Groupsets

Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/4/2020 2:59 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/4/2020 11:34 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/4/2020 10:31 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, June 4, 2020 at 12:30:27 AM UTC-7, Dennis
Davis wrote:


Perhaps (6) is better replaced by:

(6) Requires levels of skill not present in modern cyclists.

Really?* So one should buy DT shifters to develop a
useless skill?* At least that should translate into some
performance advantage, which it doesn't.

Perhaps the "useless skill" is the ability to ride with
(gasp!) only one hand on the bars?

I do know several cyclists who hate taking a hand off the
bars. They stop every time they want to swig from a water
bottle.

And I recall the article linked here a few years ago, where
several young racers did a comparison test, riding a long
climb on current bikes vs. vintage (1980s?) racing bikes. At
least one complained about feeling insecure having to move a
hand to shift - poor baby!

I raced for decades on DT shifters along with my cohorts
-- who then ****-canned them because they were clearly
inferior to STI. No more pack wobble going into or out of
high speed corners on a rolling course as riders reached
down for gears, no more sitting to shift while climbing
out of the saddle, no wrong gear when sprinting because
riders could just shift -- and shift a lot.

Yes, if I were racing, I'd want STI. But bicycling =/=
racing; there are other ways to ride. If someone prefers the
simplicity or light weight of downtube shifters over the
convenience, complexity, non-repairability and heavier
weight of STI and its clones, I don't think it's a terrible
choice.

Me, I like bar ends - a sort of middle ground, in my view.

And friction had all of its problems with missed shifts
and shifters that would loosen and ghost shift.* And I
couldn't imagine friction shifting a modern 11sp cassette,
but I'm sure more than five gears is somehow wrong or
unnecessary.

You've changed the subject. Downtube does not preclude index
- or at least, it once didn't. (I don't diligently follow
the market.)

About more than five gears - well, I agree with Tom (!!!)
that eight was about optimum. Yes, in my view, more are
unnecessary. Again, those kid racers climbing on old bikes
posted times indicating that _only_ the bike weight made a
difference. There was no apparent benefit from
micro-adjusting cadence. Lab data shows the same thing. The
curve for power output vs. cadence is very flat.

...I'm planning to put some Simplex Retrofriction
downtube levers on
my next bike...

I'm buying a musket for hunting!

I have two good friends who hunt using black powder, and one
friend who is a bowhunter. You may not understand their
choices, but they probably don't care.


It's nice to have the skill to shift a straight cut gearbox but
synchromesh is really an improvement all around. It's nice to have the
skill to shift DT or BC friction levers while noting that modern click
shift systems really do work better.

In neither case is shift response the limiting factor for me.

The world's a big place, use what you like.

Yep. But discussion groups are places we're supposed to discuss
advantages and disadvantages.

The first car I had was a goofy little 1960 Fiat sedan, four speed on
the column, non-synchro first gear. I amazed my friends with my double
clutching.

But I wouldn't want to go back to that. The advantage in those days
might have been $10 lower retail price. I'd pay way more for synchromesh.

But AFAIK, no car has a synchromesh reverse gear. So not every technical
possibility is worth adopting.


Lack of synchro on reverse is a feature, not a bug. It prevents catastrophe
due to a missed shift.

On 6/4/2020 6:19 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, June 4, 2020 at 11:32:29 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:

Right, but that's not the point. A certain percentage of STI fans tout
the safety advantage of always having both hands on the handlebars. They
must be terrified about signaling a turn, let alone scratching their nose.

There have always been people who felt less safe reaching down between their legs to shift gears. That's why we had stem shifters, thumb shifters and bar-ends. Now that DT shifting has been abandoned, I don't think anyone chooses brifters for safety reasons. It's not even an issue.

It's not an issue because brifters are now default. Face it, 99% of bike
buyers buy what's available in the shop. And 95% of them don't even
think about alternatives. They're probably unaware of anything they
don't see on the shop floor.

Very few people are aware of older alternatives, let alone think these
things through in terms of benefits vs. detriments. As an example, in
the midst of the Octalink and Isis (etc.) fashion, how many bike buyers
said "No thanks, I want the classic square taper, please." (Besides me,
I mean.)

That's not to say many of those buyers would choose downtube shifters,
or bar ends, or twist grips, or thumbies if you gave them an explanatory
spreadsheet. Again, fashion is weird and powerful.

And DT shifting could be unsafe in some racing situations... [much trimmed]

Yes, I know, Jay. Again, for almost everyone on two wheels, bicycling
=/= racing. What's best for a race is not necessarily what's best for
normal day rides, touring, commuting, traveling with a bike along,
shopping, riding with kids, etc. Other biking modes can justify
non-racing equipment.


And I recall the article linked here a few years ago, where several
young racers did a comparison test, riding a long climb on current bikes
vs. vintage (1980s?) racing bikes. At least one complained about feeling
insecure having to move a hand to shift - poor baby!

Well he could certain drink from a bottle and climb, so that's either misremembered or perhaps more nuanced.

I don't remember the water bottle remark in that article; and I'm afraid
it might take a ton of digging to find it again.

The testers were racers and capable of riding no hands up hill at speeds we could not attain.

No doubt they were faster than me. But that wasn't the point. At least
one of them was insecure about taking his hands off the bars to shift.
That amazed me. I always sought to be competent on the bike.

And again, we don't know what he said. I think it is fairly certain that his bike handling skills are better than yours since, IIRC, the was a semi-pro rider. You don't ride 200-400 miles a week and not know how to ride a bike.

I just tried again to find the article but couldn't locate it. But do
you not remember one rider complaining about having to take his hands
off to shift? On a long, straight uphill with no other riders around?
FWIW, I'm able to remove a jacket while riding, ghost-ride another bike,
push another person up a hill, etc. On occasion I've taken off a sweater
or other garment that had to be pulled over my head. Back when we lived
where dogs were a real problem, I was pretty good at throwing rocks and
hitting dogs while riding. Now we worry about moving a hand to shift??

Again, like Lou says, all that stuff is elective. I was barreling down a hill with broken pavement today, and if I wanted another gear, I wouldn't have taken my hands off the bars (nor would I have taken a drink or removed my jacket). Riding single track and climbing on broken pavement, its also nice keeping my hands on the levers and being able to shift and not grind over a bunch of baby heads.

When barreling down a hill, shifting is almost always elective. Remember
Jobst pointing out that coasting is faster than pedaling on fast downhills?

Not that it matters to most bicyclists. They tend to be conservative on
downhills. They tend to avoid babyheads or pave'.

An abundance of gears is great for rides with mixed terrain where you are trying to maintain speed. If you don't care about speed and have no need to keep up, you can live your life in a 68" gear.

I don't disagree on any of that. I think our disagreement is one of
degree - that is, what qualifies as "an abundance of gears"? Personally,
I like six (in back) better than five, but I still ride five on some
bikes. I don't like nine better than eight. The differences are too
small. I see no need for 11.

Then there's the new trend of one front sprocket, cutting one's
"abundance of gears" in half or in thirds.

Fashion is weird and powerful.

DT shifters and five speed are fashion -- conspicuous contrarianism.

Really? At what point in time did my good friend, who has ridden her
Trek since the 1980s, transition from "I just love this bike" to "I'm
only doing this to be contrarian"?

I use all my 11 cassette cogs. I could give one up, but why? My little lunch ride today was our standard loop of 16 miles and 1600 feet of climbing, full speed trying to keep up with my buddy. Except for the roll into town (to see the post-riot damage), everything was some degree of up or down. I shifted my way nicely up and down the cassette, enjoying each and every cog.

I'm glad you love those cute little things, but: What did you have
before the 11? Was it a 10? Was there really a time you said "Damn, I
just hate that there are only ten cogs back there! When, oh when, will
they invent an 11?"

I doubt it. You probably told your ten cogs "You are all individuals,
but I love each of you equally!"

Seriously, I _never_ heard a cyclist complain about having the maximum
number of cogs then on the market. But every time the industry did the
N+1 move, there was quiet pride by the new owners who showed off their
N+1 and slight envy by the guys who had only N.

That was GM's 1960s tactic: "Wouldn't you rather have THIS year's model?"

....

BTW, while typing that I happened to think about a close friend who,
with her S.O., does way more miles in a year than I've ever done. She
knocked off something like 6500 miles last year.

Of course she uses STI. But interestingly, she hardly ever shifts. She's
like a light, fast diesel. Downtube shifters wouldn't slow her a bit.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 6/4/2020 6:32 PM, wrote:
On Thursday, June 4, 2020 at 1:12:15 AM UTC-7, Sepp Ruf wrote:

What a despicable demonstration of ableism!

Worst of all: Being able to lose 3+ pounds of bicycle locks, you'll also
lose significant traction!!

There is that. I cannot take an eye off of my bikes. I cannot even go into a 7-11 to get a soda while riding alone. Even at a coffee shop in a very safe neighborhood I know better than to side inside the café with my bike locked to the same outside.

You need to move out of that hellhole.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 6/4/2020 7:41 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/4/2020 12:57 PM, wrote:
On Thursday, June 4, 2020 at 6:43:57 PM UTC+2, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/4/2020 10:48 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, June 3, 2020 at 7:12:54 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:

Adjusting pads is sort of a side issue, since I was talking only about
force on the controls. Although to me, not needing to adjust hydraulic
disc pads is kind of balanced by needing to prissily clean things with
cotton swabs when replacing pads.

I don't clean my disc calipers with cotton swabs. I just drop in a set of pads.

Admittedly, I haven't done it because I don't use those brakes. But
these guys https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQXFFgRButo seem to say it's
important to get the Q-tips out. See about 2:20 and about 3:20 onward.

Is that only for super grungy brakes?

--
- Frank Krygowski

You never pry the metal parts out of the brake pads because they are
grinding away the rims? That is more time consuming than running a swap
along the pistons when changing the brake pads, which is also quicker
than changing the brake pads of rim brakes.

I've done that picking exercise on rim brake shoes, but not very often,
and not for years now. As I recall, it was necessary only rarely, and
after a rain ride. These days I can usually avoid riding in the rain. In
any case, it never took more than a minute or so.

I don't doubt that changing disc pads is faster than changing caliper
brake shoes. OTOH, from what I hear, disc pads need changed more
frequently. I'd bet the overall time difference (i.e. total time spent
per year) is minimal.

Disks at least Hydraulic are to be honest much less, they self adjust pad
wear, pads are easy to change, for commuting the fact that they have no
cable to get gummed up, you do need to replace the oil, but it’s easy to
feel when that is, the brakes start to have a wooden feel, every few years
or so.

They really are very easy to live with, they dislike oil so don’t spray any
thing remotely near them, don’t fiddle they generally dislike cleaning
products ie disk cleaning sprays and like. Hose off the dirt and leave be,
and they are happy!

I'll repeat what I was told by one bicycle tourist that we hosted: Never
do a really long ride without packing a spare set of pads. His pads wore
to nothing and he found himself effectively without brakes until he
could locate a bike shop in hilly, remote northern Pennsylvania.


Unless your down hill MTB in mid winter, pads even on wet gritty roads will
last a long time, mine normally last 1500 ish miles on the commute bike and
gravel which I ride on similar surfaces.

In short pads are not exactly heavy or big, or hard to fit if your touring
it would seem like a sensible thing to pack, it does remind me of stories
of early road disks, folks deliberately or simply ham fisted, dragging the
brakes down long descents at which point you get brake fade.

Personally since I like MTB/Gravel disks last longer, rim brake pads on
pratically wet gritty rides I could wear though in only 2/3 rides.

Yes, I understand the advantages of discs for gritty and/or wet rides.

I don't know how many miles that tourist had on his disc pads when he
started his tour. We could assume the problem was due to his not
checking the lining thickness at the start, and/or not understanding how
fast they would wear, perhaps due to unfamiliarity. I do know that he
was surprised at how fast they wore, and was in a tight spot when they did.

Incidentally, we seemed to know (of?) each other online from years ago.
I can't recall his name now, or whether he knew me from this forum or
another.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 6/4/2020 8:05 PM, Ralph Barone wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/4/2020 2:59 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/4/2020 11:34 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/4/2020 10:31 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, June 4, 2020 at 12:30:27 AM UTC-7, Dennis
Davis wrote:


Perhaps (6) is better replaced by:

(6) Requires levels of skill not present in modern cyclists.

Really?Â* So one should buy DT shifters to develop a
useless skill?Â* At least that should translate into some
performance advantage, which it doesn't.

Perhaps the "useless skill" is the ability to ride with
(gasp!) only one hand on the bars?

I do know several cyclists who hate taking a hand off the
bars. They stop every time they want to swig from a water
bottle.

And I recall the article linked here a few years ago, where
several young racers did a comparison test, riding a long
climb on current bikes vs. vintage (1980s?) racing bikes. At
least one complained about feeling insecure having to move a
hand to shift - poor baby!

I raced for decades on DT shifters along with my cohorts
-- who then ****-canned them because they were clearly
inferior to STI. No more pack wobble going into or out of
high speed corners on a rolling course as riders reached
down for gears, no more sitting to shift while climbing
out of the saddle, no wrong gear when sprinting because
riders could just shift -- and shift a lot.

Yes, if I were racing, I'd want STI. But bicycling =/=
racing; there are other ways to ride. If someone prefers the
simplicity or light weight of downtube shifters over the
convenience, complexity, non-repairability and heavier
weight of STI and its clones, I don't think it's a terrible
choice.

Me, I like bar ends - a sort of middle ground, in my view.

And friction had all of its problems with missed shifts
and shifters that would loosen and ghost shift.Â* And I
couldn't imagine friction shifting a modern 11sp cassette,
but I'm sure more than five gears is somehow wrong or
unnecessary.

You've changed the subject. Downtube does not preclude index
- or at least, it once didn't. (I don't diligently follow
the market.)

About more than five gears - well, I agree with Tom (!!!)
that eight was about optimum. Yes, in my view, more are
unnecessary. Again, those kid racers climbing on old bikes
posted times indicating that _only_ the bike weight made a
difference. There was no apparent benefit from
micro-adjusting cadence. Lab data shows the same thing. The
curve for power output vs. cadence is very flat.

...I'm planning to put some Simplex Retrofriction
downtube levers on
my next bike...

I'm buying a musket for hunting!

I have two good friends who hunt using black powder, and one
friend who is a bowhunter. You may not understand their
choices, but they probably don't care.


It's nice to have the skill to shift a straight cut gearbox but
synchromesh is really an improvement all around. It's nice to have the
skill to shift DT or BC friction levers while noting that modern click
shift systems really do work better.

In neither case is shift response the limiting factor for me.

The world's a big place, use what you like.

Yep. But discussion groups are places we're supposed to discuss
advantages and disadvantages.

The first car I had was a goofy little 1960 Fiat sedan, four speed on
the column, non-synchro first gear. I amazed my friends with my double
clutching.

But I wouldn't want to go back to that. The advantage in those days
might have been $10 lower retail price. I'd pay way more for synchromesh.

But AFAIK, no car has a synchromesh reverse gear. So not every technical
possibility is worth adopting.


Lack of synchro on reverse is a feature, not a bug. It prevents catastrophe
due to a missed shift.

Yes, that could be true.


--
- Frank Krygowski

writes:

On Thursday, June 4, 2020 at 12:30:27 AM UTC-7, Dennis Davis wrote:
In article ,
jbeattie wrote:

...

I think that the curmudgeon handbook, chapter six, has a lengthy
discussion of the benefits of DT friction shifters. IIRC,
they a (1) slow and imprecise shifting, (2) missed shifts,
(3) conspicuous contrarianism, (4) longevity like an incurable
skin condition, (5) inconvenient location, and (6) conspicuous
contrarianism. Clearly superior to any STI/Ergo like system.

A double dose of "conspicuous contrarianism" ("3" and "6"). Isn't
that overkill?

Perhaps (6) is better replaced by:

(6) Requires levels of skill not present in modern cyclists.


...I'm planning to put some Simplex Retrofriction downtube levers on
my next bike...
--
Dennis Davis

I think more accurate would be "requires total lack of skills that
modern cyclists have." Anyone that rides downtube shifters or
centerpull brakes in this day and age is either penniless or stupid or
both.

Thanks, Tom. I'm not penniless, I must be stupid.

On Thursday, June 4, 2020 at 5:38:21 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/4/2020 6:19 PM, jbeattie wrote:

snip

DT shifters and five speed are fashion -- conspicuous contrarianism.

Really? At what point in time did my good friend, who has ridden her
Trek since the 1980s, transition from "I just love this bike" to "I'm
only doing this to be contrarian"?

I use all my 11 cassette cogs. I could give one up, but why? My little lunch ride today was our standard loop of 16 miles and 1600 feet of climbing, full speed trying to keep up with my buddy. Except for the roll into town (to see the post-riot damage), everything was some degree of up or down. I shifted my way nicely up and down the cassette, enjoying each and every cog.

I'm glad you love those cute little things, but: What did you have
before the 11? Was it a 10? Was there really a time you said "Damn, I
just hate that there are only ten cogs back there! When, oh when, will
they invent an 11?"

I doubt it. You probably told your ten cogs "You are all individuals,
but I love each of you equally!"

Seriously, I _never_ heard a cyclist complain about having the maximum
number of cogs then on the market. But every time the industry did the
N+1 move, there was quiet pride by the new owners who showed off their
N+1 and slight envy by the guys who had only N.

That was GM's 1960s tactic: "Wouldn't you rather have THIS year's model?"


You have all these imagined scenarios. I don't know anyone who went out and bought 11sp simply because it became available. I was riding 10sp until my wife drove my Supersix under a low overhang when it was up on a roof rack.. I also had 10sp on my CAAD 9, but that went off to Utah with my son. I know I had some eight speed shifters, and I think I put those on my sons old beater Windsor. My first STI bike was eight speed.

I had 9 speed on my commuter, but I wanted to shift to hydraulic discs, so I went to 11sp. That was probably a mistake, and I should have found some 9speed hydraulic levers. Shimano does make them. So I have some redundant 9sp Tiagra levers sitting in a box downstairs.

I had 7 speed on my old touring bike, which I did upgrade to eight speed STI because the bike was spec'd with bar-ends, which I hate. I gave that bike away. My tandem had seven or eight speed ERGO. I sold that. I have one-speed on my track bike.

Anyway, the difference between 10 and 11 is, of course, one. I was riding 10sp 12-25/26 cassette, so I got a 28 on the 11sp. I like that 28 a lot these days. And I get to keep all my close range gears. What's not to like?


-- Jay Beattie.

On Thursday, June 4, 2020 at 9:02:08 PM UTC+2, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/4/2020 11:43 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/4/2020 10:48 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, June 3, 2020 at 7:12:54 PM UTC-7, Frank
Krygowski wrote:

Adjusting pads is sort of a side issue, since I was
talking only about
force on the controls. Although to me, not needing to
adjust hydraulic
disc pads is kind of balanced by needing to prissily
clean things with
cotton swabs when replacing pads.

I don't clean my disc calipers with cotton swabs. I just
drop in a set of pads.

Admittedly, I haven't done it because I don't use those
brakes. But these guys
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQXFFgRButo seem to say
it's important to get the Q-tips out. See about 2:20 and
about 3:20 onward.

Is that only for super grungy brakes?


No Q-tips on shop time. We use auto disc brake cleaner
(which is dirt cheap) in refillable sprayers with a clean
wiper, compressed air to finish.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

+1 That is what I do once in a while when the bike is on the stand. The brake pads of the Shimano dsic brakes are so easy to remove and install that it will take less time than lubing your chain.

Lou

Lou

On 6/4/2020 9:54 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, June 4, 2020 at 5:38:21 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/4/2020 6:19 PM, jbeattie wrote:

snip

DT shifters and five speed are fashion -- conspicuous contrarianism.

Really? At what point in time did my good friend, who has ridden her
Trek since the 1980s, transition from "I just love this bike" to "I'm
only doing this to be contrarian"?

I use all my 11 cassette cogs. I could give one up, but why? My little lunch ride today was our standard loop of 16 miles and 1600 feet of climbing, full speed trying to keep up with my buddy. Except for the roll into town (to see the post-riot damage), everything was some degree of up or down. I shifted my way nicely up and down the cassette, enjoying each and every cog.

I'm glad you love those cute little things, but: What did you have
before the 11? Was it a 10? Was there really a time you said "Damn, I
just hate that there are only ten cogs back there! When, oh when, will
they invent an 11?"

I doubt it. You probably told your ten cogs "You are all individuals,
but I love each of you equally!"

Seriously, I _never_ heard a cyclist complain about having the maximum
number of cogs then on the market. But every time the industry did the
N+1 move, there was quiet pride by the new owners who showed off their
N+1 and slight envy by the guys who had only N.

That was GM's 1960s tactic: "Wouldn't you rather have THIS year's model?"


You have all these imagined scenarios. I don't know anyone who went out and bought 11sp simply because it became available. I was riding 10sp until my wife drove my Supersix under a low overhang when it was up on a roof rack. I also had 10sp on my CAAD 9, but that went off to Utah with my son. I know I had some eight speed shifters, and I think I put those on my sons old beater Windsor. My first STI bike was eight speed.

I had 9 speed on my commuter, but I wanted to shift to hydraulic discs, so I went to 11sp. That was probably a mistake, and I should have found some 9speed hydraulic levers. Shimano does make them. So I have some redundant 9sp Tiagra levers sitting in a box downstairs.

I had 7 speed on my old touring bike, which I did upgrade to eight speed STI because the bike was spec'd with bar-ends, which I hate. I gave that bike away. My tandem had seven or eight speed ERGO. I sold that. I have one-speed on my track bike.

Anyway, the difference between 10 and 11 is, of course, one. I was riding 10sp 12-25/26 cassette, so I got a 28 on the 11sp. I like that 28 a lot these days. And I get to keep all my close range gears. What's not to like?

Jay, I'm not saying masses of people threw away 10 speed bikes when 11s
came out.

But I am saying that if someone drove into a garage and wrecked an 8
speed they never complained about, they would buy a 9 speed to replace
it. Repeat for 10, 11 and now perhaps 12.

The important point is this: They were not unhappy with N gears until
N+1 came out. But by golly, when the opportunity arose, they would find
some way to justify N+1.

And I suspect - but can't prove - that a lot of those people, if they
retained their N speed bike, would have a nagging feeling that N gears
just weren't quite enough.

I was thinking last night, I've got bikes with 1, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 9 rear
cogs (or in the case of the "3", that many internal gears). I've got
total gears ranging from 1 to 27 (not that I ride the single speed).

What matters is total gear range for a given task or terrain. Minimizing
percent change between gears is far, far less critical. But that's what
the industry has been selling for a long time.

Until, that is, they suddenly said "Hey, you need only one chainring!"

Fashion is weird and powerful.


--
- Frank Krygowski

Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/4/2020 7:41 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/4/2020 12:57 PM, wrote:
On Thursday, June 4, 2020 at 6:43:57 PM UTC+2, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/4/2020 10:48 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, June 3, 2020 at 7:12:54 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:

Adjusting pads is sort of a side issue, since I was talking only about
force on the controls. Although to me, not needing to adjust hydraulic
disc pads is kind of balanced by needing to prissily clean things with
cotton swabs when replacing pads.

I don't clean my disc calipers with cotton swabs. I just drop in a set of pads.

Admittedly, I haven't done it because I don't use those brakes. But
these guys https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQXFFgRButo seem to say it's
important to get the Q-tips out. See about 2:20 and about 3:20 onward.

Is that only for super grungy brakes?

--
- Frank Krygowski

You never pry the metal parts out of the brake pads because they are
grinding away the rims? That is more time consuming than running a swap
along the pistons when changing the brake pads, which is also quicker
than changing the brake pads of rim brakes.

I've done that picking exercise on rim brake shoes, but not very often,
and not for years now. As I recall, it was necessary only rarely, and
after a rain ride. These days I can usually avoid riding in the rain. In
any case, it never took more than a minute or so.

I don't doubt that changing disc pads is faster than changing caliper
brake shoes. OTOH, from what I hear, disc pads need changed more
frequently. I'd bet the overall time difference (i.e. total time spent
per year) is minimal.

Disks at least Hydraulic are to be honest much less, they self adjust pad
wear, pads are easy to change, for commuting the fact that they have no
cable to get gummed up, you do need to replace the oil, but it’s easy to
feel when that is, the brakes start to have a wooden feel, every few years
or so.

They really are very easy to live with, they dislike oil so don’t spray any
thing remotely near them, don’t fiddle they generally dislike cleaning
products ie disk cleaning sprays and like. Hose off the dirt and leave be,
and they are happy!

I'll repeat what I was told by one bicycle tourist that we hosted: Never
do a really long ride without packing a spare set of pads. His pads wore
to nothing and he found himself effectively without brakes until he
could locate a bike shop in hilly, remote northern Pennsylvania.


Unless your down hill MTB in mid winter, pads even on wet gritty roads will
last a long time, mine normally last 1500 ish miles on the commute bike and
gravel which I ride on similar surfaces.

In short pads are not exactly heavy or big, or hard to fit if your touring
it would seem like a sensible thing to pack, it does remind me of stories
of early road disks, folks deliberately or simply ham fisted, dragging the
brakes down long descents at which point you get brake fade.

Personally since I like MTB/Gravel disks last longer, rim brake pads on
pratically wet gritty rides I could wear though in only 2/3 rides.

Yes, I understand the advantages of discs for gritty and/or wet rides.

I don't know how many miles that tourist had on his disc pads when he
started his tour. We could assume the problem was due to his not
checking the lining thickness at the start, and/or not understanding how
fast they would wear, perhaps due to unfamiliarity. I do know that he
was surprised at how fast they wore, and was in a tight spot when they did.

Incidentally, we seemed to know (of?) each other online from years ago.
I can't recall his name now, or whether he knew me from this forum or
another.


Unless your riding wet gritty gravely roads and even then disk pads will
still last a long time, and on just tarmac a fair bit longer, will rim
brakes in that usage last longer? For most yes, but for most people 1500 or
so miles is quite a long time!

The problem with hydraulic is it’s not that easy to check, and they will
work right until your on the backing plate!

In other words that sort of thing is a unfamiliarity with how these things
work, equally disk pads come in all shapes, relying on a shop to have it in
stock is a touch unwise. Not every pads are in stock in every shop.

In other words that’s not a good example why brakes are bad, more bad
planning.

Roger Merriman