I read an article that said disc brakes were banned from UCI CX races....Anyone have any ideas why?
Not any more stupid than actually running discs on a CX bike. Honestly, I don't think they should outlaw discs but I still can't figure out why anyone would want them. Makes no sense.Originally posted by D_D
http://www.velonews.com/tech/report/articles/5149.0.html
Arn't the UCI stupidly traditional?
Don't they ban non traditonal frames from their events as well?
It all appears a bit stupid to me.
MudOriginally posted by JRogers
Not any more stupid than actually running discs on a CX bike. Honestly, I don't think they should outlaw discs but I still can't figure out why anyone would want them. Makes no sense.
Traditional CX brakes are more than enough. Plus, the stopping power is greater than the tires can handle. I can lock up my wheels with Avid cantis/ultegra levers no problem, mud or nor mud. CX racing is about minimalism- not tools, no bottles etc. Who would want disc brakes? I've never been in a situation that needed more stopping power than I had readily available.Originally posted by Westy
Mud
Why not? what pray-tell is the similarity between XC and CX?Originally posted by oldfart
In light of the fact that UCI allow disc brakes for XC mountainbike events, it makes no sense to also ban them from cross. It might be a case where no one has submitted disc brakes for aproval.
CX courses are rougherOriginally posted by SuspectDevice
Why not? what pray-tell is the similarity between XC and CX?
It's like saying they don't allow brakes on track bikes so brakes should be forbidden on road bikes.
Well lets see. Well they both involve racing two wheeled bicycles as fast as possible over rough ground, trails, some pavement at the same time as other guys are racing. Both require that the bike be controlled by steering pedaling and braking. Actually, the races are very similar except for duration. Although most mountainbike courses are rougher with longer faster downhills which would make a cross bike a disadvantage. Some cross courses in dry conditions would make the heavier discs a small disadvantage, but not much. If its wet an muddy, discs might provide braking which works so much better than any rim brake as to offer a winning advantage. One crash as the result of a poorly functioning brake can be the difference.Originally posted by SuspectDevice
Why not? what pray-tell is the similarity between XC and CX?
It's like saying they don't allow brakes on track bikes so brakes should be forbidden on road bikes.
Back on topic, then why prohibit them?Originally posted by SuspectDevice
So in summation anyone who uses disc brakes in an cyclocross race is stupid, and is hindering their own perfromance.
because they are stupid.Originally posted by wooglin
Back on topic, then why prohibit them?
An extra pound is going to add at least 5-8 seconds over the course of a one hour race. That is often the difference between first and 5th place... that is very significant.Originally posted by oldfart
You think disc brakes on a cross bike are stupid just because of the weight? Might be a pound heavier for the pair. How much will that actually slow a person down? I suspect not too much. If a serius cross racers has 3 bikes, and a crew to help change bikes and wheels, wheel changes are not a factor.
It is a different game than XC, no disagreement there. We're only talking brakes here. I don't get the vehement animosty.
seems to me like your going about it all wrong...Originally posted by SuspectDevice
An extra pound is going to add at least 5-8 seconds over the course of a one hour race. That is often the difference between first and 5th place... that is very significant.
I am rightously pissed about clueless product managers designing bikes that outright suck and foisting them upon newbee consumers.
Next years trend will be carbon rear trainangles that are heavier than aluminum, and then what, a suspension seatpost? all this useless crap does not belong on a race bike.
It's almost as valid as me pointing out that no major pro has used discs that I can recall.Originally posted by gofstdh
I have a teammate that is racing the Giant in the mens B class with disc brakes and he is kicking my ars and alot of others as well. He was third overall in the seattle series, he missed the last race so he dropped a little.
But I am slow though so maybe this is not a good example?
To keep cross bikes different from mtb'sOriginally posted by PsychO!1
"They are stupid"
"They are too heavy"
"I don't like them".....
Are all geat reasons for choosing not to run disc brakes on a CX bike.
How about a good reason to BAN them???
There are 3 swiss under 23's on optimo cross frames,Originally posted by JRogers
It's almost as valid as me pointing out that no major pro has used discs that I can recall.
Originally posted by gofstdh
You know they use to say no Pro XC ride would ever race a full suspension bike. And didn't Filip Meirhaeghe finsh off the season by taking the final World Cup XC on his S-Works Epic bike that helped him earn the rainbow jersey. Interesting how things change as tech. gets better. Disc brakes are only going to get lighter and better. :devil:
As someone who has recieved stitches as a result of avid rotor i can attest to the fact that they can do damage... No one has yet been injured by a rotor (cuz 8 people in the world ride discs), but i think the "injury risk" propositon is from Cyclocrossworld.comOriginally posted by WillRidesRigid
I had read it was because the discs had a possibility of cutting you when you where hopping barriers. Wish I could remember where I read it...
there's a # of possibilities, that being one of em. i'm w/ suspect on this, disc's don't make a whole lot of sense on a CX bike for numerous reasons. the main one being that your wheel is going to start skidding all over the place before your brake even reaches near it's max braking potential.Originally posted by WillRidesRigid
I had read it was because the discs had a possibility of cutting you when you where hopping barriers. Wish I could remember where I read it...
That's my main issue with the whole thing. Cantis have more power than I need if adjusted correctly. The tires don't have enough grip to necessitate anything more.Originally posted by indieboy
there's a # of possibilities, that being one of em. i'm w/ suspect on this, disc's don't make a whole lot of sense on a CX bike for numerous reasons. the main one being that your wheel is going to start skidding all over the place before your brake even reaches near it's max braking potential.
No I don't think so. He was quoted as saying he chose the Epic for the Worlds because he thought the course made full suspension an advantage. I'm pretty sure he has the option to use one or the other. He used his hardtail at most of the other events too. Most of the top guys do get the option to use fs or ht. Cannondale might be an exception. I think they have to ride the Scalpel.Originally posted by indieboy
he won on that bike b/c he has to ride that bike according to his contract.......
The "nature of the sport"?! Puh-lease! Uhhh...when you squeeze them, you slow down, right? It takes kinetic energy and turns it to heat. It is not like it is a regenerative braking system or something!Originally posted by oldfart
They have a reply from UCI on the Velonews website. They seem to be saying disc brakes change the nature of the sport and besides no one has applied to have disc brakes aproved for use.
Exactly! that is the difference in the "nature of the sport".Originally posted by rockracing
been thinking about this, so MTB gets discs but you get disqualified for a mate passing you his tire lever, but CX, has no discs, but can get a complete bike change per lap ??