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:05 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
CycleBanter.com