Rich built a set of wheels (rim brake) used once on a fully loaded on/off-road tour across northern Ontario, northern USA, and British Columbia-- the bike probably about 75lbs though never actually weighed-- but in any case it was heavy-- anyway this was on chipped-up backroads, through woods, across fallow fields with petrified furrows the wrong way, got bucked out of the saddle a few times, crashed and bent fork north of Lake Superior, did a leg in the Rockies from Yellowstone to Jasper AB (braking was fine, cantilevers), and wheels were still true after ~6000 miles, no broken spokes. They were 36h rear and 32h front fwiw, tires 700x40 iirc.
On Sunday, May 15, 2016 at 1:10:55 PM UTC-4, Rich Lesnik wrote: > > I've so far hesitated joining this thread. First, let me be perfectly > clear: I speak only for myself. Nothing I say should be construed as > representing "Rivendell Policy" or "Rivendell Opinion". I prefer rim brakes > 99 to 1 over "disc" brakes. I put "disc" in quotation marks because, of > course, rim brakes are disc brakes, with a much larger radius. And that > makes all the difference. A front disc-brake wheel is heavily dished > (uneven spoke tension, left to right). The proximity of the braking surface > to the hub increases the stress on the pulling spokes, relieving the > "pushing" spokes -- the flex on the looser-side spokes can work-harden the > bend in the spoke elbow at the hub, and it will eventually break. Same > thing with the rear wheel (only here the lower-tension spokes are on the > non-drive, left side). These spokes are already prone to breaking over the > long haul, as they flex more, and will work-harden more quickly. This > increased stress would still be problemmatic on a non-dished disc-brake > front wheel, as well, because of the increased stress all around, at the > hub. Admittedly, replacing a broken spoke is easier, and less costly, than > replacing a worn rim. Nonetheless, a dished front wheel presents additional > problems -- as the primary braking instrument, the front wheel, when > unevenly tensioned (side to side), can, under severe stopping conditions, > become unstable, provoke an accident, or even "figure-8". Not good. > > Additionally, disc brakes present a safety hazard to other riders. That > spinning, thin disc can easily become a buzz saw when presented with a > fallen rider's limb. Hence the ban on disc brakes by the UCI. This should > be an alarm bell, at least. > > Full disclosure: I use a disc brake as a "drag brake" on my tandem, so far > with no problems. That's why is "99 to 1" as opposed to 100 to zero! > > On Friday, May 13, 2016 at 7:19:47 AM UTC-7, Will wrote: >> >> Might be nice to push back to GP and encourage more of these posts. >> > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
