Retrobike Forum Index

It is currently Sun Dec 04, 2016 3:24 pm

* Login   * Register * Search  * FAQ



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 26 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 13, 2011 7:18 pm 
Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2007 1:03 pm
Posts: 253
Location: Surrey
Hmm :? maybe 180/160 then lol


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 13, 2011 11:28 pm 
Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 03, 2009 2:37 pm
Posts: 1727
Location: UK Southwest
Nah, go 180/180 it wont really cost any more and it will be better modulated and more fade resistant, its not all about power. Not sure about most people but I tend to use the rear brake more than the front. In my opinion all that stuff about 80% of the braking being done by the front wheel is based on car facts. Under heavy braking on a bike you move most of your weight over the rear wheel so I reckon its much more even front to rear. On loose stuff if you really hammer the front brake (especially when turning) you will lock up the front wheel and wash out, again meaning we all probably use the rear brake alot more than we think. 180/180 :wink:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 13, 2011 11:34 pm 
Gold Trader / rb Rider / Special
Gold Trader / rb Rider / Special
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2009 12:26 am
Posts: 16165
Location: Rurally close.
yeah 180/180
looks even :lol: simple

i too use my rear more than my front, i feel
but it is suggested many dont
i dont believe it

as above is true


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 13, 2011 11:43 pm 
Moderator /Lincs, E & S Yorks Deputy AEC
Moderator /Lincs, E & S Yorks Deputy AEC
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2007 6:16 pm
Posts: 4144
Location: RetroModding™ since 1988
A little test for those who believe that a rear brake has a greater stopping power than a front brake

Ride along at a set pace, at a given point pull one brake hard until you stop

Repeat the process using just the other brake

I'll bet a whole cake, yup I'm risking cake on this, that you will stop quicker just using the front brake compared to just using the rear brake braking from the same speed & from the same point

The reason for shifting your weight back under heavy braking is to stop you going over the bars.

180 up front 160 out back.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Apr 14, 2011 12:00 am 
Retro Guru
Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2008 11:16 pm
Posts: 3711
Location: #2058
I've got 203's back and front. I've got 160's but don't think they'll be enough as I'm 'big-boned' :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Apr 14, 2011 12:30 am 
Gold Trader / rb Rider / Special
Gold Trader / rb Rider / Special
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2009 12:26 am
Posts: 16165
Location: Rurally close.
Andy B wrote:
A little test for those who believe that a rear brake has a greater stopping power than a front brake


i believe they are the same, just that i use the back more

i see your point though and your probably right that the front will slow you quicker, more force input?

i just think same size rotors are more aesthetically pleasing


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Apr 14, 2011 8:53 am 
Old School Grand Master
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2010 9:06 pm
Posts: 4427
Location: Herts UK
I have 160/160 and they stop me fine *. have 1 bikes with 180/160 but reckon that is an overkill and am thinking of changing fromnt to 160.

* I don't have access to any long steep hills and my riding style is to not go mentally fast then slam the brakes but to feather them as I pootle down the hill. :oops:

Bear in mid that the larger the rotor the more force is being applied to the fork and frame; some lighweight forks e.g. early SIDs don't like big disc ( > 160 mm ).


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Apr 14, 2011 8:59 am 
Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2007 1:03 pm
Posts: 253
Location: Surrey
Thx all :)

Thats a good point 02gf74 my frame is 2007 rocky mountain blizzard and the forks are rock shox recon race 2008 ish.

Anyone know if i have any limiting factors to think about on above items I dont wanna stress the frame or forks to much. :shock:

Thx again all


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Apr 14, 2011 9:23 am 
retrobike rider
retrobike rider
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 14, 2009 7:52 pm
Posts: 1904
Location: Trancecentral
Manufacturers do state maximum rotor sizes due to stress on the mounts or hubs but that'll just be health and safety blame redirection and lawsuit prevention.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Apr 14, 2011 10:41 am 
Gold Trader / rb Rider / Special
Gold Trader / rb Rider / Special
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2009 12:26 am
Posts: 16165
Location: Rurally close.
stewlewis wrote:
Manufacturers do state maximum rotor sizes due to stress on the mounts or hubs but that'll just be health and safety blame redirection and lawsuit prevention.


your frame will be fine for 180 or 160 (possibly even 203 et al)
but check the manufacturer website for the details of your forks

unless you dont want to take heed as above :wink:


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 26 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

About Us

Follow Retrobike

Other cool stuff

All content © 2005-2015 Retrobike unless otherwise stated.
Cookies Policy.
bikedeals - the best bike deals in one place
FatCOGS - Fat Chance Owner's Group

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group