# Discs or V Brakes?



## SilverSurfer (17 Feb 2009)

Can't decide whther to go for hydraulic discs or just plump for good, ol fashioned V brakes.

I had a bike with hydraulic discs and initially thought they were great. Then I realised that they would need to be serviced at some point and I realised that I didn't kow how to do that. Bleeding brake fluid and changing pads seems like car servicing to me.

So I'm starting to think that for my type of riding (cross country trails, nothing technical) that Vs would be a more sensible choice.

The only downside that I can see to Vs is that they will wear through more rims - is this the only consideration?


----------



## Tim Bennet. (17 Feb 2009)

Disks are better in every way on a mtb except the slight weight penalty. Hope disks are pretty much fit and forget. I think I've changed the fluid once in 5 years and the pads are much simpler to replace than V-brake pads. Don't dismiss them on the grounds of complexity or difficulty.

Initial cost is obviously higher, but a couple of rim changes with V brakes soon equalises the cost up over time.


----------



## RedBike (17 Feb 2009)

The only trouble with v-brakes is in the wet/ muddy conditions you could well end up getting through a set of pads a ride. (They also loose performance in the wet). Changing the pads on a good set of disc brakes is probably easier than changing v-brake cartridges and you don't have to do it anywhere near as often. 

Servicing / bleeding disc brakes can be a bit more complex. luckily every bleed kit i've ever used has come with nice and clear instructions so that even an idiot like me can follow them! Saying that your brakes probably wont want servicing more than once a year and it's not mega expensive to have a shop do it. £10/£20. 

If you're riding in muddy conditions then go for the discs. If not, save yourself some money and fit some top notch Vs


----------



## e-rider (17 Feb 2009)

I've been cycling for many years (both mtb and road) and I've only ever worn though one set of rims and that was with 12 years of heavy use.

Wearing your rims out with Vs isn't really much of an issue in my experience - maybe riding with worn-out pads might speed things up though!

Anyway, I'd say Disc brakes offer many advantages over V brakes. Although, there is nothing wrong with V brakes either. 

You need to look at your riding and assess your requirements. Do you need the power of discs? Do you need the simplicity of Vs? Are you on a tight budget? Weight savings? Home mechanic or LBS? etc.


----------



## RedBike (17 Feb 2009)

Forgot to add, there's no way I would want to switch back to V's having got used to discs!


----------



## e-rider (17 Feb 2009)

and most decent factory built wheels are 'disc only' these days - although I've changed my mind about factory built wheels and have gone back to buying custom built instead (built by myself that is!) - far cheaper and easier to source replacement spokes and generally much more reliable.


----------



## e-rider (17 Feb 2009)

I tend to build wheels with say a Mavic 719 rim with a braking surface on a Shimano XT disc hub, this gives me the option of running either discs or Vs and enables me to swap the wheel between different bikes.


----------



## User482 (17 Feb 2009)

Once you've ridden off-road with discs, you'll never want to go back to V-brakes!


----------



## mickle (17 Feb 2009)

I had Hope discs and went back to V's. Discs weigh a ton, get bashed and warped. V's (on ceramic faced rims if concerned about rim wear) are perfectly adequate for most off-road folk. 

Maybe I don't keep my bikes long enough but I've never worn out a rim.


----------



## SilverSurfer (17 Feb 2009)

I'm tending to side with the Vs I'm afraid!

I can see how discs could be useful in the right hands, but I'm all for simplicity, lightness and ease of maintenance. When I had a GT Karakoram (bought in 1994) the rims lasted until 2003 - I'm hoping I'll ride any new purchase more than that one but you get the idea.

And I'm looking at a GT Avalanche 1.0 which is £80 cheaper in V form!


----------



## summerdays (17 Feb 2009)

I like my disk brakes (apart from the squeak), but they stop me far quicker especially in the wet downhill. Also the bike is far less mucky ... with out all that grey sludge that is produced by the V-brakes. And I wore out a rim in just over a year with V's (OK my cleaning wasn't that great to start with) and don't have to replace the brake pads every 3 months.


----------



## 02GF74 (17 Feb 2009)

I am in the disc brake camp for all the reasons mentioned below.

I have worn at least 6 rims out. I have also had bake pads wearing out on one ride due cycling in mud resulting in me grabbing onto trees when going downhill in an attempt to stop - not recommended.

bleeding is a no brainer, on shimano that is, a tube a small bottle and 8 mm spanner, easy peasy. 

not so clever on magura marta brakes which do not have a bleed screw fitted.


----------



## SilverSurfer (17 Feb 2009)

Yes I had Avids on a hybrid and they were binding all the time.

Thought about setting them up but took one look and decided to flog the bike. Ok, there were other factors in the sale. 

So I feel that I'm siding with the 'less faff' camp. Can't see me going through many rims, I just don't ride enough (got a roady and a fixie to get my leg over in limited time).


----------



## GilesM (17 Feb 2009)

User482 said:


> Once you've ridden off-road with discs, you'll never want to go back to V-brakes!



I agree, take a trip to any busy trail centre at the weekend, very few people using V-brakes. I certainly wouldn't even consider riding Vs now, the stopping power of a good set of discs is amazing, and the control you have to modulate the brakes with just one or two fingers on the lever is incredible.


----------



## Cubist (17 Feb 2009)

Cube do two versions of my bike, one with hydraulic discs (Hayes Stroker Ryde) and the other with hydraulic rim-brakes. Apparently those German riders love them. 
Disc brakes are, IMHO the only option if you're riding in wet or muddy conditions.


----------



## 02GF74 (18 Feb 2009)

Cubist said:


> Disc brakes are, IMHO the only option if you're riding in wet or muddy conditions.




In other words, if you live in UK.


----------



## barq (18 Feb 2009)

Interesting how polarised people are on the matter of rim wear. I think we are all in the UK, so for argument's sake let us assume we all ride in the mud.  I get the impression some people use their brakes much more than others which perhaps accounts for the difference. People's definitions of when a rim is worn out are also quite variable.

I generally prefer disc brakes, but well adjusted V brakes aren't a bad choice. I'd rather them than cheap/nasty discs.


----------



## Lion (18 Feb 2009)

I prefer V brakes just for the simplicity, its odd that its been mentioned that discs are better in wet and muddy conditions as my last mtb that had them i was forever cleaning them in order for them to work if i went through the woods, id often find a bit of twig lodged in the caliper, but it was a cheap setup.
Ive never had any problems with rim wear though.


----------



## SilverSurfer (18 Feb 2009)

There is the point I think. The Avalanche has some sort of Tektro and my hybrid had Avids - most people seem to rate Hopes. 

I think unless you are spending mega bucks you would be better off with good quality Vs.


----------



## Tim Bennet. (18 Feb 2009)

It's a separate debate as to where the price point might be before you begin to see the benefits of disks brakes, but given a decent quality of both, disks win hands down on everything except a slight weight penalty. Even the complexity issue is a bit of a red herring; hydraulics are pretty simple in both theory and practise, but their reliability means they are virtually fit and forget. 

I'm sorry, but those who don't suffer rim wear need to get out more. If you ride off road at least three times a week in the Dales and Lakes year round, you are hard pushed to have any rim last a year. V-brake pads can vanish within one ride in gritstone country and Dartmoor and the Cairngorms in the wet can see the granite paste in their mud do horrible things to a rim in a weekend.

Switching V's for disks in that scenario, is the switch from constant fiddling and adjusting whilst keeping V's at their best, to very infrequent, but perhaps more involved servicing of hydraulic disks. You pays your money and takes your choice.


----------



## globalfish (19 Feb 2009)

If you really can't bleed brakes, then maybe 24 gears are out of your league too! 
Ha ha, just kiddin'!
I switched to hydraulic when cable operated discs failed to stop me in time at speeds over 30mph. I wouldn't consider anything other than hydraulic discs for the conditions, and places i ride in. V-brakes & cable discs just don't do the business.


----------



## e-rider (20 Feb 2009)

It's a fair point that it really depends on the trail conditions and discs are often the only real choice in more 'extreme' winter conditions.

However, Vs work for me and I've never felt the need to upgrade. I do however, always buy disc ready hubs and make sure there's a disc mount on new forks just in case I change my mind!


----------



## SilverSurfer (20 Feb 2009)

Of course. The Avalanche has disc mounts all round I think so that I can upgrade at a later date if I wish


----------



## col (20 Feb 2009)

Iv never had a rim wear problem with blocks, and dont get what the difference would be other than slightly easier to pull the levers.Well set up blocks do the same job dont they, the wheel will lock up at the same point of braking with both.And one finger braking with blocks is just as easy.


----------



## GilesM (20 Feb 2009)

col said:


> Iv never had a rim wear problem with blocks, and dont get what the difference would be other than slightly easier to pull the levers.Well set up blocks do the same job dont they, the wheel will lock up at the same point of braking with both.And one finger braking with blocks is just as easy.



Try a bike with good quality well set up hydraulic disc brakes, and try it on some good descents, you'll soon see the benefit.


----------



## col (20 Feb 2009)

GilesM said:


> Try a bike with good quality well set up hydraulic disc brakes, and try it on some good descents, you'll soon see the benefit.




Im not pulling disks down, and I dont doubt a good set is going to show a difference in some way, but the extra price for how much difference, is it really worth it when blocks can stop you as quick ?


----------



## mickle (20 Feb 2009)

col said:


> Im not pulling disks down, and I dont doubt a good set is going to show a difference in some way, but the extra price for how much difference, is it really worth it when blocks can stop you as quick ?


But they don't col, that's the thing. I happen to like light, short-travel hard tails. Even a set of the finest linear-pull brakes on ceramic rims can't haul you up as quick as a middle of the range disc such as Giant's MPH. But then a short travel HT isn't going to be coming off the mountain with the same urgency as a long travel bike. It's horses for courses. 

I think my next mountain bike will have discs though.


----------



## jpembroke (9 Mar 2009)

Don't know if anyone's already suggested this but if you are put off by hydraulic disks have you considered mechanical disks? To be honest there is only one worth getting really - the Avid BB7 - but it's an awesome brake. They only cost about £40 each, are very powerful, easy to fit, highly adjustable (pads can be dialed in and out by hand), and can be used with existing v-brake levers. They are also highly rated - worth checking out the reviews (see below) on CRC (5 out of 5) or mtbreview.com (where they get 4.64/5 after nearly 700 reviews!!!). I use them on my On One Inbred and have been very very impressed with them.

http://www.mtbr.com/cat/brakes/disc...ll-bearing-disc-brake/PRD_350666_1507crx.aspx

http://www.chainreactioncycles.com/Models.aspx?ModelID=31347


----------



## wyno70 (9 Mar 2009)

For me it's disks every time. Only changed my bike 8 months ago, had V's on the old one and can remember numerous rides where I had to stop and 'declag' all the mud and crap that had collected round the V brakes, so much so that on a couple of occasions the wheels simply siezed!!

Other than that, stopping power is many times better with the disks, which given some of the downhills I regularly go down, is important to me!!!

I certainly wouldn't consider going back to V's at any time in the future!


----------



## MadoneRider1991 (9 Mar 2009)

SilverSurfer said:


> Can't decide whther to go for hydraulic discs or just plump for good, ol fashioned V brakes.
> 
> I had a bike with hydraulic discs and initially thought they were great. Then I realised that they would need to be serviced at some point and I realised that I didn't kow how to do that. Bleeding brake fluid and changing pads seems like car servicing to me.
> 
> ...



V-brakes seem fine for me and i do alot of cycling off road


----------



## 02GF74 (10 Mar 2009)

MadoneRider1991 said:
 

> V-brakes seem fine for me and i do alot of cycling off road



ahve you tried hydraulic disc brakes? I reckon they will be finer.


----------



## JonGW (11 Mar 2009)

Only get discs if you feel you need them, Obviously, Disc brakes are 100 times better, but if you just potter around on bridleways, It's not really worth spending loads on a set of disc brakes, when you can get away with v-brakes.


----------



## spence (12 Mar 2009)

Pottering around on bridleways, especially around here at the moment is exactly one reason to have discs. Not for there improved stopping etc, but the fact not having V's helps with the mud clearance and keeping the wheels rotating. And for working when you do need them.


----------



## Mr Pig (22 Mar 2009)

Four of us were out on Saturday morning and some of what we rode through could only be described as filth. At one point one of the guys with rim brakes, a guy who'd never been with us before, said that coming down a hill his brakes had not worked. Basically his wheels were covered in mud and his brakes just slid. 

So buy disks? Naa. He lived. Just had to pull harder. If I had a good bike with rim brakes I would not bother fitting disks. All of this extra kit ads weight and lightness is a great thing to have on a bike. Disks might have their advantages but they have down sides too. If they come on a bike, fine, but I wouldn't rush out to buy them.


----------



## jpembroke (30 Mar 2009)

If I lived in Provence then I don't think I'd bother with disks - V-brakes work just fine in dry climates - but here in the wet and cold of the UK disks are definitely an advantage.


----------



## 02GF74 (30 Mar 2009)

Mr Pig said:


> All of this extra kit ads weight and lightness is a great thing to have on a bike. Disks might have their advantages but they have down sides too. If they come on a bike, fine, but I wouldn't rush out to buy them.



I am not so sure that there is that much of a wieght disadvantage.
- rotor, for sure add to unsprung wieght but then you can get disc specific rim wihtout the braking surface thatwould make up of it.
- hub; be a bit heavier for the rotor mount
- spokes, heavier on disc wheels due to lacing, i.e. no radial spokes
- caliper vs brake arms, weight would be about the same
- lever about the same
- hydraulic line vs steel inner and steel outer cable, disc has got to be lighter

be interesting if someone can post weights for comparison.


----------



## JonGW (30 Mar 2009)

They can make Disc brakes lighter than V-brakes nowadays anyway, So weight really doesn't come into it.


----------



## Mr Pig (30 Mar 2009)

Are the disk wheels less strong? 

I ask because they are narrower. Or to be more correct, because of the space on the hub taken up by the disk, the spokes are further in on the hub. Has to be less strong?

My disks are now silent so I think disk brakes are great, this week ;0)


----------



## 02GF74 (31 Mar 2009)

^^^ correct - the wheel will have less dish, a bit like hte drive side on the rear wheel.

so compared to non disc wheel, whcih has more dish it will be less strong in theory.

in practice I doubt there is any problem - again look at the drive side of rear wheel and tell me how many problems are caused by the smaller dish to accomodate the cassette.


----------



## jpembroke (31 Mar 2009)

Surely a wheel that has less dish is stronger. A dished wheel has a large disparity in spoke tension between drive side (high tension) and non-drive side (lower tension). Because of this, rear (dished) wheels are more prone to going out of true than front (non-dished) wheels. Some companies (Campag, American Classic) have produced asymmetric rims to allow rear wheels to be built with less dish in order to make them stronger (spoke holes are offset from centre of the rim).


----------



## 02GF74 (31 Mar 2009)

what exacty do you mean by stronger?

The wider the hub flanges, the deeper the dishes, and the stronger the wheel can be laterally; but vertical stiffness will be low. 

The more vertical the spokes, i.e. the shallower the dish, and the less stiff and strong the wheel will be laterally.

it is a compromise. it is more important to have dish since a lot of the strnght comes from the rim.


----------



## jpembroke (31 Mar 2009)

Dishing is not to do with the angle of the spokes, it's to do with the different angle of spokes between drive and non-drive side. A front wheel isn't dished because the spokes on either side of the wheel are at the same angle. A rear wheel, which has vertical spokes on the drive side and angle spokes on the left side, is dished. Imagine the wheels placed on their side: a front wheel looks like one of those sherbet flying saucers in section, whereas the rear wheel looks like a shallow bowl i.e. a dish.

Dishing is done to accommodate the cassette but compromises the strength of the wheel. This is why, as I mentioned before, certain manufacturers use asymmetric rims (i.e. spoke holes offset from the centre of rim) for their back wheels. This reduces dishing and makes for a stronger wheel.


----------



## jpembroke (31 Mar 2009)

From Sheldon Brown:

_"When rear wheels are built properly, the spokes on the right side are made tighter than those on the left side. This pulls the rim to the right, so that it is centered with respect to the axle (and to the frame.) Viewed edgewise, a rear wheel built this way resembles a dish, or bowl, since the left spokes form a broad cone, while the right spokes are nearly flat."_

and, to be fair, dishing is also a term applied to centering a wheel on the hub, so I suppose one does 'dish' a front wheel using a dishing tool. However, it's usually only rear wheels that are described as 'dished' or having 'dish'.

another good link here:

http://www.gtgtandems.com/tech/wheandhub.html

Discusses dishing and strength.


----------



## Mr Pig (31 Mar 2009)

I would have thought that the closer together the hub-end of the spokes are the less strong the wheels would be. 

If you think about it, the spokes on each side are only about a couple of inches away from the centre of the hub. If the spokes were in the centre of the hub the wheel would have very little lateral stiffness at all. I think small changes here would be quite significant.

However, the changes of length and angle of the spokes relative to the rim would be small enough to have little impact on vertical strength, I don't think.


----------

