[boostindoubles]

I stopped by the burger place for a cheeseburger - apparently no mayo means only mayo. Lol wtf

Not gonna lie it was still tasty. Like a meaty grilled cheese sandwich with mayo.

 

[iRider]

I was only half joking. Outside of some cross country frames and forks, all modern MTB is moving to 180 rotor minimum, but I don't think that's gonna last for xc. For instance, only the fox 32 and 34 step cast can take a 160 rotor anymore (regular 34 is 180 min). The current gen Sid is 180 min.

Too bad. It is easy to add an adaptor, but not possible to go down from 180 AFAIK. Unless...

 

[CBJ]

160 rotors have been delegated to the realm of road bikes.

Make sure your calipers can handle thicker rotors (clearance from pad retraction). Thicker rotors don't increase power, they handle heat better and therefore help reduce fade.

Honest opinion - G2s suck.

Denmark is very flat with short down hills (max 1 min), bike is light and I am skinny. G2 have been okay for me and the modulation/feel have been nice. I just checked the specs on the old bike and it says 160 rear and 180 front. So I guess what I was looking at yesterday was doing 180 rear and 200 front. This was all not really planned and I only started thinking about more power as the new frame has more space for bigger rotor. And more power will make it easier to manage the bike while breaking.

 

[jonKranked]

Too bad. It is easy to add an adaptor, but not possible to go down from 180 AFAIK. Unless...

There's no actual benefits to running 160 over 180. Larger rotors give better braking performance. Any weight gain of a 180 rotor over 160 is negated by not needing an adapter.

 

[jonKranked]

Denmark is very flat with short down hills (max 1 min), bike is light and I am skinny. G2 have been okay for me and the modulation/feel have been nice. I just checked the specs on the old bike and it says 160 rear and 180 front. So I guess what I was looking at yesterday was doing 180 rear and 200 front. This was all not really planned and I only started thinking about more power as the new frame has more space for bigger rotor. And more power will make it easier to manage the bike while breaking.

That's exactly the idea with larger rotors. Plus better heat management. Hell, I put 203 rotors on my trail bike front and rear, I actually really like it.

 

[iRider]

There's no actual benefits to running 160 over 180. Larger rotors give better braking performance. Any weight gain of a 180 rotor over 160 is negated by not needing an adapter.

One a 160 fork you do not need an adaptor to mount a 160 rotor.
Rotor weights are rotating weights.

 

[iRider]

Hell, I put 203 rotors on my trail bike front and rear, I actually really like it.

Not everybody has the same body weight and not everybody is riding clown wheels. While I do not deny that people need that option, I just think it is BS that the industry is eliminating another option that also some people need.

 

[johnbryanpeters]

One a 160 fork you do not need an adaptor to mount a 160 rotor.
Rotor weights are rotating weights.

Yes, it's rotating weight, and it's negligible.

 

[iRider]

Yes, it's rotating weight, and it's negligible.