|disc brakes banned by UCI||grumpycanuck|
Oct 21, 2003 9:48 AM
|well, as far as I'm concerned...this sucks if it ever trickles down to the amateur ranks, for now it doesn't. Thoughts?|
|re: disc brakes banned by UCI||happycx|
Oct 21, 2003 12:06 PM
|Yeah, I agree. Now that I have a disc-equipped bike for cross, I can't imagine going back. It has changed (for the better) the way that I am riding. As for the safety issue, ANYTHING on a bike can potentially hurt someone. Call me crazy, but that's how I see it.|
|I just think "safety" is a lame excuse by UCI||AJS|
Oct 21, 2003 11:34 PM
|Because if any type of racing/cycling needs disc brakes, it's cyclocross. |
The argument could be made that UCI is not acting in the best safety interests of cyclists by not recommending disc brakes for CX racing!
|re: disc brakes banned by UCI||cxking|
Oct 22, 2003 8:08 AM
|The UCI is a joke. This was done to protect old school builders like Colnago from having to keep up with technology and keep building overpriced, low tech, heavy bikes. Meanwhile drug use is rampant, when riders are dumb enough to get caught they get a slap on the wrist. Way to protect the sport idiots.|
|re: disc brakes banned by UCI||rawket|
Oct 22, 2003 10:42 AM
|I would consider this along the lines of banning excessively large tires... Mountain Bike racing and Cyclocross need to remain seperate sports. While the addition of disk brakes certainally does not cause a bike to cease being a cyclocross bike, it is a move in that direction. The challenge of riding a cyclocross bike on a cyclocross course is what makes the sport great. Too much mechanical advantage and the skill level required to be fast is diminished. Sure disk brakes make it easier to slow the bike in horrid conditions, but if the traction is still not there on smaller tires there is no safety advantage. Call me a traditionalist, but the last thing I want is for Cyclocross to become just an extension of the mountain bike race season.|
Oct 22, 2003 10:52 AM
|Well said. I read about the "safety" factor and disliked that notion, but your explanation makes it palletable.|
|re: disc brakes banned by UCI||cxking|
Oct 22, 2003 12:22 PM
|I agree that MTB and 'cross should be kept seperate. When the UCI started the whole anti tech witch hunt of the reasons was to keep the cost of entry into the sport down, which is comendable. I bought my bike to try and minimze the need to have 2 bikes for muddy races. With no cantilevers one of the prime mud collection points is now gone so I can do the whole race on one bike. Also I don't have to bribe my girlfriend to stand in the rain/snow and hand me clean bikes:-) I am planning on doing some UCI races this year but will have to use my canilever bike with no spare. In these UCI races I will be lining up against real pro's with multple bikes all decked out with carbon tubulars and Dura Ace. So much for keeping the cost of entry down. As far as safety I can tell you that the disc brakes are superior in all conditions.|
|re: disc brakes banned by UCI||grumpycanuck|
Oct 23, 2003 8:11 AM
|in terms of traditionalism, the influx of "technology"...how many of you who use canti's have your bikes equipped with top-mount brake levers--I don't but know that a bike with them properly set up gives the rider more control and therefore makes the bike "safer" My point is not to bicker, it is to point out that the UCI has not given a justifiable reason for the ban...in terms of keeping the cost of the sport down, a rider can make it a cheap or as expensive as they want...buy two Cross-Checks instead of an I.F. if you want two bikes...simple!|
Oct 23, 2003 8:46 PM
|have been around longer than most imagine. Guys used to hook up MTB lever w/ seperate cable for at least 20 years so that issue is IMHO put to bed. Having rotors on mounting dismounting side is dangerous to the rider and when in portage dangerous to others. I also see the point of having more brake than the tire can handle which will cause crashes which in turn exposes the rotor. I don't really blame the UCI, blame the idiots who sue over everything for forcing the UCI to err on the safety side of this issue. I also agree about the not-extending MTB season concept as well.|
Oct 24, 2003 3:29 PM
|interesting point....though if a collision with any other rider renders them unsafe, pedals and pointy STI's should be removed to...the ban is silly!!|
|Why are rotors dangerous? (nm)||TFerguson|
Oct 24, 2003 6:27 PM
|Re: Radioactive Rotors Alert! Uh, disc brakes are SAFER.||Bianchi4Me|
Oct 25, 2003 8:44 AM
|Umn, that "rotor exposure" stuff is a little hysterical, unless CX rotors are made from Uranium or something.
The UCI is perfectly fine with exposed rotors on MTB applications, and MTB folks crash a lot more dramatically than the "oops I slipped" stuff you see in X-Cross. MTB riders are also frequently portaging frames on climbs and for technical sections. You don't see a stream of folks heading for the burn unit.
Most CX courses are also pancake flat compared to many MTB courses. MTB events sometimes involve braking until the rotor is glowing red hot! Your typical CX course is a putting green by comparison and you won't see many glowing rotors at a CX night race.
So the UCI is okay with someone screaming down a rock-strewn downhill at 65mph with a glowing hot rotor, but feels that splashing in the mud on a "golf course" CX event is "unsafe" with disc brakes? Puh-leeze.
If the UCI really though they were unsafe, they would ban them altogether. Obviously they really don't think disc brakes are unsafe. If they did offically state that they were "unsafe" they would just be exposing themselves to more lawsuits from the MTB crowd, wouldn't they? As in "Why did you allow those racers to compete with products you determined to be unsafe for these racers?" So the "lawsuit protection" argument is also bogus.
A properly adjusted caliper brake will you lock-up your brakes with a one-finger pull. The suggestion that disc brakes are too powerful for skinny tires is nonsense. Both types of brakes can easily overpower the traction available from skinny tires on loose courses. The difference is that disc brakes offer much more consistent braking under a variety of conditions. The "now you see them, now you don't" vagaries of wet or mud soaked canti pads is a lot less safe than brakes that work consistently. In addition, most riders find the modulation of disc brakes to be superior, enabling them to better control braking without locking up the wheels by accident. Most MTB riders who switch to quality disc brakes are impressed with the greatly improved modualtion and how it enhances their control under braking. Finally, you can easily adjust the power output of disc brakes simply by changing the rotor size. If you feel a 160mm MTB rotor will be too powerful for your bike, you can select a brand that uses a 140mm rotor.
The reality of the situation is that it's a European dominated organization, and they are responding to pressure from European cycling manufactuers and the sponsors of the teams using those frames. It's cheaper for them to pressure UCI to ban innovation than to have to make products that compete on merit. So what if racers are stuck with inferior technology, reduced safety, and the expense of running multiple bikes in muddy events? They gotta keep their boys happy! The racers don't pay UCIs salary, take on the fellas on free "tour" junkets around Europe, and load them with goodies, but the manufacturers/sponsors sure do.
|Fine. But then you must ban cantis, STI and new DA too!||Bianchi4Me|
Oct 25, 2003 8:59 AM
|If you really believe that MTB technology should not allowed to taint the sport, then we need to eliminate:
Integrated shift-levers. That's a MTB introduced technology. It's back to downtube or bar-ends.
We have to get rid of Canti mounts too, I'm afraid. Those Vee-brakes and Cantis are a modified MTB braking system, just like the disc brakes you say don't belong on a CX rig. I'd love to hear a rational explanation of why these are okay and disc brakes aren't?
The new Dura-Ace crankset is 100% based on the XTR MTB crank. So we have to ban 2004 Dura-Ace too, unfortunately.
Oh, all those running ceramic coated rims, please turn them into the UCI control booth. They are outlaw MTB technology too.
It's funny how the MTB technology that is supported by major UCI sponsors always seems to be 100% fine, and the MTB technology that competes with major UCI sponsors is "evil". It's too bad Shimano or Mavic didn't get a chance to produce a CX-specific disc product. If they had, we'd see the UCI falling all over itself to promote them.
|canti's and MTB||atpjunkie|
Oct 29, 2003 1:30 PM
|sorry, canti's predate MTB's by quite a few years. In the early years (late 70's-80's) of MTB (Ballooning-Repack Road) riders used drum or coaster brakes. Then they switched to the Mafac Canti that cx riders had been using for years. My first Ritchey(circa 1981) was replete in Mafac cantis and TA Cranks (all borrowed from cx). The DA crank which as you say is based on the XTr which in turn was 'stolen' from the Bullseye BMX then to MTB crank which in turn had it's influences in some early 50's or 60's era Euro road cranks.As far as integrated shifters, I'm happy with my bar ends, for the price of 1 Ultegra STI set I can get 3 sets of bar cons all of which will last far longer than said STI's. So your 'historical points' unfortuntately lack any history. That said I don't agree with the disc ban, it really doesn't matter to me, I'm just trying to see where they are coming from.|
|canti's and MTB..a history lesson||grumpycanuck|
Oct 30, 2003 10:16 AM
|wouldn't it way simpler if we all raced Penny Farthing's???|
|I brought up the MTB disc vs CX issue||atpjunkie|
Oct 30, 2003 7:35 PM
|with an official friend and it was his view that because MTB races tend to spread out the risers it's not as much of an issue. In many local cx races the rider 3's are low enough that it isn't an issue either. It was his (not a direct opinion of the UCI but his interp.) that a UCI race with 50 or so racers coming into barriers could be trouble. It's the high numbers, close proximity and bikes being hoisted with a rider right alongside/in front/behind etc.. that is the worry.|
|You still haven't answered...||TFerguson|
Oct 31, 2003 5:24 AM
|why are they dangerous? Mine are not sharp or would they ever be hot in a non-DH situation.
|You still haven't answered...||atpjunkie|
Oct 31, 2003 1:34 PM
|I think they are worried about rotor to leg, I've checked the disc rotors on my MTb and the only thing I can figure is a leg raking with the rotor edge. mine don't feel that sharp either but I wonder if it could do some damgage if I was stepping off/running and someone rode up my back. Most likely it's like most are saying, euro anti-american technology using safety as an out. I'm not anti disc, I personally think it's overkill in cx racing, but great for the other uses of a cx bike. It's sad that so many mfrs got screwed over this C'dale had no team bikes because of this.
I tried to get actual ruling from the UCI but couldn't find it on the web.