Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 298
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,432

    203mm front and rear. :)

    You guys that seem to love the smallest disks that can be fitted to a bike will love this one.

    I just upgraded my 185mm cleansweep G2 on the rear to a 203mm G2. 203mm all around FTW!

    I got bored so I test fitted my old 203mm roundagon on the rear without the caliper mounted. I rode the bike and emphasized side to side motion to flex the frame. No rubbing so I ordered the 203mm G2 for it.

    I noticed that after getting the bike out on the trail, I used the rear brake much more than the front. Never had any problems with overheating but I wanted to try the larger brake. I also went snowboarding recently at Big Bear and was informed that the lifts are used for mountain bikers once the snow is gone. Can't wait for this! Should be some fun DH action.

    So to the results, modulation is about the same, definately no worse than the 185mm, maybe a little better. It's not touchy at all, no problems with premature lockup. I'm also up to 230lbs without gear so I figure there's no such thing as too much brake.

    I think it's a safe assumption I'm one of the few running 203mm front and rear. Anyone else on here doing the same?
    '08 Hardrock HRXC
    '09 Epic Comp
    '14 Trance SX -

  2. #2
    Meh.
    Reputation: XSL_WiLL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    17,509
    I did for a long time. Many (most) DHers run 203mm front and rear.

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation: One Pivot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    6,535
    you have 203mm rotors all around.. on a hardrock?

  4. #4
    locked - time out
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    759
    Quote Originally Posted by One Pivot
    you have 203mm rotors all around.. on a hardrock?
    Have you noticed all the confused bikes on mtbr lately, from people turning xc-am bikes into DH bikes using dual crowns, department store bikes being loaded with expensive parts, overforking, overbraking, you name it.

    I actually knew a guy that had like a Trek 4300 and put Juicy 203's on it, front and back. It looked ridiculous for the flatlands he was riding in, and on top of that, he had like a Dart fork, or something.

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    18
    Quote Originally Posted by glitz
    Have you noticed all the confused bikes on mtbr lately, from people turning xc-am bikes into DH bikes using dual crowns, department store bikes being loaded with expensive parts, overforking, overbraking, you name it.

    I actually knew a guy that had like a Trek 4300 and put Juicy 203's on it, front and back. It looked ridiculous for the flatlands he was riding in, and on top of that, he had like a Dart fork, or something.
    yeah, ridiculous!

    imagine someone customizing a bike to have it the way they want it! it's like they don't bother conforming to the market segmentation of mountainbiking or something! the trek advertising department must up in arms over that one!

  6. #6
    locked - time out
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    759
    Quote Originally Posted by zoot2boot
    yeah, ridiculous!

    imagine someone customizing a bike to have it the way they want it! it's like they don't bother conforming to the market segmentation of mountainbiking or something! the trek advertising department must up in arms over that one!
    The fork was a qr model that was clearly marked to not use 203 rotors on for safety reasons. You know, safety and design parameters. When people are freeriding and doing big mountain runs using 183's on big rigs, and someone is using a 4300, an entry level bike, weighing under 180 pounds, then someone is using their bike outside of the design parameters, or overbraking it. Since I knew the guy personally, I know he was overbraking it, a little stupid, and also thought he rode harder than he did. Oh yeah, he had a $200+ Ti seatpost on it. It was worth more than the bike.

  7. #7
    err, 27.5+
    Reputation: AL29er's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    4,944
    So long as you can keep your hand pressure in check I find the bigger rotors a blessing. If you grab a handful at the wrong time there is more of a penalty though. To each their own...
    Quote Originally Posted by saturnine
    that's the stupidest idea this side of pinkbike.

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation: GrampBredo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    386
    Quote Originally Posted by BuickGN
    You guys that seem to love the smallest disks that can be fitted to a bike will love this one.

    I just upgraded my 185mm cleansweep G2 on the rear to a 203mm G2. 203mm all around FTW!

    I got bored so I test fitted my old 203mm roundagon on the rear without the caliper mounted. I rode the bike and emphasized side to side motion to flex the frame. No rubbing so I ordered the 203mm G2 for it.

    I noticed that after getting the bike out on the trail, I used the rear brake much more than the front. Never had any problems with overheating but I wanted to try the larger brake. I also went snowboarding recently at Big Bear and was informed that the lifts are used for mountain bikers once the snow is gone. Can't wait for this! Should be some fun DH action.

    So to the results, modulation is about the same, definately no worse than the 185mm, maybe a little better. It's not touchy at all, no problems with premature lockup. I'm also up to 230lbs without gear so I figure there's no such thing as too much brake.

    I think it's a safe assumption I'm one of the few running 203mm front and rear. Anyone else on here doing the same?
    Yeah, but on my "big" bike, an old Kona Coiler. It uses a 20mm thru axle and the fork is rated for an 8" rotor. My other bike, a 29'er rigid, uses a 185 mm front rotor.
    I don't know if I'd want to run an 8" front rotor on a QR fork.... The bigger rotor is more likely to rip the wheel out of the dropouts, potentially destroying the fork, the brakes, the wheel, and your face.
    Do yourself a favor, If you decide try downhilling at your local resort, and your primary ride is a hardrock, get a rental for the day. It's not that expensive, and you'll have a much better time.

  9. #9
    ~Disc~Golf~
    Reputation: highdelll's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    16,491
    I know a guy who runs 559mm rotors front and rear.

    he's damn good lookin too
    Honestly... ahh I give up

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,432
    Quote Originally Posted by GrampBredo
    Yeah, but on my "big" bike, an old Kona Coiler. It uses a 20mm thru axle and the fork is rated for an 8" rotor. My other bike, a 29'er rigid, uses a 185 mm front rotor.
    I don't know if I'd want to run an 8" front rotor on a QR fork.... The bigger rotor is more likely to rip the wheel out of the dropouts, potentially destroying the fork, the brakes, the wheel, and your face.
    Do yourself a favor, If you decide try downhilling at your local resort, and your primary ride is a hardrock, get a rental for the day. It's not that expensive, and you'll have a much better time.
    It's got a Rockshox Revelation fork rated for 203mm so no problems there.

    I'm running the Hardrock on the downhill. It's not a race, just going to have some fun and get out of town. Besides, the frame is literally the only stock piece on the bike. It's my first try at mountain biking and the modding process has been fun.
    '08 Hardrock HRXC
    '09 Epic Comp
    '14 Trance SX -

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,432
    Quote Originally Posted by glitz
    Have you noticed all the confused bikes on mtbr lately, from people turning xc-am bikes into DH bikes using dual crowns, department store bikes being loaded with expensive parts, overforking, overbraking, you name it.

    I actually knew a guy that had like a Trek 4300 and put Juicy 203's on it, front and back. It looked ridiculous for the flatlands he was riding in, and on top of that, he had like a Dart fork, or something.
    You're an elitest idiot on so many levels. Now would be a good time to off yourself.

    I have 13" 4 piston brakes on my '06 TL. I have a 602rwhp street car. I don't use the brakes to their potential often and I rarely ever put my foot down in the 600hp car but it's there when I need/want it. If this is too hard of a concept to understand, I feel sorry for you.
    '08 Hardrock HRXC
    '09 Epic Comp
    '14 Trance SX -

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,432
    Quote Originally Posted by One Pivot
    you have 203mm rotors all around.. on a hardrock?
    Yep. And the fork alone is worth more than the whole bike, so are the shifters/deraileurs, lights, and the rims/crank/cassette/carbon handlebar/ti seatpost/clipless pedals/WTB Laser seat are at least half the cost of the bike each. I don't see what the big deal is. I like to mod things. I'll end up buying a nice FS bike this summer but this was my first experience in mountain biking and it's been a fun 2 years trying new stuff out. Now I have a good idea of what I want when looking at a new bike.

    I've taken up weightligting again and I'm up to 230lbs without gear. After getting a lot of seat time I've realized I use the rear brake much more than the front. Obviously there was plenty of power with the 185mm but the 203 requires just a little less finger effort and the modulation actually seems better. Fade was never an issue but I saw 650F brake temps. Not too high but that's without any serious DH.
    '08 Hardrock HRXC
    '09 Epic Comp
    '14 Trance SX -

  13. #13
    Meh.
    Reputation: XSL_WiLL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    17,509
    Seeing as the cheapest HR is 390 bucks, if you're paying half of that for a WTB Laser (even the SLT model), you're getting ripped off.

    But since you've got an HRXC... that goes for what? Just shy of 500?

    250 bucks for a pair of rims (or pedals or bar or cassette) is being marked up something nasty...

    Dean and USE seatposts are under 200. Moots posts are more expensive... but are actually heavier than Thomson Elite posts of the same diameter and length. In fact, most Ti seatposts won't be significantly lighter or stronger than Thomson Elite posts.

    x0 and XTR derailleurs sell for around 150 bucks. Shifters are about the same. m970 cassettes are also about the same.

    Post a spec list and pics.

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    652
    Do whatever you want its your bike. but what I really what to know is:

    1. How much boost you running on that GN
    2. Single or Twin Turbo
    3. 3.8?

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,432
    Quote Originally Posted by jdgang
    Do whatever you want its your bike. but what I really what to know is:

    1. How much boost you running on that GN
    2. Single or Twin Turbo
    3. 3.8?
    LOL. I like this subject better.

    1. 28psi, 27 degrees of timing for the dyno run. 19psi on the street because any more will just blow the tires away at any legal speed.
    2. Single Garrett GT 6776 DBB turbo.
    3. .035 over 4.1 block (4" bore) for 256" or just a hair over 4.2L.

    The build is pretty boring. Small 212-212 flat tappet cam. JE 8.5:1 pistons. Home ported Champion heads, home ported intake manifold, 60lb injectors with a large shot of methanol up top at full boost. Sounds and drives like a stocker.

    Stock 3.42 gears, Eaton posi, tons of suspension work, and most of the money is in the 200-4R and convertor to make it live.
    '08 Hardrock HRXC
    '09 Epic Comp
    '14 Trance SX -

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,432
    Quote Originally Posted by XSL_WiLL
    Seeing as the cheapest HR is 390 bucks, if you're paying half of that for a WTB Laser (even the SLT model), you're getting ripped off.

    But since you've got an HRXC... that goes for what? Just shy of 500?

    250 bucks for a pair of rims (or pedals or bar or cassette) is being marked up something nasty...

    Dean and USE seatposts are under 200. Moots posts are more expensive... but are actually heavier than Thomson Elite posts of the same diameter and length. In fact, most Ti seatposts won't be significantly lighter or stronger than Thomson Elite posts.

    x0 and XTR derailleurs sell for around 150 bucks. Shifters are about the same. m970 cassettes are also about the same.

    Post a spec list and pics.
    What exactly are you getting at? Lots of rambling and opinions about prices I didn't ask for. Why do you need a bike spec sheet in a thread about rear brake size? I think this is about the time where you mis-quote me and I have to go back and defend myself and remind you of what I actually said. Since it's so important to you, my mod list and pictures are buried somewhere in this thread. I think the only thing missing at the last entry was the Ti seatpost. Your Entry Level MTB (Pics and Upgrades)

    So I know where this is going, people have a bad habit around here of trying to belittle others. I said those other mods cost ABOUT half of what the bike cost. I also said the shifters AND deraileurs cost about half of the bike so don't bother going there. And one more time, this is a thread about brakes, I don't give a **** about anyone's opinion of how I spend my money.
    '08 Hardrock HRXC
    '09 Epic Comp
    '14 Trance SX -

  17. #17
    Meh.
    Reputation: XSL_WiLL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    17,509
    Actually you said...

    are at least half the cost of the bike each
    And you never said shifters AND derailleurs, you said shifters/derailleurs, so if we're to follow that / = and, then rims/crank/cassette/carbon handlebar/ti seatpost/clipless pedals/WTB Laser seat, means that all of that adds up to half.

    And the way it's phrased, the implication is that the shifter/derailleur cost more than the bike.
    And the fork alone is worth more than the whole bike, so are the shifters/deraileurs
    But I suppose it can be read as
    the shifters/deraileurs, lights, and the rims/crank/cassette/carbon handlebar/ti seatpost/clipless pedals/WTB Laser seat are at least half the cost of the bike each.
    No misquoting... taken directly from your post. Just as I did not misquote last time either.
    Last edited by XSL_WiLL; 03-30-2010 at 09:09 PM.

  18. #18
    Meh.
    Reputation: XSL_WiLL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    17,509
    Firex cranks are under 100 bucks, that's nowhere even close to "about half."

    Deore shifters sell for about 30 bucks. XT derailleurs maybe around 80 or 90. That is not about half either.

    Your Shimano pedals aren't that expensive either.

    Crossride WHEELS are about half, the rims are not.

    You're the one trying to make it seem like you've got the fancy bike.

    No belittling, just calling BS on your claims.

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    1,544
    Did we see a vid of this thing in action at some point a while back?
    Oldest daughter doesn't ride.

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    213
    Quote Originally Posted by GrampBredo
    Yeah, but on my "big" bike, an old Kona Coiler. It uses a 20mm thru axle and the fork is rated for an 8" rotor. My other bike, a 29'er rigid, uses a 185 mm front rotor.
    I don't know if I'd want to run an 8" front rotor on a QR fork.... The bigger rotor is more likely to rip the wheel out of the dropouts, potentially destroying the fork, the brakes, the wheel, and your face.
    Do yourself a favor, If you decide try downhilling at your local resort, and your primary ride is a hardrock, get a rental for the day. It's not that expensive, and you'll have a much better time.
    Great advice for sure. You can snap the dropouts or tug the qr clean out with that much force. I used to run a qr Fox RLC100 with an oversized rotor and a friend suggested I call Fox to check. I did and they cautioned heavily that there would be an eventual mishap, injury, frustration that they would take no part in. I changed the fork to a Marz SL2 with a 20mm TA and have zero worries running 8" front/6" back. As for the rider customizing his bike with top end parts and 'bike jewellery', etc., if he likes it, who cares. We've all done this to an extent at some point I'm sure. That's what the sport is all about! Find out what and why you like to ride and keep at it. That said, heavy DH runs on an XC bike with short travel qr forks will prove be a harrowing combination of frustration and danger I would imagine.

    A.

  21. #21
    locked - time out
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    759
    Quote Originally Posted by BuickGN
    You're an elitest idiot on so many levels. Now would be a good time to off yourself.

    I have 13" 4 piston brakes on my '06 TL. I have a 602rwhp street car. I don't use the brakes to their potential often and I rarely ever put my foot down in the 600hp car but it's there when I need/want it. If this is too hard of a concept to understand, I feel sorry for you.
    What kind of DH do you do?

    I feel sorry for you because you seem to think that everything from the automotive world applies directly to the mountain biking world. But that's cool. Meatheads still rule. Especially the ones with anger issues.

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation: One Pivot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    6,535
    Quote Originally Posted by BuickGN
    I used the rear brake much more than the front. Never had any problems with overheating
    so you're incorrectly braking, not overheating them anyway.. so you installed brakes so big they're not approved for your bike?

    this is just dumb. you're risking breaking you bike, for absolutely nothing. its not a style thing, or a subjective thing, you're putting parts that arent supposed to be used on your bike.

    the front brake gets your bike stopped. ive ran a 203 up front too, but i HAVE smoked the hell out of 160's. im back on 185's now and they've been pushed too hard on occasion.. and theres still a 160 in the back.

  23. #23
    locked - time out
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    759
    Your Entry Level MTB (Pics and Upgrades)

    There are some pics of the bike. Just another typical mtbr confused bike. What I've noticed is there seems to be a hierarchy amongst the beginners. Some are quite cool and look to take in as much info as possible, but then there are others that think if they register on an internet forum for mountain bikers, they are mountain bikers. They spend a short time hanging around, then they start giving (bad) advice to other noobs, and the newer n00bs don't know any better than to listen, then they turn around and do the same thing ashort time later. Some get aggressive and start dishing it out to people with more experience then them. It's quite interesting. They don't know how clueless they are, and lend themselves to our entertainment.

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    56
    I'm running Hayes Stroker Ace's with 203mm front & rear on my Cannondale Rize 4. Along with Mavic 819disc wheels. I've already gotten a few funny looks & WTF's from some other bikers but I don't give a rats ass what they think Normally I'm the guy flying past most people on trail on a set up weighing much more, costing half as much, & having just as much if not more fun. Why do so many people think their has to be a certain way to ride a bike? Just like all the crazy clothing? May sound a bit crazy but a pair of board shorts a T shirt & a pair of shoes do it for me. I get **** for that all the time to, but I'm out to enjoy myself not impress anyone else or live to their standard of how they think I should ride.

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,432
    Quote Originally Posted by XSL_WiLL
    Firex cranks are under 100 bucks, that's nowhere even close to "about half."

    Deore shifters sell for about 30 bucks. XT derailleurs maybe around 80 or 90. That is not about half either.

    Your Shimano pedals aren't that expensive either.

    Crossride WHEELS are about half, the rims are not.

    You're the one trying to make it seem like you've got the fancy bike.

    No belittling, just calling BS on your claims.
    LOL. Whatever makes you feel good about yourself. This is comedy.
    '08 Hardrock HRXC
    '09 Epic Comp
    '14 Trance SX -

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,432
    Quote Originally Posted by glitz
    What kind of DH do you do?

    I feel sorry for you because you seem to think that everything from the automotive world applies directly to the mountain biking world. But that's cool. Meatheads still rule. Especially the ones with anger issues.
    Aww, you're so sweet. You little guys are amusing.
    '08 Hardrock HRXC
    '09 Epic Comp
    '14 Trance SX -

  27. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,432
    Quote Originally Posted by One Pivot
    so you're incorrectly braking, not overheating them anyway.. so you installed brakes so big they're not approved for your bike?

    this is just dumb. you're risking breaking you bike, for absolutely nothing. its not a style thing, or a subjective thing, you're putting parts that arent supposed to be used on your bike.

    the front brake gets your bike stopped. ive ran a 203 up front too, but i HAVE smoked the hell out of 160's. im back on 185's now and they've been pushed too hard on occasion.. and theres still a 160 in the back.
    Nothing is going to break.

    No such thing as having too much brake.

    Overkill is good.
    '08 Hardrock HRXC
    '09 Epic Comp
    '14 Trance SX -

  28. #28
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,432
    Quote Originally Posted by JoeST765
    I'm running Hayes Stroker Ace's with 203mm front & rear on my Cannondale Rize 4. Along with Mavic 819disc wheels. I've already gotten a few funny looks & WTF's from some other bikers but I don't give a rats ass what they think Normally I'm the guy flying past most people on trail on a set up weighing much more, costing half as much, & having just as much if not more fun. Why do so many people think their has to be a certain way to ride a bike? Just like all the crazy clothing? May sound a bit crazy but a pair of board shorts a T shirt & a pair of shoes do it for me. I get **** for that all the time to, but I'm out to enjoy myself not impress anyone else or live to their standard of how they think I should ride.
    Yup. Just out there having a good time.

    I love modifying things and this has been a blast so far. Now I'm trying to get better at riding to determine if I should step up to a more expensive bike but this one is so much fun already.

    I don't let these guys bother me. There are many out there who have nothing better to do than try and make themselves feel better by putting others down. I have a life outside of this board and outside of mountain biking so the comments are pretty funny most of the time.
    '08 Hardrock HRXC
    '09 Epic Comp
    '14 Trance SX -

  29. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,432
    Quote Originally Posted by glitz
    Your Entry Level MTB (Pics and Upgrades)

    There are some pics of the bike. Just another typical mtbr confused bike. What I've noticed is there seems to be a hierarchy amongst the beginners. Some are quite cool and look to take in as much info as possible, but then there are others that think if they register on an internet forum for mountain bikers, they are mountain bikers. They spend a short time hanging around, then they start giving (bad) advice to other noobs, and the newer n00bs don't know any better than to listen, then they turn around and do the same thing ashort time later. Some get aggressive and start dishing it out to people with more experience then them. It's quite interesting. They don't know how clueless they are, and lend themselves to our entertainment.
    I am the greatest! You could learn a thing or two from me newb.
    '08 Hardrock HRXC
    '09 Epic Comp
    '14 Trance SX -

  30. #30
    locked - time out
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    759
    Teach us a few things you know about bikes.

  31. #31
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,432
    Quote Originally Posted by glitz
    Teach us a few things you know about bikes.
    There's just so much I don't know where to start!
    '08 Hardrock HRXC
    '09 Epic Comp
    '14 Trance SX -

  32. #32
    ~Disc~Golf~
    Reputation: highdelll's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    16,491
    Quote Originally Posted by BuickGN
    There's just so much I don't know where to start!
    how about fork bridges?
    Honestly... ahh I give up

  33. #33
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,432
    Quote Originally Posted by highdelll
    how about fork bridges?
    Way too easy.
    '08 Hardrock HRXC
    '09 Epic Comp
    '14 Trance SX -

  34. #34
    mtbr member
    Reputation: GrampBredo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    386
    Then what are they?
    This is silly.

  35. #35
    Dan
    Reputation: mhmacw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    72
    well i dont know anything about head clearence and turbos and all that but i do know a little about physics. you are right about never having too much brake. however YOU have-ing too much brake and your BRIDGE being too plastic are entirely different. i do hope you enjoy your ride as that is the ultimate point of cycling. please dont forget that sometimes an upgrade is not always adding parts you can see but also strenghtening areas that matter to the laws of physics not just your cool factor. lastly... please wear your helmet if your going to do any down hill. take care and enjoy the ride bro.

  36. #36
    ~Disc~Golf~
    Reputation: highdelll's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    16,491
    Quote Originally Posted by mhmacw
    ... YOU have-ing too much brake and your BRIDGE being too plastic are entirely different.
    AMEN brotha!
    Honestly... ahh I give up

  37. #37
    Dirt Deviant
    Reputation: savagemann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    3,693
    Quote Originally Posted by highdelll
    I know a guy who runs 559mm rotors front and rear.

    he's damn good lookin too
    So which bike is it you are running rim brakes on highdell?
    Look, whatever happens, don't fight the mountain.

  38. #38
    ~Disc~Golf~
    Reputation: highdelll's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    16,491
    Quote Originally Posted by savagemann
    So which bike is it you are running rim brakes on highdell?
    hehe - finally someone got it
    my '87 'Hopper (SSer) and the DB DJ (response)
    Honestly... ahh I give up

  39. #39
    Dirt Deviant
    Reputation: savagemann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    3,693
    Word!!!!
    Look, whatever happens, don't fight the mountain.

  40. #40
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,432
    All joking aside, I'm really liking the 203mm rear with some seat time. Modulation is better hands down. Same caliper, type of pad, and rotor. Maybe it's my 230lbs, I don't know but I wish I would've gone with the larger rotor a long time ago. It just feels better.

    Now hurry up and take this post out of context and tell me how dumb I am and how I think I have the baddest most expensive bike ever.
    '08 Hardrock HRXC
    '09 Epic Comp
    '14 Trance SX -

  41. #41
    mtbr member
    Reputation: SCdriver8's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    10
    Considering I'm new here, I have a feeling I'm gonna get flamed for what I'm going to say. However, like someone mentioned above, cycling is about having fun and enjoying what you're doing. BuickGN, dude I have the exact same idea as you, I've yet to buy a Hardrock, but once I do I plan to learn all about the parts and work on upgrades. Just like you I've decided to make it my project bike and yes definitely install 203's on them, as soon as the money comes in ...oh well the experience will help me learn more stuff before I buy a bike in the thousands $

  42. #42
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    3,331
    I've been riding 203's for 6years I guess without a issue, I had the front brake fail on a ride recently ( Girls pad failed so gave her mine as I can handle being a brake down better than her, not my brakes fault ) and even with 203's on the rear had it seriously over heating ( I was riding flat out down stuff LOL ) anything smaller would of let me down for sure.

    The weight saving going smaller is minimal and brakes are to me, not a place to save weight, actually I can't find anywhere on my bike to save weight strength all the way for me.

  43. #43
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,432
    Quote Originally Posted by SCdriver8
    Considering I'm new here, I have a feeling I'm gonna get flamed for what I'm going to say. However, like someone mentioned above, cycling is about having fun and enjoying what you're doing. BuickGN, dude I have the exact same idea as you, I've yet to buy a Hardrock, but once I do I plan to learn all about the parts and work on upgrades. Just like you I've decided to make it my project bike and yes definitely install 203's on them, as soon as the money comes in ...oh well the experience will help me learn more stuff before I buy a bike in the thousands $
    I agree. I bought a bunch of components. Some were a mistake, some were very good. Now I feel better about dropping a couple thousand for a bike. It's been very fun, so much that I'm in no hurry to buy a new bike. The other reason I started out small is I hadn't been on a bike in over 10 years 2 years ago. I figured if I didn't like it, I would still have a decent exercise bike but I wouldn't have a $3,000 bike sitting around unused.
    '08 Hardrock HRXC
    '09 Epic Comp
    '14 Trance SX -

  44. #44
    ~Disc~Golf~
    Reputation: highdelll's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    16,491
    Quote Originally Posted by BuickGN
    All joking aside,...
    I don't think some of us were joking in reference to the 203mm on a 'weaker' fork
    Honestly... ahh I give up

  45. #45
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    3,331
    I used 203's on a fork rated for 160's for awhile and nothing failed!!

    Worst case a fail causes a crash and well I crash frequently anyway so no big deal on the reason why.

  46. #46
    DB4L
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    133
    Quote Originally Posted by Turveyd
    I used 203's on a fork rated for 160's for awhile and nothing failed!!

    Worst case a fail causes a crash and well I crash frequently anyway so no big deal on the reason why.

    So it must work for everyone! Lets put a 203 on a 28mm stantioned fork guys! Then take it to whistler! lulz at the bigger must be better even if it breaks my frame attitude make sure to post pictures of the QR drop outs post failure. The laws of physics are not to be ignored.

  47. #47
    mtbr member
    Reputation: GrampBredo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    386
    Quote Originally Posted by Turveyd
    I used 203's on a fork rated for 160's for awhile and nothing failed!!

    Worst case a fail causes a crash and well I crash frequently anyway so no big deal on the reason why.
    Just because it didn't fail for you doesn't mean it won't for someone else.

    Hey, I drive a Toyota, and i've never gotten the accelerator stuck, so all those other people must be faking it.

    If it does fail, then you've just destroyed some expensive bike parts and taken an unnecessary fall.

  48. #48
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,432
    Quote Originally Posted by highdelll
    I don't think some of us were joking in reference to the 203mm on a 'weaker' fork
    My Revelation is rated for a 203. I don't understand what the deal is.

    I ran the 203 on the stock fork with no issues too.
    '08 Hardrock HRXC
    '09 Epic Comp
    '14 Trance SX -

  49. #49
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,432
    To some other posters in this thread, it would be more comfortable if you removed that stick from your ass.
    '08 Hardrock HRXC
    '09 Epic Comp
    '14 Trance SX -

  50. #50
    .
    Reputation: Kneescar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    493
    Quote Originally Posted by BuickGN
    To some other posters in this thread, it would be more comfortable if you removed that stick from your ass.
    You'll probably be removing one from yours when the great brake experiment fails you.

  51. #51
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,432
    Quote Originally Posted by Kneescar
    You'll probably be removing one from yours when the great brake experiment fails you.
    Please enlighten me as to what is going to fail??? Comedy at it's best.
    '08 Hardrock HRXC
    '09 Epic Comp
    '14 Trance SX -

  52. #52
    Dan
    Reputation: mhmacw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    72
    there are forces at work here that could be deadly. take it for what you will and listen to the suggestions and concerns or not. that choice is up to you. if you expect more from a braking system than it is capable of delivering something will break. most likely the bridge or a stantion. if you are sailing down a mountain at 45 mph and your fork explodes you will have just enough time to realise you should have listened before you hit the nearest tree or worse yet sail off a cliff. when changing rotor size you change the tortional diflection of the absorbed energy in the axel,rim, stantions,bridge.....you apply force in a manner not designed by the manufacturer. there is a very finite reason for maximum rotor handling specifications and that is to keep those forces within reason in relation to the capabilities of the materials and design of the fork. if the biggest downhill your bike sees is the cutout of your sidewalk to your driveway you will most likely be ok. if you do what most experienced riders call all mountain or downhill you will eventually break something. lets hope it isnt your head. i wish you the best of luck and hope you enjoy your ride as we all know how satisfying building something can be. just be sure to stay on top of the spec page as well. if you want a monolithic rotor get a monolithic fork. better safe than sorry eh?

  53. #53
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,432
    Quote Originally Posted by mhmacw
    there are forces at work here that could be deadly. take it for what you will and listen to the suggestions and concerns or not. that choice is up to you. if you expect more from a braking system than it is capable of delivering something will break. most likely the bridge or a stantion. if you are sailing down a mountain at 45 mph and your fork explodes you will have just enough time to realise you should have listened before you hit the nearest tree or worse yet sail off a cliff. when changing rotor size you change the tortional diflection of the absorbed energy in the axel,rim, stantions,bridge.....you apply force in a manner not designed by the manufacturer. there is a very finite reason for maximum rotor handling specifications and that is to keep those forces within reason in relation to the capabilities of the materials and design of the fork. if the biggest downhill your bike sees is the cutout of your sidewalk to your driveway you will most likely be ok. if you do what most experienced riders call all mountain or downhill you will eventually break something. lets hope it isnt your head. i wish you the best of luck and hope you enjoy your ride as we all know how satisfying building something can be. just be sure to stay on top of the spec page as well. if you want a monolithic rotor get a monolithic fork. better safe than sorry eh?
    I do have a Revelation fork rated for a 203mm rotor...

    Keep in mind my skill level, I've only been riding for 2 years and I consider myself average at best so I'm not doing any sort of insane jumps. My top speed is up there at times, I've hit 45mph on the downhill but it's on fire roads with nothing serious in the way of obstructions. All of the "messing around" is done at lower speeds. When I first upgraded the brakes I was still on the stock cheap fork and it flexed quite a bit. But no more than it did with the stock brakes at full power with the rear tire in the air. It was just easier to do with the larger brakes. I abused that setup when I first got it in my work parking lot, worse than I would do out on the trail just to see if it had a chance of holding up which it did.

    I don't recommend anyone else go out and throw a large rotor on a cheap fork unless they were careful. You can bet at higher speeds I did not go to maximum braking on the front unless it was an emergency which only happened once. I sort of "drove around" my handicap until I got the new fork.
    '08 Hardrock HRXC
    '09 Epic Comp
    '14 Trance SX -

  54. #54
    locked - time out
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    759
    45mph, eh?

  55. #55
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    3,331
    Anyone seen any forks fail due to, too large a rotor ?? I haven't, and not read about 1 on a forum either, you can't really use more power as your front wheel would lock so it just makes braking easier and improves the heat side of things.

    I've seen crashes happen for no real reason, front tyres get shredded and blow, even a front wheel that collapsed, accidents happen part of the game.

    Why people are so anti 203mm even when the forks are rated at 203mm I'll never understand, try it you likely won't go back to below!!

  56. #56
    Meh.
    Reputation: XSL_WiLL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    17,509
    Quote Originally Posted by Turveyd
    Anyone seen any forks fail due to, too large a rotor ?? I haven't, and not read about 1 on a forum either, you can't really use more power as your front wheel would lock so it just makes braking easier and improves the heat side of things.

    I've seen crashes happen for no real reason, front tyres get shredded and blow, even a front wheel that collapsed, accidents happen part of the game.

    Why people are so anti 203mm even when the forks are rated at 203mm I'll never understand, try it you likely won't go back to below!!
    Yes. Older Fox forks were known to crack at the dropout or disc tab when run with a 203mm rotor.

    Rockshox Dart is known to crack in the middle of the lower or at the dropout/tab when used with too large of a rotor.

    There are (or were) pictures of both on this forum.

  57. #57
    locked - time out
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    759
    Not only that, but some QR's have been known to wiggle loose under the greater torque and flexing induced by bigger brakes.

    It's ok. The OP apparently has been ruminating about brakes since he joined the forum, at least enough to give advice to others, so I will give him a free pass. He likely knows what he's talking about.

  58. #58
    AZ
    AZ is offline
    banned
    Reputation: AZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    19,201
    Quote Originally Posted by Turveyd
    Anyone seen any forks fail due to, too large a rotor ?? I haven't,


    I have , it's pretty ugly .

  59. #59
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    69
    Quote Originally Posted by glitz
    Not only that, but some QR's have been known to wiggle loose under the greater torque and flexing induced by bigger brakes.

    It's ok. The OP apparently has been ruminating about brakes since he joined the forum, at least enough to give advice to others, so I will give him a free pass. He likely knows what he's talking about.
    Smallers rotors loosens QR.
    As the rotors gets bigger the forces in the QR are lesser. Rim brakes have no QR loosening force.
    STFU and HTFU. - Fo, circa 2009

  60. #60
    ~Disc~Golf~
    Reputation: highdelll's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    16,491
    Quote Originally Posted by fcojavier
    Smallers rotors loosens QR.
    As the rotors gets bigger the forces in the QR are lesser. Rim brakes have no QR loosening force.
    that's some fuzzy logic right there buddy
    Honestly... ahh I give up

  61. #61
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,432
    Quote Originally Posted by fcojavier
    Smallers rotors loosens QR.
    As the rotors gets bigger the forces in the QR are lesser. Rim brakes have no QR loosening force.
    This is true but I chose to not say anything since everyone already knows everything around here.
    '08 Hardrock HRXC
    '09 Epic Comp
    '14 Trance SX -

  62. #62
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,432
    Quote Originally Posted by glitz
    Not only that, but some QR's have been known to wiggle loose under the greater torque and flexing induced by bigger brakes.

    It's ok. The OP apparently has been ruminating about brakes since he joined the forum, at least enough to give advice to others, so I will give him a free pass. He likely knows what he's talking about.
    You're dead wrong on the QR.

    Are you just stupid or do you not know how to read? I HAVE A ****ING REVELATION FORK RATED FOR A 203MM ROTOR.
    '08 Hardrock HRXC
    '09 Epic Comp
    '14 Trance SX -

  63. #63
    locked - time out
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    759
    Yes, you don't have to yell. You didn't get it for the performance, you got it only to hang huge brakes on, so the fork performance was only incidental (and mismatched to the frame).

  64. #64
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,432
    Quote Originally Posted by glitz
    You didn't get it for the performance, you got it only to hang huge brakes on, so the fork performance was only incidental ).
    WTF??? I hope you're being sarcastic.
    '08 Hardrock HRXC
    '09 Epic Comp
    '14 Trance SX -

  65. #65
    I am a pathetic rider...
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    644
    Quote Originally Posted by BuickGN
    ...I used the rear brake much more than the front...
    You are braking improperly, stop being a danger to yourself, and more importantly, others and our trails, and learn how to use your brakes. I don't care what kind of brakes you ride to compensate for whatever your compensating for, but at least grow a pair and get on that front brake. Its better for everybody.
    Save the Earth, Ride a Cyclist

  66. #66
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,432
    Quote Originally Posted by b4 stealth
    You are braking improperly, stop being a danger to yourself, and more importantly, others and our trails, and learn how to use your brakes. I don't care what kind of brakes you ride to compensate for whatever your compensating for, but at least grow a pair and get on that front brake. Its better for everybody.
    Another idiotic post. Grow a pair, huh? Ok, why don't you grow a pair and run a 203mm rotor on a fork rated for a 160 and take your helmet off while you're at it. "Growing a pair" makes about as much sense in either scenario. Where do you guys come from around here? This is the overall dumbest forum I've ever visited. The responses, assumptions, and blanket statements I get are so amusing, the co-workers now ask to read them for a good laugh.

    But in response to your assumption of how I ride:

    I've been riding a bunch of stuff where I'm going DH on very slippery surfaces off the seat with my ass over the rear tire and the rear at the point of lockup the whole way down. The front is only used when I'm picking up speed with the rear nearly locked.
    '08 Hardrock HRXC
    '09 Epic Comp
    '14 Trance SX -

  67. #67
    ~Disc~Golf~
    Reputation: highdelll's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    16,491
    Quote Originally Posted by BuickGN
    ... the rear at the point of lockup the whole way down. The front is only used when I'm picking up speed with the rear nearly locked.
    which is retarded
    Honestly... ahh I give up

  68. #68
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    69
    Quote Originally Posted by highdelll
    that's some fuzzy logic right there buddy
    Not really.
    Your big rotor (rim) has not QR loosening force.

    The maximum braking force is limited by the tire grip, not by the rotor diameter, so a shorter distance between the caliper and the QR puts more force in the QR.

    http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames...ase/index.html
    STFU and HTFU. - Fo, circa 2009

  69. #69
    I am a pathetic rider...
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    644
    Quote Originally Posted by BuickGN
    Another idiotic post. Grow a pair, huh? Ok, why don't you grow a pair and run a 203mm rotor on a fork rated for a 160 and take your helmet off while you're at it. "Growing a pair" makes about as much sense in either scenario. Where do you guys come from around here? This is the overall dumbest forum I've ever visited. The responses, assumptions, and blanket statements I get are so amusing, the co-workers now ask to read them for a good laugh.

    But in response to your assumption of how I ride:

    I've been riding a bunch of stuff where I'm going DH on very slippery surfaces off the seat with my ass over the rear tire and the rear at the point of lockup the whole way down. The front is only used when I'm picking up speed with the rear nearly locked.
    I say grow a pair b/c the #1 cause for lack of proper braking is people that are afraid of the front brake, and so go skidding around turns like a bunch of lunatics tearing up our trails and making more work and less/worse riding for the rest of us. If you are so confident of your steeps that require rear wheel braking only, show us some vid of you on your bike hitting the steeps and shut us all up. Or leave. Either way.
    Save the Earth, Ride a Cyclist

  70. #70
    Dirt Deviant
    Reputation: savagemann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    3,693
    Most of this thread is retarded in so many ways it is wrong.
    Lets all just install only rear brakes on our bikes.
    Nevermind if the frame is only rated for 160 or 185mm rotors, just install 203's and be done with it.
    Skid all the way down the trail, it's all good.
    If your frame or fork fails, who cares, just buy another one. It's not like you'll get hurt WHEN it fails.
    Tell the whole world, it doesn't matter what the manufacturer recomends, just go huge, it's all good.
    Come one, come all!!!!!!!!
    Look, whatever happens, don't fight the mountain.

  71. #71
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,432
    Quote Originally Posted by b4 stealth
    I say grow a pair b/c the #1 cause for lack of proper braking is people that are afraid of the front brake, and so go skidding around turns like a bunch of lunatics tearing up our trails and making more work and less/worse riding for the rest of us. If you are so confident of your steeps that require rear wheel braking only, show us some vid of you on your bike hitting the steeps and shut us all up. Or leave. Either way.
    It never ends lol.

    Who says I ride only on trails. Who says I'm skidding around turns. When I'm leaning back as far as possible so I don't go over the bars on terrain that's hard to stand still on, the rear brake is the only option. Going to the trouble of making a video for a bunch of no bodies, dream on.
    '08 Hardrock HRXC
    '09 Epic Comp
    '14 Trance SX -

  72. #72
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,432
    Quote Originally Posted by savagemann
    Most of this thread is retarded in so many ways it is wrong.
    Lets all just install only rear brakes on our bikes.
    Nevermind if the frame is only rated for 160 or 185mm rotors, just install 203's and be done with it.
    Skid all the way down the trail, it's all good.
    If your frame or fork fails, who cares, just buy another one. It's not like you'll get hurt WHEN it fails.
    Tell the whole world, it doesn't matter what the manufacturer recomends, just go huge, it's all good.
    Come one, come all!!!!!!!!
    And again, the lunacy continues.

    Yes, let's all install only rear brakes, retard. That's a great conclusion.

    I don't skid.

    The larger rotor does not put more stress on the frame.

    The fork is rated for a 203mm.

    Nothing has failed due to the brakes and nothing is going to fail due to the brakes.

    Anything else?
    '08 Hardrock HRXC
    '09 Epic Comp
    '14 Trance SX -

  73. #73
    locked - time out
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    759
    Quote Originally Posted by BuickGN
    Another idiotic post. Grow a pair, huh? Ok, why don't you grow a pair and run a 203mm rotor on a fork rated for a 160 and take your helmet off while you're at it. "Growing a pair" makes about as much sense in either scenario. Where do you guys come from around here? This is the overall dumbest forum I've ever visited. The responses, assumptions, and blanket statements I get are so amusing, the co-workers now ask to read them for a good laugh.

    But in response to your assumption of how I ride:

    I've been riding a bunch of stuff where I'm going DH on very slippery surfaces off the seat with my ass over the rear tire and the rear at the point of lockup the whole way down. The front is only used when I'm picking up speed with the rear nearly locked.
    Can you describe these "DH" sections?

  74. #74
    ~Disc~Golf~
    Reputation: highdelll's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    16,491
    Quote Originally Posted by fcojavier
    Not really.
    Your big rotor (rim) has not QR loosening force.

    The maximum braking force is limited by the tire grip, not by the rotor diameter, so a shorter distance between the caliper and the QR puts more force in the QR.

    http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames...ase/index.html
    dood, the rim brake and a disc brake are two COMPLETELY different animals when it comes to torque forces on the hub/axle/dropouts/spokes - etc.
    A larger moment arm (larger rotor) definitely has a greater effect on on the hub when it's attached to the hub.
    The forces go as follows:
    Disc: caliper - rotor - hub (axle and dropouts) - spokes - rim - tire - terra firma.
    Rim brake: Brake arms - rim - tire - terra firma.
    - No significant stress is applied to the hub/axle, drop-outs or fork lowers.

    Plus, a disc brake's torsion is loaded to one side of the axle, whereas there is no torsion to the wheel with a rim-brake.

    What about that is so hard to grasp?
    Honestly... ahh I give up

  75. #75
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    69
    Quote Originally Posted by highdelll
    dood, the rim brake and a disc brake are two COMPLETELY different animals when it comes to torque forces on the hub/axle/dropouts/spokes - etc.
    A larger moment arm (larger rotor) definitely has a greater effect on on the hub when it's attached to the hub.
    The forces go as follows:
    Disc: caliper - rotor - hub (axle and dropouts) - spokes - rim - tire - terra firma.
    Rim brake: Brake arms - rim - tire - terra firma.
    - No significant stress is applied to the hub/axle, drop-outs or fork lowers.

    Plus, a disc brake's torsion is loaded to one side of the axle, whereas there is no torsion to the wheel with a rim-brake.

    What about that is so hard to grasp?
    Hey, chaval

    Not for the same force.
    For stopping with a certain deceleration (avoiding OTB and sliding) you need a fixed force. And this force doesn´t know about your rotor size.
    If a smaller rotor can decelerate to this force, will put more stress in the QR/hub nterface due the smaller lever arm.
    STFU and HTFU. - Fo, circa 2009

  76. #76
    ~Disc~Golf~
    Reputation: highdelll's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    16,491
    Quote Originally Posted by fcojavier
    Hey, chaval

    Not for the same force.
    For stopping with a certain deceleration (avoiding OTB and sliding) you need a fixed force. And this force doesn´t know about your rotor size.
    If a smaller rotor can decelerate to this force, will put more stress in the QR/hub nterface due the smaller lever arm.

    I don't think you understand how leverage works
    Honestly... ahh I give up

  77. #77
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    69
    Quote Originally Posted by highdelll

    I don't think you understand how leverage works
    Ok, thanks for your interestˇ
    STFU and HTFU. - Fo, circa 2009

  78. #78
    Dan
    Reputation: mhmacw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    72
    Quote Originally Posted by fcojavier
    Hey, chaval

    Not for the same force.
    For stopping with a certain deceleration (avoiding OTB and sliding) you need a fixed force. And this force doesn´t know about your rotor size.
    If a smaller rotor can decelerate to this force, will put more stress in the QR/hub nterface due the smaller lever arm.

    im sorry sir but if it was just one post i would let it pass but i cannot let this erroneous information go unchecked. when a rotor is attached to a center line and force is applied to the rotor the torque on the centerline is increased at an exponentioal rate directly proportional to the distance from the center line the force is applied. for example... if you were to try to stop an 18 wheel truck with ugo brakes you would get far. hence the reason for larger diameter brake rotors(or drums) but do not forget the entire structure of the semi is strenghtened to absorb and dissipate the increased force. in other words the farther from the attachment point the more the leverage and the greater the force on the centerline(or axel/hub)


    this is effectively true to a point but i feel i must also say where the forces change direction so as not to invite confusion. the previous is design specific and the latter will describe situations that do not really apply too mtb in particular. when the rotor reaches exactly one half of the circumfrence of the wheel the force then lessens as the energy is then transferred to the closer contact point or the tire/terra marrige. the larger the rotor the greater the effect. at this point the axel is relieved and additional stresses are transferred to ground...only if the contact to the ground is secure. if the contact skids or slipps the regained marrige will deliver a cosine wave of tension to the opposing contact. or if you skid and then get traction it will torque your axel really hard lol. this is why the v brake is lighter and has a nearly the same stoping power under optimal conditions. the v brake is taking advantage of the relative distance from the centerline and gathering its leverage as close ot the outer diameter or closer to the contact marrage as possible. since the rotor is attached at the hub on a mtb the force will always travel tohrough the hub and therefore the increased force in directly routed to the centerline of the hub regardless or rotor diameter.
    Last edited by mhmacw; 04-06-2010 at 10:51 AM.

  79. #79
    ~Disc~Golf~
    Reputation: highdelll's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    16,491
    Quote Originally Posted by mhmacw
    im sorry sir but if it was just one post i would let it pass but i cannot let this erroneous information go unchecked. when a rotor is attached to a center line and force is applied to the rotor the torque on the centerline is increased at an exponentioal rate directly proportional to the distance from the center line the force is applied. for example... if you were to try to stop an 18 wheel truck with ugo brakes you would get far. hence the reason for larger diameter brake rotors(or drums) but do not forget the entire structure of the semi is strenghtened to absorb and dissipate the increased force. in other words the farther from the attachment point the more the leverage and the greater the force on the centerline(or axel/hub)
    THX
    Honestly... ahh I give up

  80. #80
    Dan
    Reputation: mhmacw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    72
    Quote Originally Posted by BuickGN
    I do have a Revelation fork rated for a 203mm rotor...

    Keep in mind my skill level, I've only been riding for 2 years and I consider myself average at best so I'm not doing any sort of insane jumps. My top speed is up there at times, I've hit 45mph on the downhill but it's on fire roads with nothing serious in the way of obstructions. All of the "messing around" is done at lower speeds. When I first upgraded the brakes I was still on the stock cheap fork and it flexed quite a bit. But no more than it did with the stock brakes at full power with the rear tire in the air. It was just easier to do with the larger brakes. I abused that setup when I first got it in my work parking lot, worse than I would do out on the trail just to see if it had a chance of holding up which it did.

    I don't recommend anyone else go out and throw a large rotor on a cheap fork unless they were careful. You can bet at higher speeds I did not go to maximum braking on the front unless it was an emergency which only happened once. I sort of "drove around" my handicap until I got the new fork.

    indeed. if the fork is designed and rated for it by all means. i like big brakes as well being near 300 lbs with water. ive seen the aftermath (like 10 seconds behind him)of a failed fork and believe me it aint pretty lol. just be safe is all im saying. its a hell of a lot easier to get chicks when you can walk across the room and say hi haha. its hard as hell to flag down a buddy to wheel you over to the cutie. besides its hard to get it on (either with her or the trails) in a full body cast. haha.

  81. #81
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    69

    I´m really bored, so....

    It´s about stopping a bike and rider.
    Your max stoping power will depend of the rider weight and tire grip, thus preventing sliding and OTB.
    If a small rotor gets you over the bars or sliding, you can not brake harder with a bigger one.

    So, this usable force is weight / tire dependant and is not afetected by brake system (rotor size or rim).

    This force multiplied for the wheel radius is the torque (related to the wheel) wich must reached by the brake system.

    A bigger rotor with longer leverage will need less grasping force in the caliper / rotor to reach this torque, while a smaller rotor will need more grasping power to compensate the shorter leverage.

    This is "pesky conclusion one":
    A bigger rotor (with a better leverage ratio) needs less braking power from the caliper to stop your bike.


    And nao the really tricky thing:

    As the caliper is attached to the forks an grasping the rotor, there is an opposite force (opposite to the tangencial grasping force of the caliper over the rotor) wich tries to release downwards the wheel and loosen the QR.

    So we have "pesky conclusion two":

    Smaller rotor needs more grasping force of the rotor and produces more releasing / loosening forces at the hub / QR.
    STFU and HTFU. - Fo, circa 2009

  82. #82
    Dan
    Reputation: mhmacw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    72
    the loosening you are referring to has to do with a fork designed to counter the angle and position of the caliper in relation to the axel. in fact if the rim was "dropped" in from the top instead of being put upinto the fork there would be no qr loosening discussion as that problem would(and has) been solved. the rotor size changes the mounting positon of the caliper in respect to the axel and trys to push the axel in a different direction. a direction that isnt safe guarded by lands in the axel receivers. aside from hot zone and cooling changes you are spot on about the forces required with bigger rotors. when ever you add an addapter to anything it scares the crap out of me and i immediately think? why not put the mounts in the 203 position instead of stretching all fulcrums? the smaller rotor does not have a greater force on the qr. it would be the larger rotor in that case as the same amount of power is applied to get the same reaction. the places its applied are changed by the distance from the centerline. there is no magic way to add larger rotors and somehow lessen the amount of force required to accomplish the same effect. if it took 500 newtons to stop you before it takes 500 newtons to stop you now. its just applied somewhere else. in the case of the larger diameter rotor its applied at the qr.

    we should go ride and discuss this eh? haha
    Last edited by mhmacw; 04-07-2010 at 04:18 PM.

  83. #83
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    3,331
    He's totally right on the smaller rotors do more well kinda, for every force there is a opposite force, basic physics, for a 160mm rotor you need to use more force at the pads to generate the same amount of braking force.

    Yes a 203mm can / will have a higher Max braking effort, but normally the ground conditions your on won't let you use more than a 160mm anyways before your front / rear wheel locks up.

  84. #84
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    12,083
    Well all that leverage crap aside...

    I went down Mauna Kea, with two 160 mm rotors, I hit the 17% grade at 75 kph, couldn't stop due to brake fade...

    By the time I finally got stopped Both front and rear were smoking badly....

    I got a 203mm up front now and on that day, I would have loved a 203mm out the back too.

    Cooked the front going down a 500 vertical foot hill at about 15%, had a 60 km/h headwind on that one.

  85. #85
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,432
    Quote Originally Posted by glitz
    Can you describe these "DH" sections?

    There is one in particular which is the side of a hill, not a trail. I don't know what the grade is but it's hard to stand up without slipping down. It's very hard packed with a light sand on top. With the rear brake on the verge of lockup and me hanging over the rear tire, I still have to use the front brake to adjust speed and even then sometimes all I can do is keep it from accelerating but I can't slow down. This hill has turned my 185 rotor blue, you would be surprised how much heat is generated with roughly 250lbs and a steady 10mph with the tire on the verge of lockup for 2-3 minutes.

    I know the next statement is to grow some balls and ride it out but at the bottom is a ravine and nowhere to go.

    There of course are the fire roads, 12-17% grade for nearly 30 miles but on those I use more front brake.
    '08 Hardrock HRXC
    '09 Epic Comp
    '14 Trance SX -

  86. #86
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,432
    For the leverage crap....

    I saw a statement on here from one of the fork manufacturers that the braking forces do not try and push the wheel out of the QR. I have a junk rotor and I'm tempted to install it and try a couple stops at a slow speed with the QR open.

    There are two things in action for breaking the fork/frame with the larger rotor.

    On one hand you're moving the caliper farther from the rotor centerline,

    On the other hand the caliper does not have to grab as hard for a given brake force so you're reducing overall load on the fork.

    IMO, it's a wash. The larger rotors make it easier to generate the higher braking forces so you might be more likely to do it and do it more often. On mine, the caliper on the 203mm is still tucked in close the fork just like the 160mm, it's just moved upward a little so if anything it seems like there would be less peak stress on the fork but the potential for more average stress.
    '08 Hardrock HRXC
    '09 Epic Comp
    '14 Trance SX -

  87. #87
    mtbr member
    Reputation: david8613's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,702
    i was reading this,arggghh! c'mon guys i dont think any of us started on a top of the line, bike! i remember the first time i went mountain biking on a raliegh hardtail with v brakes and an elastomer shock, no helmet, no gloves, no water, jeans, t shirt, we had nothing at all no even a patch kit lol! my bike wasnt even the right size for me, too small, i was busting my ass alll over the place, we had a ball and that was back in 1998, those were the good old days. that day my best friend was on a kmart special and had more fun than me, hucking stuff all over the place, he was an old bmx'er. bikers who saw us that day gave us funny looks and thought we were nuts! now i ride a niner wfo 9 with hammerschmidt and all the goodies! anyway my point is this, have fun dude, your not a pro, i think you will be ok if you dont go too crazy, and when your ready to upgrade your frame and you will no doubt, you have the parts to go with it. ps just make sure you wear protective gear, helmet, pads and stuff. enjoy it bro...

  88. #88
    Dirt Deviant
    Reputation: savagemann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    3,693
    Quote Originally Posted by BuickGN

    The larger rotor does not put more stress on the frame.

    I beg to differ.
    If you only understood the forces that are applied to a bike frame/fork when the brakes are applied, you wouldn't be posting half the stuff you did in this thread.

    I'm all for big brakes, I'm a big guy too and run 203F and 185R because I need it, much like yourself. But if your frame isn't rated for 203 rotors by the manufacturer, there as a reason for it.
    It isn't just because of clearance issues.

    My whole point, and most others here, is stay within the manufacturers recomendations.

    Running a 203 on a dart is crazy, even if you only did it for a little while, and were "careful" it is just crazy.
    Look, whatever happens, don't fight the mountain.

  89. #89
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    18
    Quote Originally Posted by david8613
    i was reading this,arggghh! c'mon guys i dont think any of us started on a top of the line, bike! i remember the first time i went mountain biking on a raliegh hardtail with v brakes and an elastomer shock, no helmet, no gloves, no water, jeans, t shirt, we had nothing at all no even a patch kit lol! my bike wasnt even the right size for me, too small, i was busting my ass alll over the place, we had a ball and that was back in 1998, those were the good old days. that day my best friend was on a kmart special and had more fun than me, hucking stuff all over the place, he was an old bmx'er. bikers who saw us that day gave us funny looks and thought we were nuts! now i ride a niner wfo 9 with hammerschmidt and all the goodies! anyway my point is this, have fun dude, your not a pro, i think you will be ok if you dont go too crazy, and when your ready to upgrade your frame and you will no doubt, you have the parts to go with it. ps just make sure you wear protective gear, helmet, pads and stuff. enjoy it bro...
    what he said. more than one person taking themselves entirely too seriously in this thread

  90. #90
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    69
    Quote Originally Posted by jeffscott
    Well all that leverage crap aside...

    I went down Mauna Kea, with two 160 mm rotors, I hit the 17% grade at 75 kph, couldn't stop due to brake fade...

    By the time I finally got stopped Both front and rear were smoking badly....

    I got a 203mm up front now and on that day, I would have loved a 203mm out the back too.

    Cooked the front going down a 500 vertical foot hill at about 15%, had a 60 km/h headwind on that one.
    That´s a good reason to use bigger rotors, as I do.
    And to have an easy feeling on the levers with one finger if you are on the heavy side.
    STFU and HTFU. - Fo, circa 2009

  91. #91
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,432
    Quote Originally Posted by savagemann
    I beg to differ.
    If you only understood the forces that are applied to a bike frame/fork when the brakes are applied, you wouldn't be posting half the stuff you did in this thread.

    I'm all for big brakes, I'm a big guy too and run 203F and 185R because I need it, much like yourself. But if your frame isn't rated for 203 rotors by the manufacturer, there as a reason for it.
    It isn't just because of clearance issues.

    My whole point, and most others here, is stay within the manufacturers recomendations.

    Running a 203 on a dart is crazy, even if you only did it for a little while, and were "careful" it is just crazy.
    I wish it came with a dart. It was cheaper than that.

    Please explain the forces. Sure, things change as you move the caliper outward away from the centerline but clamping force is required is also lessened. I'm open to ideas.
    '08 Hardrock HRXC
    '09 Epic Comp
    '14 Trance SX -

  92. #92
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,432
    Quote Originally Posted by fcojavier
    That´s a good reason to use bigger rotors, as I do.
    And to have an easy feeling on the levers with one finger if you are on the heavy side.
    I was interesting to watch my 160lb father ride my bike. I warned him the brakes were pretty powerful. He has a road bike and had never ridden a bike with disks.

    So even with the warning he nearly put himself over the bars the first time. The same brakes which have so much modulation for me are on/off for him.
    '08 Hardrock HRXC
    '09 Epic Comp
    '14 Trance SX -

  93. #93
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    3,331
    Strange all the worry about breaking the fork mounts which is about all that will happen from the bigger rotors but no ones concerned about being unable to brake in time to stop from going under a lorry or going off a cliff face.

    i rode a nice bit of single track, first time didn't realise it went to a view point with a 200ft+ cliff face, I stopped with 2inches spare before my front wheel went over the cliff, if I had a 160mm rotor on the front rather than a 203mm I wouldn't of been able to stop simple as, I'd be dead!!

  94. #94
    I am a pathetic rider...
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    644
    Quote Originally Posted by Turveyd
    Strange all the worry about breaking the fork mounts which is about all that will happen from the bigger rotors but no ones concerned about being unable to brake in time to stop from going under a lorry or going off a cliff face.

    i rode a nice bit of single track, first time didn't realise it went to a view point with a 200ft+ cliff face, I stopped with 2inches spare before my front wheel went over the cliff, if I had a 160mm rotor on the front rather than a 203mm I wouldn't of been able to stop simple as, I'd be dead!!
    I thougth we had already established the max braking force is max braking force, regardless of how it is acheived. Way to be new to the thread dude.
    Save the Earth, Ride a Cyclist

  95. #95
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    3,331
    We also established given the right ground conditions, 160's with my 240lb's on it can't get anywhere near Max braking force atleast not for long before my hands get worn out.

    My stopping distance drops hugely from 160's to 203's and 160's just over heat even on mild descents and become suicidal.

  96. #96
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    248
    Quote Originally Posted by BuickGN
    Nothing is going to break.

    No such thing as having too much brake.

    Overkill is good.
    I AGREE! No such thing as having too much brake or too much suspension. I run 203mm rotors on my hardrock too, but I also run a boxxer fork with 200mm of travel. Why run 100mm or so when you can have DOUBLE that?? Try out the boxxer fork, you will be so impressed You might not always need the 200mm travel, but its nice to know its there for when you do. People told me the geometry would be off, blah blah the headtube will break blah blah, but over 500 miles on gravel trails later, not one problem!

    Don't listen to the guys in this thread.

  97. #97
    Dan
    Reputation: mhmacw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    72
    ok haskell... your on it man. ill be sure to take your advise if you take mine; be sure to post pics of you and your bike lying on the ground in a pile of pieces haha. just because the drunk doesnt wreck his car every time doesnt mean it wont eventually happen. good luck with to overfork. not something id do but to each his own. over brake is one thing but over fork and brake is in my opinion a recipy for disaster. enjoy and be safe.

  98. #98
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    248
    Quote Originally Posted by mhmacw
    ok haskell... your on it man. ill be sure to take your advise if you take mine; be sure to post pics of you and your bike lying on the ground in a pile of pieces haha. just because the drunk doesnt wreck his car every time doesnt mean it wont eventually happen. good luck with to overfork. not something id do but to each his own. over brake is one thing but over fork and brake is in my opinion a recipy for disaster. enjoy and be safe.
    Yeah I was worried about the boxxer breaking on the hardrock, so I swapped it out for a Marzocchi Super Monster (300mm of travel !!! yeahh). The bike is sickkk now.



    I swapped the boxxer onto my backup huffy for now.

  99. #99
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    12,083
    Quote Originally Posted by mhmacw
    ok haskell... your on it man. ill be sure to take your advise if you take mine; be sure to post pics of you and your bike lying on the ground in a pile of pieces haha. just because the drunk doesnt wreck his car every time doesnt mean it wont eventually happen. good luck with to overfork. not something id do but to each his own. over brake is one thing but over fork and brake is in my opinion a recipy for disaster.Get a Grip Dufus enjoy and be safe.

    Look life is a lot simpler than you think...

    If your bike can do a stopee, then it can take max braking force...

    Any more and the front wheel skids out....Same goes for the rear...

    Nope the force on the fork mounts is dependant on the braking torque and that is limited by traction or endo's...

    Big rotors are all about preventing brake fade.

  100. #100
    Dan
    Reputation: mhmacw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    72
    if by this entire thread anyone is suggesting someone else disregard the manufacturers specifications i say the person suggesting it is a few bricks short of a ful load.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Members who have read this thread: 0

Posting Permissions

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