User Tag List

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 64

Thread: UCI standards on disc brakes and axel specifications for road competition 2017 and on

  1. #41
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Austin, Texas
    Posts
    1,730
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: UCI standards on disc brakes and axel specifications for road competition 2017 an

    Interesting post from Steve Tilford today.

    The Disc Brake Saga Continues
     

  2. #42
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    4,964
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: UCI standards on disc brakes and axel specifications for road competition 2017 an

    i would like to know who 'mech9' is, or who he has wrenched for.
    -Dustin

  3. #43
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    7,216
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: UCI standards on disc brakes and axel specifications for road competition 2017 an

    People tend to approach the issue of neutral support backwards.

    The fact that not everything is completely compatible right now doesn't mean the teams and neutral support won't adapt. The UCI disc brake commission already stated a few recommendations regarding rotor size and axles. Rotor rubbing ? The team technical sponsors, i.e. the manufacturers providing bikes to the team, may settle on a precise spec on rotor lateral position and eventually on the rotor width.

    Another option is floating calipers. I once did that by mistake. I was building a new bike and did not completely screw the calipers bolts before doing the first test spin around the block (late night wrenching). I realized the calipere auto centered itself and the pads didn't rub after the first braking. For sure I don't recommend anyone to do it but there is surely a way to improve the technology and secure the caliper while allowing for a bit of play to let it self center. This approach has never been tried and tested simply because the need did not exist in the MTB world.

    The thing is currently there is no incentive to provide compatibility for a neutral support because there aren't any races allowing disc brakes and offering neutral support. The industry will never spend money or r&d time in resolving potential issues if they do not exist yet. By allowing races to be run with disc brakes, the UCI provides this incentive to solve these interrogations.
    --
    T h o m a s

  4. #44
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Manhattan NY
    Posts
    1,024
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: UCI standards on disc brakes and axel specifications for road competition 2017 an

     

  5. #45
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Happy Valley, PA
    Posts
    3,366
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: UCI standards on disc brakes and axel specifications for road competition 2017 an

    Quote Originally Posted by acorn View Post
    Actually, 142mm wide rear is what I think you meant. And, I know this sounds weird, but 142mm wide rear is identical to 135mm wide in terms of cog spacing width.
    this is true, but nobody is using 135mm rear spacing in the pro peloton. Not that I think that it really matters that much. However, without drawing things out, I'm pretty sure changing from 130 QR to 142 TA ends up being more than the 5mm that saying "142 is the same as 135" would suggest

    I expect to see crashes due to this rule. I only got a disc-equipped bike in the last couple of years, and there have been some awkward moments. Ant the pros are not exactly known for keeping it upright.
     

  6. #46
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Austin, Texas
    Posts
    1,730
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: UCI standards on disc brakes and axel specifications for road competition 2017 an

    Quote Originally Posted by sk_tle View Post
    The industry will never spend money or r&d time in resolving potential issues if they do not exist yet. By allowing races to be run with disc brakes, the UCI provides this incentive to solve these interrogations.
    Two of the best sentences of this thread.
     

  7. #47
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    4,964
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: UCI standards on disc brakes and axel specifications for road competition 2017 an

    regarding rotors rubbing the pads, i don't understand why pads have to be a hairs width away from the rotors. This has been a grump of mine for quite some time. Renewed when I first messed with hydro road calipers that seem to place the pad closer to the rotor than mtn calipers.
    -Dustin

  8. #48
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Kingston, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    1,230
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: UCI standards on disc brakes and axel specifications for road competition 2017 an

    Quote Originally Posted by dashDustin View Post
    regarding rotors rubbing the pads, i don't understand why pads have to be a hairs width away from the rotors. This has been a grump of mine for quite some time. Renewed when I first messed with hydro road calipers that seem to place the pad closer to the rotor than mtn calipers.
    mainly because some/most roadies want a lever that is firm with 0.1mm of lever movement and they forget that modulation comes with lever travel.
    Matt Moore
    @hellafabrication
    www.instagram.com/Hellafabrication

  9. #49
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Chocolatetown, USA
    Posts
    1,930
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: UCI standards on disc brakes and axel specifications for road competition 2017 an

    Quote Originally Posted by EricKeller View Post
    this is true, but nobody is using 135mm rear spacing in the pro peloton. Not that I think that it really matters that much. However, without drawing things out, I'm pretty sure changing from 130 QR to 142 TA ends up being more than the 5mm that saying "142 is the same as 135" would suggest

    I expect to see crashes due to this rule. I only got a disc-equipped bike in the last couple of years, and there have been some awkward moments. Ant the pros are not exactly known for keeping it upright.
    130 QR is 5 mm wider than 135mm QR

    135 QR = 142 TA

    Thus 142 TA is a 5mm difference from 130 QR.
    Will Neide (pronounced Nighty, like the thing worn to bed)

    Webpage : : Flickr : : Tumblr : : Facebook
    Instagram: wilco_cycleworks

  10. #50
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    4,964
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: UCI standards on disc brakes and axel specifications for road competition 2017 an

    Quote Originally Posted by Hellafab View Post
    mainly because some/most roadies want a lever that is firm with 0.1mm of lever movement and they forget that modulation comes with lever travel.
    does Shimano use ServoWave in their hydro road calipers? anyone know?
    -Dustin

  11. #51
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    220
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: UCI standards on disc brakes and axel specifications for road competition 2017 an

    The support stuff is interesting if you do the math. It turns out just looking at #s in terms of disk/rim brake, the biggest issue is the front wheels. For a rim 110 spacing wheel you can drop any wheel in and be fine. The rear is a bit more tricky because you have the drivetrain issues. But lets say for argument sake you have 3 OEM transmissions, and you need to run 3 deep in spares. The rim wheels needed for the support car could be as few as 12. You'd have 9 rear wheels (3x3Oems) and 3 generic fronts. To replicate a similar coverage with Disk Brakes, the support truck would need 30 total wheel units. You would need the original 12 rim brake units, but a total of 18 wheels extra to cover for the Disk Brakes. You need 9 rear wheels but also 9 front wheels, because the fronts don't cross-swap. That is the best case sceanrrio where all hubs, brakes, and transmissions are the same OEM. If you start to add hubs by 3rd party like roval, dt, mavic that put the rotor somewhere else, you have to add even more units. So not withstanding all of the other elements, its sort of interesting in the sense that the support vehicle will need alot more space to handle 30 wheels than 12. Maybe its just me but 30 wheels seems like a lot to keep track of.

    Any guys familiar with team/neutral support, and just how many spares they need to carry currently?

    Mellow Yellow: Inside the Mavic SSC | Cycling

    Has a listing of Mavic SC, which has mostly cars and not many vans.

    http://www.roadbikereview.com/review...eutral-support
     

  12. #52
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Puyallup, WA
    Posts
    3,459
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: UCI standards on disc brakes and axel specifications for road competition 2017 an

    I'll let some one else come up with the real numbers of units needed for neutral support, but I don't think it's anywhere near 30. The teams are all running 11-speed, and the spacing is the same for Campy/Shimano/SRAM, so I guess I only see the need for rim brake and disc brake spares.
    DT

    http://www.mjolnircycles.com/

    Some are born to move the world to live their fantasies...

    "the fun outweighs the suck, and the suck hasn't killed me yet." -- chasea

    "Sometimes, as good as it feels to speak out, silence is the only way to rise above the morass. The high road is generally a quiet route." -- echelon_john

  13. #53
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    4,964
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: UCI standards on disc brakes and axel specifications for road competition 2017 an

    kinda depends on how many cars are available, i'd think. from working neutral at crits, i can say one thing. the amount of wheels being transported is maxed. so, either folks are going to have to start bringing their own pit wheels, or, like i saw this year, the pit won't have enough of one type of wheel.

    this seems like an nightmare for neutral support, so i'm all in favor of UCI standardizing it...rotor size, axle type, hub width. and manufacturers figuring out some way to make things swap-able. which, i do realize is against manufacturer ethos.
    -Dustin

  14. #54
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    220
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: UCI standards on disc brakes and axel specifications for road competition 2017 an

    This rack on the Mavic Support holds 10 wheels externally, pretty close to the guess of 12x

    Mavic Neutral.jpg

    edit: looks like 2 more spares on spare bike
     

  15. #55
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    472
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: UCI standards on disc brakes and axel specifications for road competition 2017 an

    Quote Originally Posted by sk_tle View Post

    Another option is floating calipers. I once did that by mistake. I was building a new bike and did not completely screw the calipers bolts before doing the first test spin around the block (late night wrenching). I realized the calipere auto centered itself and the pads didn't rub after the first braking. For sure I don't recommend anyone to do it but there is surely a way to improve the technology and secure the caliper while allowing for a bit of play to let it self center. This approach has never been tried and tested simply because the need did not exist in the MTB world.



    High-end motorcycles have floating rotors. The heat generated is so much that if the rotors were fixed the expansion would either warp them or move them out of alignment. I'm not sure how they work though in terms of alignment, etc.
     

  16. #56
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    472
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: UCI standards on disc brakes and axel specifications for road competition 2017 an

    I've been curious about the effect of disc brakes on lateral wheel stiffness. It appears that the rotor and rotor mount make the hub flanges much more narrow. Anyone know how much they change the flange spacing measurement? How much does this change effect the lateral wheel stiffness?
     

  17. #57
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    233
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: UCI standards on disc brakes and axel specifications for road competition 2017 an

    Quote Originally Posted by Will Neide View Post
    130 QR is 5 mm wider than 135mm QR

    135 QR = 142 TA

    Thus 142 TA is a 5mm difference from 130 QR.

    This is the same thing I tell people, but I can never explain it well and always end up confusing people more.

    It's easy to think that going from 130mm QR to 142mm TA is a 7mm difference, but it really isn't. It is easy to think this way because 142 - 130mm = 7mm. However, that would be wrong.

    Going from a 130mm QR to a 142mm TA is essentially the same as going from a 130mm QR to a 135mm QR. So, when I tell people that going from a 130mm QR to a 142mm TA is exactly a difference of 5mm, I get confused looks. It's true though! The difference between a 130mm QR and a 142mm TA is only 5mm! Exactly 5mm! No more or less! 5mm!

    Now, take going from a 130mm QR to a 142mm TA.... which is an increase in the hub width of 5mm... OK, take that 5mm and divide it by 2. What do you get? That's right. 2.5mm! In other words, a 142mm rear TA hub is only 2.5mm wider on the non-drive side of the hub, and 2.5mm wider on the drive side of the hub.

    Bottom line... All things equal. Going from a frame with the rear dropouts spaced at 130mm to a new Thru-axle disc frame spaced at 142mm is going to push the chainstays of the frame out exactly 2.5mm on each side. Yep. 2.5mm! It's like your heel will ONLy be 2.5mm closer to the chainstay on the new 142mm rear TA frame, than on your old rim brake frame. There. I have probably confused a bunch of people again.
     

  18. #58
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Happy Valley, PA
    Posts
    3,366
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: UCI standards on disc brakes and axel specifications for road competition 2017 an

    Quote Originally Posted by Will Neide View Post
    130 QR is 5 mm wider than 135mm QR

    135 QR = 142 TA

    Thus 142 TA is a 5mm difference from 130 QR.
    Sometimes when I type something that is a little subtle, I realize that someone isn't going to get it. Recall that it was in the context of the width of the chainstays, so the outside of the dropout is of interest. 130mm plus 6mm for each dropout = 142mm. 135mm plus 6mm/dropout = 147mm. 142mm plus 12mm of dropouts is 154mm. Ok, so sometimes the dropouts are thinner at the axle for TA, but usually they aren't. Yes, 135 and 142 are really the same axle length, but that doesn't mean that a typical carbon road frame will be the same width at the outside of the rear chainstays.
     

  19. #59
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    7,216
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: UCI standards on disc brakes and axel specifications for road competition 2017 an

    chainstays do not need to be straight.
    --
    T h o m a s

  20. #60
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    NY & MN
    Posts
    4,352
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: UCI standards on disc brakes and axel specifications for road competition 2017 an

    Quote Originally Posted by fastupslowdown View Post
    So good.

    New UCI rule allows customers to spend more money

    November 30, 2015 52 Comments

    The UCI Rules Committee announced that professional teams will be allowed to use disc brakes in all races for 2016. “We think this will help cyclists at all levels spend more money,” said committee chairman Snookie van der Sluit in a press release.

    “There is a significant need for disc brakes among manufacturers, wholesalers, and retailers in every market segment,” said van der Sluit. “And disc brakes allow them to meet the need for more customer expenditures, which is a key component in making cycling even less affordable as a sport or recreational activity while simultaneously accelerating the twin trends of planned obsolescence and product incompatibility.”

    Reactions in the cycling world were generally positive. “I don’t give two fucks what we ride, all my shit’s free,” said Fabian Cancellara when asked about the rule change.

    Mike Sinyard, president of Specialized, was equally enthusiastic. “I’d definitely give two fucks, probably even ten,” he said. “Although braking performance in wet conditions is offset by the greater weight and the pain-in-the-ass factor of through-axles, getting every pro on a disc brake is crucial if we’re going to make weekend warriors insecure about not having the latest trick shit. And that’s the fulcrum behind every meaningful bike purchase these days.”
     

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Shimano Road Disc Brakes Break In
    By joosttx in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 41
    Last Post: 4 Weeks Ago, 06:57 AM
  2. Mechanical disc brakes for road/cross bike- peoples opinion.
    By the bottle ride in forum VSalon Pro-Bicycle Tech
    Replies: 171
    Last Post: 12-02-2016, 03:41 PM
  3. long(er) term review of Sram hydro road disc brakes?
    By robin3mj in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 03-21-2015, 05:56 PM
  4. Best use of road disc brakes
    By GSmith in forum VSalon VideoDrome
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 06-04-2014, 05:44 PM

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •