Interesting read about brake rotor size

mattybfat said:
Funny how what we've been told vs the science
Definitely makes sense to me

enduro-mtb.com

Ending the rotor size myth – Why you should have a bigger brake rotor at the back than the front

Small up front, big at the rear? Contrary to popular belief, many of us should ride with bigger rotors at the rear than at the front. Read on to find out why:
enduro-mtb.com enduro-mtb.com
Click to expand...

Sounds like the guy that wrote this article just wanted the biggest rotors possible. His frame would fit a 220mm rotor in the rear, but the largest rotor his fork would take is 200mm. The rest is just rationalizing.

How many top-level mountain bike athletes, of any discipline, do we see using a smaller rotor in the front than in the rear? It's not like they don't have the option.
 
I've seen this article discussed in a few places and I think that it ultimately comes down to riding style, terrain, and rider weight. If you're someone who is world cup level fast and riding steep tracks, it's likely that your front brake is going to be at greater risk of overheating than your rear. Probably for a lot of riders, the rear brake is used much more frequently and for much longer durations each time so a larger rotor to aid in cooling makes a certain amount of sense.

I bet this guy would have a more data-driven response: https://www.brakeace.com/

That said, I don't know that there's a great argument for "downsizing" either rotor. I'm kind of in the camp that says that more power is always better and you can just learn to be more precise/delicate vs accepting potentially greater fatigue etc from using a smaller rotor.
 
ebarker9 said:
I've seen this article discussed in a few places and I think that it ultimately comes down to riding style, terrain, and rider weight. If you're someone who is world cup level fast and riding steep tracks, it's likely that your front brake is going to be at greater risk of overheating than your rear. Probably for a lot of riders, the rear brake is used much more frequently and for much longer durations each time so a larger rotor to aid in cooling makes a certain amount of sense.

I bet this guy would have a more data-driven response: https://www.brakeace.com/

That said, I don't know that there's a great argument for "downsizing" either rotor. I'm kind of in the camp that says that more power is always better and you can just learn to be more precise/delicate vs accepting potentially greater fatigue etc from using a smaller rotor.
Click to expand...


in all honesty, if you have enough braking power with your setup to skid the tire on dry pavement (or stand the bike on the front wheel in the case of the front), you have more braking power than you can use anyway (dry pavement being the grippiest surface most of us will ride on). . . . . .

If you are doing long downhills and need more cooling thats another analysis to perform . . .
 
I wear out front pads at like a 2:1 ratio. 180mm F&R. Fronts still last 1000 miles or more. Do that math.

Edit never did I feel underbraked on trails or notice any discoloration on rotors. Brakes really just make you slower. I try to never use them.
 
Never had any issue with my XC bikes but I have blued rotors on my DH rigs. Going bigger in the rear would be a good addition to my DH bike, should I ever get around to riding it again.
 
jimvreeland said:
Formula One says otherwise.
Click to expand...
f7137656-9b13-44d3-978a-758efcf85f12_text.gif
 
what about 29 inch disc brakes then?

Aka rim brakes

Where is the point of diminishing returns
 
Road 160 front and rear. XC 180 front and rear DH 203 front and rear. Ebike 180 front and rear 203 if you are fat. Fat in cycling is over 170lbs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom