| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 26 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 51:32:39 |
| Calls: | 632 |
| Files: | 1,187 |
| D/L today: |
21 files (18,502K bytes) |
| Messages: | 178,040 |
On 8/22/2025 6:35 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On 22 Aug 2025 23:00:46 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On 21 Aug 2025 15:19:59 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
zen cycle <funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 8/19/2025 7:43 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:I have or rather about to collect the gravel bike with a new slightly >>>>> higher end rotor 160mm to cope with heat, did suggest sintered pads but I >>>>> hate the feel of those!
AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 8/19/2025 3:51 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On 19 Aug 2025 19:01:46 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>
AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 8/18/2025 7:42 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On 18 Aug 2025 10:04:05 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On 17 Aug 2025 09:21:33 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:That?s the definition of grabby! That?s what a brake with decent modulation
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On 16 Aug 2025 22:00:37 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 16 Aug 2025 15:53:22 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:Wrong.. they're not the least bit grabby. Most of my braking involves
On 8/16/2025 3:27 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 16 Aug 2025 12:38:16 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:Stopping a two wheeler with the center of gravity 20/24 inches higher
On 8/16/2025 12:14 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 16 Aug 2025 16:43:00 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:The Catrike's front wheel hubs are very different from a two wheel
<https://youtu.be/b0P5imJ5KFY?si=NgEExOW8I3YJC310> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Sort of interesting, I disagree with the disks got UCI clearance so
research stopped narrative (he is a Ex Pro) as plenty of disk road bikes
and even proto Gravel bikes around then and before ie CX bikes with more
space for bigger tyres and multiple bottle cages for hacking about the
woods.
Ie the Pro?s were playing catch up to the consumers. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Interesting that it did largely stop dead Hydraulic rim brakes unlike
for
example cable disks which maybe the development >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has stopped still using
same designs from 2005 or so, but they are sold and used.
Likewise rim brakes which are still about even new bikes as I did last
year, with the ?old school? roadie /commuter >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Roger Merriman
With two front wheels with 40 CM tires, the Avid BB7 brakes are all I
need. I've actually backed off on them so a full pull will not lock
them up until I've slowed down to 7 or 8 MPH. I prefer not lift the
rear wheel off the ground and slam the chain rings into the ground.
I swapped out the MTN calipers for the road versions so I can use Cane
CreeK 200TT bar end levers
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Nice setup for your vehicle. Hub brakes are always >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dramatically more effective on smaller wheels of course. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
bike in that the wheels are only supported on one side. A hub brake
could be done, but not with entirely different headsets and wheel
support system.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Right, stub axle like an auto or many modern motorcycles. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Regarding braking, any hub brake (drum, belt, roller, CB or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disc) will have dramatically increased effect on a 20" wheel
compared to a 700C wheel.
This is very evident in practice, as ancient bicycle >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mechanics demonstrated with Atom drum brakes on Schwinn >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Krates, leaving long black marks on dealership tile floors >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> long long ago. Atom drum brakes are unimpressive at best on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a 700C wheel.
Even a band brake is snappy on a Panasonic 12" folder! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
than me on the Catrike is very different.
What you?re describing is a grabby braking system, or one without much
modulation which is a generally a trait of cable disks. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
gentle modulation.
Cable always is less modular than hydraulic nature of the technology, and
the fact you have wound them back says you do think they are grabby,
braking hard but on the edge ie keeping the tyre on the edge of grip with
the rear wheel trying to lift potentially is much easier with such systems.
Wrong... I have no trouble modulating them, but, originally, a full
pull would actually lock up both front wheels at way too high a speed.
When a dog ran out in front of me on a rather fast downhill I panic
stopped, stopping much quicker than I needed to. It lifted the rear
wheel off the ground and almost slamming the chain rings into the
ground. I backed them off to make them anti-lock like on vehicles, not
because they were grabby.
doesn?t do as you can feel the bite point and the slip point of the tyres.
Nonsense... locking up the wheel on a full pull is not the definition
of grabby brakes. Any decent brake system should be able to lock up
the brakes.
That?s why the old school roadie with its Rim brakes is more grabby than
even the MTB with its 180mm rotors which are levels more powerful than the
commuter bike with old hydraulic disks and the Gravel bike. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
And? That?s not a type of riding that will push brakes, nor will road useIt can give at low speeds anyway an illusion of power, but I can?t imagine
with the riding you do that you?re remotely pushing the brakes hard.
A few years back I was averaging 17/18 miles per hour on 40 mile
rides. There were occasional road and highway crossings where I'd
hadn't planned on stopping but quickly had to stop. The first five/six
years on thr Catrike I often rode 60/70/80 mile rides on some fairly
hilly terrain, where, once again, there were highway crossings. On
some of those downhills I was doing over 40 MPH. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
in general, there is a reason disks started with MTB?s and even now have
larger rotors and 4 and even 6 pot brakes.
I don't think my riding pushes the brakes at all. That's why I said I
have no reason to look for better brakes. My brakes are still capable
of stopping me very quickly, even at downhill speeds, which >>>>>>>>>>>>>> admittedly, I don't much any more.
With the CatTrike weight static ie you can?t move on the seat back, when
braking plus the bulk of the weight forward Its not surprising that the
potential to lift the rear wheel is there.
Truth is that throwing the weight forward when the center of gravity
is about rear axle hieght makes it harder to lift the rear wheel than
on a two wheeler where the center of gravity is 20/24 inches higher.
I?d be very surprised if that is true!
It's a simple fact that raising the center of gravity makes things
easier to tip over. Panic braking on a standard two wheeler can >>>>>>>>>>>>>> actually lift the rider weight up and forward.
Since you?ve claimed to worry about hitting your chainrings, which like
your legs are quite forward of the front axel of the CatTrike lifting a
rear would seem much more of a thing, at least for that type of tadpole
design, the Adaptive MTB?s being used in much more challenging terrain the
weight is further back, and thus can have big hydro disks and so on.
I don't worry about hitting the chain rings on the ground, I simply
know that it's possible. It's actually much more common for two wheel
riders to lift the rear wheel when braking hard given the higher >>>>>>>>>>>> center of gravity.
https://zizebikes.com/bicycle-braking-how-to-avoid-the-over-the-handlebar-crash/
I'm pretty sure I've done it more times on two wheelers than on the
Catrikes, but granted I used to ride my two wheelers pretty hard and
some would say "carelessly."
Roger Merriman--Roger Merriman
C'est bon
Soloman
--
C'est bon
Soloman
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Roger Merriman
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Right. Two different discussions here; braking
effectiveness and then rider/vehicle handling & height of cg. >>>>>>>>>>>
Yup modulation which is independent from braking force, yes hydraulic
system tends to have more power, but they also vary by some margin, I have
3 bikes with Hydraulic discs all with different levels of absolute braking
strength, and none are that powerful, ie no 4 pot systems and so on. >>>>>>>>>>
One of the commute bikes I had previously was similar to the commuter I now
have, but with V brakes, if cheap ones, but still fairly good and much more
likely to lift or lighten the rear wheel, in a that dog is crossing my path
I need to stop sharply than the old MTB derived Commuter as hydraulic
system have better modulation.
Lifting a rear wheel slightly isn?t a problem, just the nature of the
technology.
A trike whose chainrings and thus legs, (which a colleague of mine used to
say are remarkably heavy to lift after amputations!) are all way out in
front of the front hub, so while it?s overall length it?s long, it?s >>>>>>>>>> wheelbase is not, all of my bikes have longer wheelbases
That?s a lot of weight forward, the fact it?s got a lower centre of gravity
isn?t going to change that.
I suspect that cables are used for ease of folding and maybe cost saving?
Roger Merriman
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. My single piston avid >>>>>>>>> brakes have served me well, and if someone gave me a set of hydraulic >>>>>>>>> brakes I'd put them up for sale. I've used the Avid's ability to >>>>>>>>> modulate to slow down on fast curvy downhills where equally modulating
the front wheels is critical. They're also capable of locking the >>>>>>>>> front wheels on a fullpull, although admittedly, my pull is probably >>>>>>>>> above average, which is why I backed them off. As for center of >>>>>>>>> gravity, my center of gravity is further forward than on a two >>>>>>>>> wheeler, but it's much lower and like I said, lifting the rear wheel >>>>>>>>> on a two wheeler is more common than on a Catrike.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
+1
Braking variables are dependent more on swept area (disc
diameter) than puck size or mechanism (cable/hydraulic) or
2/4 pistons or pad material and so on.
There is a healthy jump in just braking force, just going Hydraulic, after
all plenty of 160mm road/Gravel and originally MTB?s but a larger rotor >>>>>>> doesn?t appear to be enough to close the gap even if you installed 180 or
203mm rotors, and equally 4 pot callipers are most definitely more powerful
again, larger rotors is one way to maximise power but the intended design
will will have more impact.
It would be rough equivalent of going to 203mm rotors but considering BB7
And your vehicle notably has excellent rotor diameter to
wheel diameter!
is a old design it?s well over 10 years if not more, and that isn?t going
to suddenly make it a powerful brake let alone the very front forward >>>>>>> weight distribution of the CatTrike.
Rotor size and % to wheel isn?t a huge difference, much more so is the >>>>>>> brakes intended use and thus design.
Roger Merriman
I have Sram G2 on my FS and Avid BB7 on my hardtail. Both have 180/160 >>>>>> mm rotors front/rear.
The G2s have decidedly more power, but also better modulation than the >>>>>> BB7s. The BB7s have plenty of power (especially for a guy my size) and >>>>>> modulation. I'll take the bike that is better suited to the terrain I'll >>>>>> be riding.
Roger Merriman
180s would dissipate heat even better.
All being equal yes but there is various technologies in cooling rotors and >>> pads so fairly reasonable to expect that the new rotor will hold on longer >>> than a cheaper larger rotor, the newer calipers with finned pads definitely >>> do, as ever depends on what your reasonably going to expect, my mate with >>> the E MTB though he has a heavier bike, heAs not as happy in technical
stuff and so doesnAt bother with the finned variants as makes zero
difference to him but is more expensive.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Roger Merriman
My Avid G2 180mm disks are over 4 years old with 9400 miles and I'm
thinking about replacing them at $41 apiece which puts them at or over
the average price for the standard six bolt disks. It looks like the
more expensive disks simply have a fancier type of attachment.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
180mm stainless rotor should be around $30, not $41.
(online prices run a few dollars under that but then again
you'd add delivery)
On 22 Aug 2025 23:00:46 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On 21 Aug 2025 15:19:59 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
zen cycle <funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 8/19/2025 7:43 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:I have or rather about to collect the gravel bike with a new slightly
AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 8/19/2025 3:51 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On 19 Aug 2025 19:01:46 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>
AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 8/18/2025 7:42 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On 18 Aug 2025 10:04:05 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On 17 Aug 2025 09:21:33 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:That?s the definition of grabby! That?s what a brake with decent modulation
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On 16 Aug 2025 22:00:37 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 16 Aug 2025 15:53:22 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:Wrong.. they're not the least bit grabby. Most of my braking involves
On 8/16/2025 3:27 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 16 Aug 2025 12:38:16 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:Stopping a two wheeler with the center of gravity 20/24 inches higher
On 8/16/2025 12:14 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 16 Aug 2025 16:43:00 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:The Catrike's front wheel hubs are very different from a two wheel
<https://youtu.be/b0P5imJ5KFY?si=NgEExOW8I3YJC310> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Sort of interesting, I disagree with the disks got UCI clearance so
research stopped narrative (he is a Ex Pro) as plenty of disk road
bikes
and even proto Gravel bikes around then and before ie CX bikes with
more
space for bigger tyres and multiple bottle cages for hacking about the
woods.
Ie the Pro?s were playing catch up to the consumers. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Interesting that it did largely stop dead Hydraulic rim brakes unlike
for
example cable disks which maybe the development >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has stopped still using
same designs from 2005 or so, but they are sold and used.
Likewise rim brakes which are still about even new bikes as I did last
year, with the ?old school? roadie /commuter >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Roger Merriman
With two front wheels with 40 CM tires, the Avid BB7 brakes are all I
need. I've actually backed off on them so a full pull will not lock
them up until I've slowed down to 7 or 8 MPH. I prefer not lift the
rear wheel off the ground and slam the chain rings into the ground.
I swapped out the MTN calipers for the road versions so I can use Cane
CreeK 200TT bar end levers
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Nice setup for your vehicle. Hub brakes are always >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dramatically more effective on smaller wheels of course. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
bike in that the wheels are only supported on one side. A hub brake
could be done, but not with entirely different headsets and wheel
support system.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Right, stub axle like an auto or many modern motorcycles. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Regarding braking, any hub brake (drum, belt, roller, CB or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disc) will have dramatically increased effect on a 20" wheel >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compared to a 700C wheel.
This is very evident in practice, as ancient bicycle >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mechanics demonstrated with Atom drum brakes on Schwinn >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Krates, leaving long black marks on dealership tile floors >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> long long ago. Atom drum brakes are unimpressive at best on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a 700C wheel.
Even a band brake is snappy on a Panasonic 12" folder! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
than me on the Catrike is very different.
What you?re describing is a grabby braking system, or one without much
modulation which is a generally a trait of cable disks. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
gentle modulation.
Cable always is less modular than hydraulic nature of the technology, and
the fact you have wound them back says you do think they are grabby,
braking hard but on the edge ie keeping the tyre on the edge of grip with
the rear wheel trying to lift potentially is much easier with such systems.
Wrong... I have no trouble modulating them, but, originally, a full
pull would actually lock up both front wheels at way too high a speed.
When a dog ran out in front of me on a rather fast downhill I panic
stopped, stopping much quicker than I needed to. It lifted the rear
wheel off the ground and almost slamming the chain rings into the >>>>>>>>>>>>> ground. I backed them off to make them anti-lock like on vehicles, not
because they were grabby.
doesn?t do as you can feel the bite point and the slip point of the tyres.
Nonsense... locking up the wheel on a full pull is not the definition
of grabby brakes. Any decent brake system should be able to lock up >>>>>>>>>>> the brakes.
That?s why the old school roadie with its Rim brakes is more grabby than
even the MTB with its 180mm rotors which are levels more powerful than the
commuter bike with old hydraulic disks and the Gravel bike. >>>>>>>>>>>>
And? That?s not a type of riding that will push brakes, nor will road useIt can give at low speeds anyway an illusion of power, but I can?t imagine
with the riding you do that you?re remotely pushing the brakes hard.
A few years back I was averaging 17/18 miles per hour on 40 mile
rides. There were occasional road and highway crossings where I'd
hadn't planned on stopping but quickly had to stop. The first five/six
years on thr Catrike I often rode 60/70/80 mile rides on some fairly
hilly terrain, where, once again, there were highway crossings. On
some of those downhills I was doing over 40 MPH. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
in general, there is a reason disks started with MTB?s and even now have
larger rotors and 4 and even 6 pot brakes.
I don't think my riding pushes the brakes at all. That's why I said I
have no reason to look for better brakes. My brakes are still capable
of stopping me very quickly, even at downhill speeds, which >>>>>>>>>>>>> admittedly, I don't much any more.
With the CatTrike weight static ie you can?t move on the seat back, when
braking plus the bulk of the weight forward Its not surprising that the
potential to lift the rear wheel is there.
Truth is that throwing the weight forward when the center of gravity
is about rear axle hieght makes it harder to lift the rear wheel than
on a two wheeler where the center of gravity is 20/24 inches higher.
I?d be very surprised if that is true!
It's a simple fact that raising the center of gravity makes things
easier to tip over. Panic braking on a standard two wheeler can >>>>>>>>>>>>> actually lift the rider weight up and forward.
Since you?ve claimed to worry about hitting your chainrings, which like
your legs are quite forward of the front axel of the CatTrike lifting a
rear would seem much more of a thing, at least for that type of tadpole
design, the Adaptive MTB?s being used in much more challenging terrain the
weight is further back, and thus can have big hydro disks and so on.
I don't worry about hitting the chain rings on the ground, I simply >>>>>>>>>>> know that it's possible. It's actually much more common for two wheel
riders to lift the rear wheel when braking hard given the higher >>>>>>>>>>> center of gravity.
https://zizebikes.com/bicycle-braking-how-to-avoid-the-over-the-handlebar-crash/
I'm pretty sure I've done it more times on two wheelers than on the >>>>>>>>>>> Catrikes, but granted I used to ride my two wheelers pretty hard and
some would say "carelessly."
Roger Merriman--Roger Merriman
C'est bon
Soloman
--
C'est bon
Soloman
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Roger Merriman
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Right. Two different discussions here; braking
effectiveness and then rider/vehicle handling & height of cg. >>>>>>>>>>
Yup modulation which is independent from braking force, yes hydraulic >>>>>>>>> system tends to have more power, but they also vary by some margin, I have
3 bikes with Hydraulic discs all with different levels of absolute braking
strength, and none are that powerful, ie no 4 pot systems and so on. >>>>>>>>>
One of the commute bikes I had previously was similar to the commuter I now
have, but with V brakes, if cheap ones, but still fairly good and much more
likely to lift or lighten the rear wheel, in a that dog is crossing my path
I need to stop sharply than the old MTB derived Commuter as hydraulic >>>>>>>>> system have better modulation.
Lifting a rear wheel slightly isn?t a problem, just the nature of the >>>>>>>>> technology.
A trike whose chainrings and thus legs, (which a colleague of mine used to
say are remarkably heavy to lift after amputations!) are all way out in
front of the front hub, so while it?s overall length it?s long, it?s >>>>>>>>> wheelbase is not, all of my bikes have longer wheelbases
That?s a lot of weight forward, the fact it?s got a lower centre of gravity
isn?t going to change that.
I suspect that cables are used for ease of folding and maybe cost saving?
Roger Merriman
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. My single piston avid >>>>>>>> brakes have served me well, and if someone gave me a set of hydraulic >>>>>>>> brakes I'd put them up for sale. I've used the Avid's ability to >>>>>>>> modulate to slow down on fast curvy downhills where equally modulating >>>>>>>> the front wheels is critical. They're also capable of locking the >>>>>>>> front wheels on a fullpull, although admittedly, my pull is probably >>>>>>>> above average, which is why I backed them off. As for center of >>>>>>>> gravity, my center of gravity is further forward than on a two >>>>>>>> wheeler, but it's much lower and like I said, lifting the rear wheel >>>>>>>> on a two wheeler is more common than on a Catrike.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
+1
Braking variables are dependent more on swept area (disc
diameter) than puck size or mechanism (cable/hydraulic) or
2/4 pistons or pad material and so on.
There is a healthy jump in just braking force, just going Hydraulic, after
all plenty of 160mm road/Gravel and originally MTB?s but a larger rotor >>>>>> doesn?t appear to be enough to close the gap even if you installed 180 or
203mm rotors, and equally 4 pot callipers are most definitely more powerful
again, larger rotors is one way to maximise power but the intended design
will will have more impact.
It would be rough equivalent of going to 203mm rotors but considering BB7
And your vehicle notably has excellent rotor diameter to
wheel diameter!
is a old design it?s well over 10 years if not more, and that isn?t going
to suddenly make it a powerful brake let alone the very front forward >>>>>> weight distribution of the CatTrike.
Rotor size and % to wheel isn?t a huge difference, much more so is the >>>>>> brakes intended use and thus design.
Roger Merriman
I have Sram G2 on my FS and Avid BB7 on my hardtail. Both have 180/160 >>>>> mm rotors front/rear.
The G2s have decidedly more power, but also better modulation than the >>>>> BB7s. The BB7s have plenty of power (especially for a guy my size) and >>>>> modulation. I'll take the bike that is better suited to the terrain I'll >>>>> be riding.
higher end rotor 160mm to cope with heat, did suggest sintered pads but I >>>> hate the feel of those!
Roger Merriman
180s would dissipate heat even better.
All being equal yes but there is various technologies in cooling rotors and >> pads so fairly reasonable to expect that the new rotor will hold on longer >> than a cheaper larger rotor, the newer calipers with finned pads definitely >> do, as ever depends on what your reasonably going to expect, my mate with
the E MTB though he has a heavier bike, he-As not as happy in technical
stuff and so doesn-At bother with the finned variants as makes zero
difference to him but is more expensive.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Roger Merriman
My Avid G2 180mm disks are over 4 years old with 9400 miles and I'm
thinking about replacing them at $41 apiece which puts them at or over
the average price for the standard six bolt disks. It looks like the
more expensive disks simply have a fancier type of attachment.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On 22 Aug 2025 23:00:46 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:Did you measure them and or just check them out ie how worn do they look?
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On 21 Aug 2025 15:19:59 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
zen cycle <funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 8/19/2025 7:43 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:I have or rather about to collect the gravel bike with a new slightly >>>>> higher end rotor 160mm to cope with heat, did suggest sintered pads but I >>>>> hate the feel of those!
AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 8/19/2025 3:51 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On 19 Aug 2025 19:01:46 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>
AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 8/18/2025 7:42 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On 18 Aug 2025 10:04:05 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On 17 Aug 2025 09:21:33 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:That?s the definition of grabby! That?s what a brake with decent modulation
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On 16 Aug 2025 22:00:37 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 16 Aug 2025 15:53:22 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:Wrong.. they're not the least bit grabby. Most of my braking involves
On 8/16/2025 3:27 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 16 Aug 2025 12:38:16 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:Stopping a two wheeler with the center of gravity 20/24 inches higher
On 8/16/2025 12:14 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 16 Aug 2025 16:43:00 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:The Catrike's front wheel hubs are very different from a two wheel
<https://youtu.be/b0P5imJ5KFY?si=NgEExOW8I3YJC310> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Sort of interesting, I disagree with the disks got UCI clearance so
research stopped narrative (he is a Ex Pro) as plenty of disk road
bikes
and even proto Gravel bikes around then and before ie CX bikes with
more
space for bigger tyres and multiple bottle cages for hacking about the
woods.
Ie the Pro?s were playing catch up to the consumers. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Interesting that it did largely stop dead Hydraulic rim brakes unlike
for
example cable disks which maybe the development >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has stopped still using
same designs from 2005 or so, but they are sold and used.
Likewise rim brakes which are still about even new bikes as I did last
year, with the ?old school? roadie /commuter >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Roger Merriman
With two front wheels with 40 CM tires, the Avid BB7 brakes are all I
need. I've actually backed off on them so a full pull will not lock
them up until I've slowed down to 7 or 8 MPH. I prefer not lift the
rear wheel off the ground and slam the chain rings into the ground.
I swapped out the MTN calipers for the road versions so I can use Cane
CreeK 200TT bar end levers
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Nice setup for your vehicle. Hub brakes are always >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dramatically more effective on smaller wheels of course. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
bike in that the wheels are only supported on one side. A hub brake
could be done, but not with entirely different headsets and wheel
support system.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Right, stub axle like an auto or many modern motorcycles. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Regarding braking, any hub brake (drum, belt, roller, CB or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disc) will have dramatically increased effect on a 20" wheel
compared to a 700C wheel.
This is very evident in practice, as ancient bicycle >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mechanics demonstrated with Atom drum brakes on Schwinn >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Krates, leaving long black marks on dealership tile floors >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> long long ago. Atom drum brakes are unimpressive at best on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a 700C wheel.
Even a band brake is snappy on a Panasonic 12" folder! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
than me on the Catrike is very different.
What you?re describing is a grabby braking system, or one without much
modulation which is a generally a trait of cable disks. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
gentle modulation.
Cable always is less modular than hydraulic nature of the technology, and
the fact you have wound them back says you do think they are grabby,
braking hard but on the edge ie keeping the tyre on the edge of grip with
the rear wheel trying to lift potentially is much easier with such systems.
Wrong... I have no trouble modulating them, but, originally, a full
pull would actually lock up both front wheels at way too high a speed.
When a dog ran out in front of me on a rather fast downhill I panic
stopped, stopping much quicker than I needed to. It lifted the rear
wheel off the ground and almost slamming the chain rings into the
ground. I backed them off to make them anti-lock like on vehicles, not
because they were grabby.
doesn?t do as you can feel the bite point and the slip point of the tyres.
Nonsense... locking up the wheel on a full pull is not the definition
of grabby brakes. Any decent brake system should be able to lock up
the brakes.
That?s why the old school roadie with its Rim brakes is more grabby than
even the MTB with its 180mm rotors which are levels more powerful than the
commuter bike with old hydraulic disks and the Gravel bike. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
And? That?s not a type of riding that will push brakes, nor will road useIt can give at low speeds anyway an illusion of power, but I can?t imagine
with the riding you do that you?re remotely pushing the brakes hard.
A few years back I was averaging 17/18 miles per hour on 40 mile
rides. There were occasional road and highway crossings where I'd
hadn't planned on stopping but quickly had to stop. The first five/six
years on thr Catrike I often rode 60/70/80 mile rides on some fairly
hilly terrain, where, once again, there were highway crossings. On
some of those downhills I was doing over 40 MPH. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
in general, there is a reason disks started with MTB?s and even now have
larger rotors and 4 and even 6 pot brakes.
I don't think my riding pushes the brakes at all. That's why I said I
have no reason to look for better brakes. My brakes are still capable
of stopping me very quickly, even at downhill speeds, which >>>>>>>>>>>>>> admittedly, I don't much any more.
With the CatTrike weight static ie you can?t move on the seat back, when
braking plus the bulk of the weight forward Its not surprising that the
potential to lift the rear wheel is there.
Truth is that throwing the weight forward when the center of gravity
is about rear axle hieght makes it harder to lift the rear wheel than
on a two wheeler where the center of gravity is 20/24 inches higher.
I?d be very surprised if that is true!
It's a simple fact that raising the center of gravity makes things
easier to tip over. Panic braking on a standard two wheeler can >>>>>>>>>>>>>> actually lift the rider weight up and forward.
Since you?ve claimed to worry about hitting your chainrings, which like
your legs are quite forward of the front axel of the CatTrike lifting a
rear would seem much more of a thing, at least for that type of tadpole
design, the Adaptive MTB?s being used in much more challenging terrain the
weight is further back, and thus can have big hydro disks and so on.
I don't worry about hitting the chain rings on the ground, I simply
know that it's possible. It's actually much more common for two wheel
riders to lift the rear wheel when braking hard given the higher >>>>>>>>>>>> center of gravity.
https://zizebikes.com/bicycle-braking-how-to-avoid-the-over-the-handlebar-crash/
I'm pretty sure I've done it more times on two wheelers than on the
Catrikes, but granted I used to ride my two wheelers pretty hard and
some would say "carelessly."
Roger Merriman--Roger Merriman
C'est bon
Soloman
--
C'est bon
Soloman
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Roger Merriman
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Right. Two different discussions here; braking
effectiveness and then rider/vehicle handling & height of cg. >>>>>>>>>>>
Yup modulation which is independent from braking force, yes hydraulic
system tends to have more power, but they also vary by some margin, I have
3 bikes with Hydraulic discs all with different levels of absolute braking
strength, and none are that powerful, ie no 4 pot systems and so on. >>>>>>>>>>
One of the commute bikes I had previously was similar to the commuter I now
have, but with V brakes, if cheap ones, but still fairly good and much more
likely to lift or lighten the rear wheel, in a that dog is crossing my path
I need to stop sharply than the old MTB derived Commuter as hydraulic
system have better modulation.
Lifting a rear wheel slightly isn?t a problem, just the nature of the
technology.
A trike whose chainrings and thus legs, (which a colleague of mine used to
say are remarkably heavy to lift after amputations!) are all way out in
front of the front hub, so while it?s overall length it?s long, it?s >>>>>>>>>> wheelbase is not, all of my bikes have longer wheelbases
That?s a lot of weight forward, the fact it?s got a lower centre of gravity
isn?t going to change that.
I suspect that cables are used for ease of folding and maybe cost saving?
Roger Merriman
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. My single piston avid >>>>>>>>> brakes have served me well, and if someone gave me a set of hydraulic >>>>>>>>> brakes I'd put them up for sale. I've used the Avid's ability to >>>>>>>>> modulate to slow down on fast curvy downhills where equally modulating
the front wheels is critical. They're also capable of locking the >>>>>>>>> front wheels on a fullpull, although admittedly, my pull is probably >>>>>>>>> above average, which is why I backed them off. As for center of >>>>>>>>> gravity, my center of gravity is further forward than on a two >>>>>>>>> wheeler, but it's much lower and like I said, lifting the rear wheel >>>>>>>>> on a two wheeler is more common than on a Catrike.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
+1
Braking variables are dependent more on swept area (disc
diameter) than puck size or mechanism (cable/hydraulic) or
2/4 pistons or pad material and so on.
There is a healthy jump in just braking force, just going Hydraulic, after
all plenty of 160mm road/Gravel and originally MTB?s but a larger rotor >>>>>>> doesn?t appear to be enough to close the gap even if you installed 180 or
203mm rotors, and equally 4 pot callipers are most definitely more powerful
again, larger rotors is one way to maximise power but the intended design
will will have more impact.
It would be rough equivalent of going to 203mm rotors but considering BB7
And your vehicle notably has excellent rotor diameter to
wheel diameter!
is a old design it?s well over 10 years if not more, and that isn?t going
to suddenly make it a powerful brake let alone the very front forward >>>>>>> weight distribution of the CatTrike.
Rotor size and % to wheel isn?t a huge difference, much more so is the >>>>>>> brakes intended use and thus design.
Roger Merriman
I have Sram G2 on my FS and Avid BB7 on my hardtail. Both have 180/160 >>>>>> mm rotors front/rear.
The G2s have decidedly more power, but also better modulation than the >>>>>> BB7s. The BB7s have plenty of power (especially for a guy my size) and >>>>>> modulation. I'll take the bike that is better suited to the terrain I'll
be riding.
Roger Merriman
180s would dissipate heat even better.
All being equal yes but there is various technologies in cooling rotors and >>> pads so fairly reasonable to expect that the new rotor will hold on longer >>> than a cheaper larger rotor, the newer calipers with finned pads definitely >>> do, as ever depends on what your reasonably going to expect, my mate with >>> the E MTB though he has a heavier bike, he?s not as happy in technical
stuff and so doesn?t bother with the finned variants as makes zero
difference to him but is more expensive.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Roger Merriman
My Avid G2 180mm disks are over 4 years old with 9400 miles and I'm
thinking about replacing them at $41 apiece which puts them at or over
the average price for the standard six bolt disks. It looks like the
more expensive disks simply have a fancier type of attachment.
IAd not of thought 4 years with your useage would do much wear. Case in
point the old commute bikes rear wheel is 10 years old and has done 20,000 >miles rotor is fine last time I checked.
You can get cheap and expensive rotors in 6 bolt or Center lock fittings
There are few techniques to try to dissipate heat a cheap solid rotor is
the bare minimum, but for your use, and myself on the commute itAs
absolutely fine.
--Roger Merriman
C'est bon
Soloman
On 23 Aug 2025 09:38:33 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On 22 Aug 2025 23:00:46 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:Did you measure them and or just check them out ie how worn do they look?
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On 21 Aug 2025 15:19:59 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote: >>>>>
zen cycle <funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 8/19/2025 7:43 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:I have or rather about to collect the gravel bike with a new slightly >>>>>> higher end rotor 160mm to cope with heat, did suggest sintered pads but I
AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 8/19/2025 3:51 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On 19 Aug 2025 19:01:46 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 8/18/2025 7:42 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On 18 Aug 2025 10:04:05 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On 17 Aug 2025 09:21:33 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:That?s the definition of grabby! That?s what a brake with decent modulation
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 16 Aug 2025 22:00:37 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 16 Aug 2025 15:53:22 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:Wrong.. they're not the least bit grabby. Most of my braking involves
What you?re describing is a grabby braking system, or one without much
On 8/16/2025 3:27 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 16 Aug 2025 12:38:16 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:Stopping a two wheeler with the center of gravity 20/24 inches higher
On 8/16/2025 12:14 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 16 Aug 2025 16:43:00 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:The Catrike's front wheel hubs are very different from a two wheel
<https://youtu.be/b0P5imJ5KFY?si=NgEExOW8I3YJC310> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Sort of interesting, I disagree with the disks got UCI clearance so
research stopped narrative (he is a Ex Pro) as plenty of disk road
bikes
and even proto Gravel bikes around then and before ie CX bikes with
more
space for bigger tyres and multiple bottle cages for hacking about
the
woods.
Ie the Pro?s were playing catch up to the consumers. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Interesting that it did largely stop dead Hydraulic rim brakes
unlike
for
example cable disks which maybe the development >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has stopped still using
same designs from 2005 or so, but they are sold and used.
Likewise rim brakes which are still about even new bikes as I did
last
year, with the ?old school? roadie /commuter >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Roger Merriman
With two front wheels with 40 CM tires, the Avid BB7 brakes are all I
need. I've actually backed off on them so a full pull will not lock
them up until I've slowed down to 7 or 8 MPH. I prefer not lift the
rear wheel off the ground and slam the chain rings into the ground.
I swapped out the MTN calipers for the road versions so I can use
Cane
CreeK 200TT bar end levers
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Nice setup for your vehicle. Hub brakes are always >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dramatically more effective on smaller wheels of course. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
bike in that the wheels are only supported on one side. A hub brake
could be done, but not with entirely different headsets and wheel
support system.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Right, stub axle like an auto or many modern motorcycles. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Regarding braking, any hub brake (drum, belt, roller, CB or
disc) will have dramatically increased effect on a 20" wheel
compared to a 700C wheel.
This is very evident in practice, as ancient bicycle >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mechanics demonstrated with Atom drum brakes on Schwinn >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Krates, leaving long black marks on dealership tile floors >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> long long ago. Atom drum brakes are unimpressive at best on
a 700C wheel.
Even a band brake is snappy on a Panasonic 12" folder! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
than me on the Catrike is very different. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
modulation which is a generally a trait of cable disks. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
gentle modulation.
Cable always is less modular than hydraulic nature of the technology, and
the fact you have wound them back says you do think they are grabby,
braking hard but on the edge ie keeping the tyre on the edge of grip with
the rear wheel trying to lift potentially is much easier with such systems.
Wrong... I have no trouble modulating them, but, originally, a full
pull would actually lock up both front wheels at way too high a speed.
When a dog ran out in front of me on a rather fast downhill I panic
stopped, stopping much quicker than I needed to. It lifted the rear
wheel off the ground and almost slamming the chain rings into the
ground. I backed them off to make them anti-lock like on vehicles, not
because they were grabby.
doesn?t do as you can feel the bite point and the slip point of the tyres.
Nonsense... locking up the wheel on a full pull is not the definition
of grabby brakes. Any decent brake system should be able to lock up
the brakes.
That?s why the old school roadie with its Rim brakes is more grabby than
even the MTB with its 180mm rotors which are levels more powerful than the
commuter bike with old hydraulic disks and the Gravel bike. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And? That?s not a type of riding that will push brakes, nor will road useIt can give at low speeds anyway an illusion of power, but I can?t imagine
with the riding you do that you?re remotely pushing the brakes hard.
A few years back I was averaging 17/18 miles per hour on 40 mile
rides. There were occasional road and highway crossings where I'd
hadn't planned on stopping but quickly had to stop. The first five/six
years on thr Catrike I often rode 60/70/80 mile rides on some fairly
hilly terrain, where, once again, there were highway crossings. On
some of those downhills I was doing over 40 MPH. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
in general, there is a reason disks started with MTB?s and even now have
larger rotors and 4 and even 6 pot brakes.
I don't think my riding pushes the brakes at all. That's why I said I
have no reason to look for better brakes. My brakes are still capable
of stopping me very quickly, even at downhill speeds, which >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> admittedly, I don't much any more.
With the CatTrike weight static ie you can?t move on the seat back, when
braking plus the bulk of the weight forward Its not surprising that the
potential to lift the rear wheel is there.
Truth is that throwing the weight forward when the center of gravity
is about rear axle hieght makes it harder to lift the rear wheel than
on a two wheeler where the center of gravity is 20/24 inches higher.
I?d be very surprised if that is true!
It's a simple fact that raising the center of gravity makes things
easier to tip over. Panic braking on a standard two wheeler can >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actually lift the rider weight up and forward.
Since you?ve claimed to worry about hitting your chainrings, which like
your legs are quite forward of the front axel of the CatTrike lifting a
rear would seem much more of a thing, at least for that type of tadpole
design, the Adaptive MTB?s being used in much more challenging terrain the
weight is further back, and thus can have big hydro disks and so on.
I don't worry about hitting the chain rings on the ground, I simply
know that it's possible. It's actually much more common for two wheel
riders to lift the rear wheel when braking hard given the higher >>>>>>>>>>>>> center of gravity.
https://zizebikes.com/bicycle-braking-how-to-avoid-the-over-the-handlebar-crash/
I'm pretty sure I've done it more times on two wheelers than on the
Catrikes, but granted I used to ride my two wheelers pretty hard and
some would say "carelessly."
Roger Merriman--Roger Merriman
C'est bon
Soloman
--
C'est bon
Soloman
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Roger Merriman
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Right. Two different discussions here; braking
effectiveness and then rider/vehicle handling & height of cg. >>>>>>>>>>>>
Yup modulation which is independent from braking force, yes hydraulic
system tends to have more power, but they also vary by some margin, I have
3 bikes with Hydraulic discs all with different levels of absolute braking
strength, and none are that powerful, ie no 4 pot systems and so on.
One of the commute bikes I had previously was similar to the commuter I now
have, but with V brakes, if cheap ones, but still fairly good and much more
likely to lift or lighten the rear wheel, in a that dog is crossing my path
I need to stop sharply than the old MTB derived Commuter as hydraulic
system have better modulation.
Lifting a rear wheel slightly isn?t a problem, just the nature of the
technology.
A trike whose chainrings and thus legs, (which a colleague of mine used to
say are remarkably heavy to lift after amputations!) are all way out in
front of the front hub, so while it?s overall length it?s long, it?s
wheelbase is not, all of my bikes have longer wheelbases >>>>>>>>>>>
That?s a lot of weight forward, the fact it?s got a lower centre of gravity
isn?t going to change that.
I suspect that cables are used for ease of folding and maybe cost saving?
Roger Merriman
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. My single piston avid >>>>>>>>>> brakes have served me well, and if someone gave me a set of hydraulic
brakes I'd put them up for sale. I've used the Avid's ability to >>>>>>>>>> modulate to slow down on fast curvy downhills where equally modulating
the front wheels is critical. They're also capable of locking the >>>>>>>>>> front wheels on a fullpull, although admittedly, my pull is probably >>>>>>>>>> above average, which is why I backed them off. As for center of >>>>>>>>>> gravity, my center of gravity is further forward than on a two >>>>>>>>>> wheeler, but it's much lower and like I said, lifting the rear wheel >>>>>>>>>> on a two wheeler is more common than on a Catrike.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
+1
Braking variables are dependent more on swept area (disc
diameter) than puck size or mechanism (cable/hydraulic) or
2/4 pistons or pad material and so on.
There is a healthy jump in just braking force, just going Hydraulic, after
all plenty of 160mm road/Gravel and originally MTB?s but a larger rotor
doesn?t appear to be enough to close the gap even if you installed 180 or
203mm rotors, and equally 4 pot callipers are most definitely more powerful
again, larger rotors is one way to maximise power but the intended design
will will have more impact.
It would be rough equivalent of going to 203mm rotors but considering BB7
And your vehicle notably has excellent rotor diameter to
wheel diameter!
is a old design it?s well over 10 years if not more, and that isn?t going
to suddenly make it a powerful brake let alone the very front forward >>>>>>>> weight distribution of the CatTrike.
Rotor size and % to wheel isn?t a huge difference, much more so is the >>>>>>>> brakes intended use and thus design.
Roger Merriman
I have Sram G2 on my FS and Avid BB7 on my hardtail. Both have 180/160 >>>>>>> mm rotors front/rear.
The G2s have decidedly more power, but also better modulation than the >>>>>>> BB7s. The BB7s have plenty of power (especially for a guy my size) and >>>>>>> modulation. I'll take the bike that is better suited to the terrain I'll
be riding.
hate the feel of those!
Roger Merriman
180s would dissipate heat even better.
All being equal yes but there is various technologies in cooling rotors and
pads so fairly reasonable to expect that the new rotor will hold on longer >>>> than a cheaper larger rotor, the newer calipers with finned pads definitely
do, as ever depends on what your reasonably going to expect, my mate with >>>> the E MTB though he has a heavier bike, he?s not as happy in technical >>>> stuff and so doesn?t bother with the finned variants as makes zero
difference to him but is more expensive.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Roger Merriman
My Avid G2 180mm disks are over 4 years old with 9400 miles and I'm
thinking about replacing them at $41 apiece which puts them at or over
the average price for the standard six bolt disks. It looks like the
more expensive disks simply have a fancier type of attachment.
I-Ad not of thought 4 years with your useage would do much wear. Case in
point the old commute bikes rear wheel is 10 years old and has done 20,000 >> miles rotor is fine last time I checked.
You can get cheap and expensive rotors in 6 bolt or Center lock fittings
There are few techniques to try to dissipate heat a cheap solid rotor is
the bare minimum, but for your use, and myself on the commute it-As
absolutely fine.
--Roger Merriman
C'est bon
Soloman
In my opinion, the two piece disks are nonsense. They call them
"floating," but as I understand it, they don't really float. It seems
to me that the best heat dissipation would come from the "spokes" from
the disk surface down to the hub.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On 23 Aug 2025 09:38:33 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On 22 Aug 2025 23:00:46 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:Did you measure them and or just check them out ie how worn do they look?
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On 21 Aug 2025 15:19:59 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote: >>>>>
zen cycle <funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 8/19/2025 7:43 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:I have or rather about to collect the gravel bike with a new slightly >>>>>> higher end rotor 160mm to cope with heat, did suggest sintered pads but I
AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 8/19/2025 3:51 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On 19 Aug 2025 19:01:46 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 8/18/2025 7:42 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On 18 Aug 2025 10:04:05 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On 17 Aug 2025 09:21:33 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:That?s the definition of grabby! That?s what a brake with decent modulation
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 16 Aug 2025 22:00:37 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 16 Aug 2025 15:53:22 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:Wrong.. they're not the least bit grabby. Most of my braking involves
What you?re describing is a grabby braking system, or one without much
On 8/16/2025 3:27 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 16 Aug 2025 12:38:16 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:Stopping a two wheeler with the center of gravity 20/24 inches higher
On 8/16/2025 12:14 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 16 Aug 2025 16:43:00 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:The Catrike's front wheel hubs are very different from a two wheel
<https://youtu.be/b0P5imJ5KFY?si=NgEExOW8I3YJC310> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Sort of interesting, I disagree with the disks got UCI clearance so
research stopped narrative (he is a Ex Pro) as plenty of disk road
bikes
and even proto Gravel bikes around then and before ie CX bikes with
more
space for bigger tyres and multiple bottle cages for hacking about the
woods.
Ie the Pro?s were playing catch up to the consumers. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Interesting that it did largely stop dead Hydraulic rim brakes unlike
for
example cable disks which maybe the development >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has stopped still using
same designs from 2005 or so, but they are sold and used.
Likewise rim brakes which are still about even new bikes as I did last
year, with the ?old school? roadie /commuter >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Roger Merriman
With two front wheels with 40 CM tires, the Avid BB7 brakes are all I
need. I've actually backed off on them so a full pull will not lock
them up until I've slowed down to 7 or 8 MPH. I prefer not lift the
rear wheel off the ground and slam the chain rings into the ground.
I swapped out the MTN calipers for the road versions so I can use Cane
CreeK 200TT bar end levers
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Nice setup for your vehicle. Hub brakes are always >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dramatically more effective on smaller wheels of course. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
bike in that the wheels are only supported on one side. A hub brake
could be done, but not with entirely different headsets and wheel
support system.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Right, stub axle like an auto or many modern motorcycles. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Regarding braking, any hub brake (drum, belt, roller, CB or
disc) will have dramatically increased effect on a 20" wheel
compared to a 700C wheel.
This is very evident in practice, as ancient bicycle >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mechanics demonstrated with Atom drum brakes on Schwinn >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Krates, leaving long black marks on dealership tile floors >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> long long ago. Atom drum brakes are unimpressive at best on
a 700C wheel.
Even a band brake is snappy on a Panasonic 12" folder! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
than me on the Catrike is very different. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
modulation which is a generally a trait of cable disks. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
gentle modulation.
Cable always is less modular than hydraulic nature of the technology, and
the fact you have wound them back says you do think they are grabby,
braking hard but on the edge ie keeping the tyre on the edge of grip with
the rear wheel trying to lift potentially is much easier with such systems.
Wrong... I have no trouble modulating them, but, originally, a full
pull would actually lock up both front wheels at way too high a speed.
When a dog ran out in front of me on a rather fast downhill I panic
stopped, stopping much quicker than I needed to. It lifted the rear
wheel off the ground and almost slamming the chain rings into the
ground. I backed them off to make them anti-lock like on vehicles, not
because they were grabby.
doesn?t do as you can feel the bite point and the slip point of the tyres.
Nonsense... locking up the wheel on a full pull is not the definition
of grabby brakes. Any decent brake system should be able to lock up
the brakes.
That?s why the old school roadie with its Rim brakes is more grabby than
even the MTB with its 180mm rotors which are levels more powerful than the
commuter bike with old hydraulic disks and the Gravel bike. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And? That?s not a type of riding that will push brakes, nor will road useIt can give at low speeds anyway an illusion of power, but I can?t imagine
with the riding you do that you?re remotely pushing the brakes hard.
A few years back I was averaging 17/18 miles per hour on 40 mile
rides. There were occasional road and highway crossings where I'd
hadn't planned on stopping but quickly had to stop. The first five/six
years on thr Catrike I often rode 60/70/80 mile rides on some fairly
hilly terrain, where, once again, there were highway crossings. On
some of those downhills I was doing over 40 MPH. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
in general, there is a reason disks started with MTB?s and even now have
larger rotors and 4 and even 6 pot brakes.
I don't think my riding pushes the brakes at all. That's why I said I
have no reason to look for better brakes. My brakes are still capable
of stopping me very quickly, even at downhill speeds, which >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> admittedly, I don't much any more.
With the CatTrike weight static ie you can?t move on the seat back, when
braking plus the bulk of the weight forward Its not surprising that the
potential to lift the rear wheel is there.
Truth is that throwing the weight forward when the center of gravity
is about rear axle hieght makes it harder to lift the rear wheel than
on a two wheeler where the center of gravity is 20/24 inches higher.
I?d be very surprised if that is true!
It's a simple fact that raising the center of gravity makes things
easier to tip over. Panic braking on a standard two wheeler can >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actually lift the rider weight up and forward.
Since you?ve claimed to worry about hitting your chainrings, which like
your legs are quite forward of the front axel of the CatTrike lifting a
rear would seem much more of a thing, at least for that type of tadpole
design, the Adaptive MTB?s being used in much more challenging terrain the
weight is further back, and thus can have big hydro disks and so on.
I don't worry about hitting the chain rings on the ground, I simply
know that it's possible. It's actually much more common for two wheel
riders to lift the rear wheel when braking hard given the higher >>>>>>>>>>>>> center of gravity.
https://zizebikes.com/bicycle-braking-how-to-avoid-the-over-the-handlebar-crash/
I'm pretty sure I've done it more times on two wheelers than on the
Catrikes, but granted I used to ride my two wheelers pretty hard and
some would say "carelessly."
Roger Merriman--Roger Merriman
C'est bon
Soloman
--
C'est bon
Soloman
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Roger Merriman
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Right. Two different discussions here; braking
effectiveness and then rider/vehicle handling & height of cg. >>>>>>>>>>>>
Yup modulation which is independent from braking force, yes hydraulic
system tends to have more power, but they also vary by some margin, I have
3 bikes with Hydraulic discs all with different levels of absolute braking
strength, and none are that powerful, ie no 4 pot systems and so on.
One of the commute bikes I had previously was similar to the commuter I now
have, but with V brakes, if cheap ones, but still fairly good and much more
likely to lift or lighten the rear wheel, in a that dog is crossing my path
I need to stop sharply than the old MTB derived Commuter as hydraulic
system have better modulation.
Lifting a rear wheel slightly isn?t a problem, just the nature of the
technology.
A trike whose chainrings and thus legs, (which a colleague of mine used to
say are remarkably heavy to lift after amputations!) are all way out in
front of the front hub, so while it?s overall length it?s long, it?s
wheelbase is not, all of my bikes have longer wheelbases >>>>>>>>>>>
That?s a lot of weight forward, the fact it?s got a lower centre of gravity
isn?t going to change that.
I suspect that cables are used for ease of folding and maybe cost saving?
Roger Merriman
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. My single piston avid >>>>>>>>>> brakes have served me well, and if someone gave me a set of hydraulic
brakes I'd put them up for sale. I've used the Avid's ability to >>>>>>>>>> modulate to slow down on fast curvy downhills where equally modulating
the front wheels is critical. They're also capable of locking the >>>>>>>>>> front wheels on a fullpull, although admittedly, my pull is probably >>>>>>>>>> above average, which is why I backed them off. As for center of >>>>>>>>>> gravity, my center of gravity is further forward than on a two >>>>>>>>>> wheeler, but it's much lower and like I said, lifting the rear wheel >>>>>>>>>> on a two wheeler is more common than on a Catrike.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
+1
Braking variables are dependent more on swept area (disc
diameter) than puck size or mechanism (cable/hydraulic) or
2/4 pistons or pad material and so on.
There is a healthy jump in just braking force, just going Hydraulic, after
all plenty of 160mm road/Gravel and originally MTB?s but a larger rotor
doesn?t appear to be enough to close the gap even if you installed 180 or
203mm rotors, and equally 4 pot callipers are most definitely more powerful
again, larger rotors is one way to maximise power but the intended design
will will have more impact.
It would be rough equivalent of going to 203mm rotors but considering BB7
And your vehicle notably has excellent rotor diameter to
wheel diameter!
is a old design it?s well over 10 years if not more, and that isn?t going
to suddenly make it a powerful brake let alone the very front forward >>>>>>>> weight distribution of the CatTrike.
Rotor size and % to wheel isn?t a huge difference, much more so is the >>>>>>>> brakes intended use and thus design.
Roger Merriman
I have Sram G2 on my FS and Avid BB7 on my hardtail. Both have 180/160 >>>>>>> mm rotors front/rear.
The G2s have decidedly more power, but also better modulation than the >>>>>>> BB7s. The BB7s have plenty of power (especially for a guy my size) and >>>>>>> modulation. I'll take the bike that is better suited to the terrain I'll
be riding.
hate the feel of those!
Roger Merriman
180s would dissipate heat even better.
All being equal yes but there is various technologies in cooling rotors and
pads so fairly reasonable to expect that the new rotor will hold on longer >>>> than a cheaper larger rotor, the newer calipers with finned pads definitely
do, as ever depends on what your reasonably going to expect, my mate with >>>> the E MTB though he has a heavier bike, he?s not as happy in technical >>>> stuff and so doesn?t bother with the finned variants as makes zero
difference to him but is more expensive.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Roger Merriman
My Avid G2 180mm disks are over 4 years old with 9400 miles and I'm
thinking about replacing them at $41 apiece which puts them at or over
the average price for the standard six bolt disks. It looks like the
more expensive disks simply have a fancier type of attachment.
IrCOd not of thought 4 years with your useage would do much wear. Case in
point the old commute bikes rear wheel is 10 years old and has done 20,000 >> miles rotor is fine last time I checked.
You can get cheap and expensive rotors in 6 bolt or Center lock fittings
There are few techniques to try to dissipate heat a cheap solid rotor is
the bare minimum, but for your use, and myself on the commute itrCOs
absolutely fine.
--Roger Merriman
C'est bon
Soloman
In my opinion, the two piece disks are nonsense. They call them
"floating," but as I understand it, they don't really float. It seems
to me that the best heat dissipation would come from the "spokes" from
the disk surface down to the hub.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On 8/23/2025 6:07 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On 23 Aug 2025 09:38:33 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On 22 Aug 2025 23:00:46 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:Did you measure them and or just check them out ie how worn do they look? >>> IAd not of thought 4 years with your useage would do much wear. Case in
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On 21 Aug 2025 15:19:59 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote: >>>>>>
zen cycle <funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 8/19/2025 7:43 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:I have or rather about to collect the gravel bike with a new slightly >>>>>>> higher end rotor 160mm to cope with heat, did suggest sintered pads but I
AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 8/19/2025 3:51 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On 19 Aug 2025 19:01:46 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 8/18/2025 7:42 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On 18 Aug 2025 10:04:05 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On 17 Aug 2025 09:21:33 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:That?s the definition of grabby! That?s what a brake with decent modulation
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 16 Aug 2025 22:00:37 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 16 Aug 2025 15:53:22 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:Wrong.. they're not the least bit grabby. Most of my braking involves
What you?re describing is a grabby braking system, or one without much
On 8/16/2025 3:27 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 16 Aug 2025 12:38:16 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:Stopping a two wheeler with the center of gravity 20/24 inches higher
On 8/16/2025 12:14 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 16 Aug 2025 16:43:00 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
<https://youtu.be/b0P5imJ5KFY?si=NgEExOW8I3YJC310> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Sort of interesting, I disagree with the disks got UCI clearance so
research stopped narrative (he is a Ex Pro) as plenty of disk road
bikes
and even proto Gravel bikes around then and before ie CX bikes with
more
space for bigger tyres and multiple bottle cages for hacking about the
woods.
Ie the Pro?s were playing catch up to the consumers. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Interesting that it did largely stop dead Hydraulic rim brakes unlike
for
example cable disks which maybe the development >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has stopped still using
same designs from 2005 or so, but they are sold and used.
Likewise rim brakes which are still about even new bikes as I did last
year, with the ?old school? roadie /commuter >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Roger Merriman
With two front wheels with 40 CM tires, the Avid BB7 brakes are all I
need. I've actually backed off on them so a full pull will not lock
them up until I've slowed down to 7 or 8 MPH. I prefer not lift the
rear wheel off the ground and slam the chain rings into the ground.
I swapped out the MTN calipers for the road versions so I can use Cane
CreeK 200TT bar end levers
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Nice setup for your vehicle. Hub brakes are always >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dramatically more effective on smaller wheels of course.
The Catrike's front wheel hubs are very different from a two wheel
bike in that the wheels are only supported on one side. A hub brake
could be done, but not with entirely different headsets and wheel
support system.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Right, stub axle like an auto or many modern motorcycles. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Regarding braking, any hub brake (drum, belt, roller, CB or
disc) will have dramatically increased effect on a 20" wheel
compared to a 700C wheel.
This is very evident in practice, as ancient bicycle >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mechanics demonstrated with Atom drum brakes on Schwinn >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Krates, leaving long black marks on dealership tile floors
long long ago. Atom drum brakes are unimpressive at best on
a 700C wheel.
Even a band brake is snappy on a Panasonic 12" folder! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
than me on the Catrike is very different. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
modulation which is a generally a trait of cable disks. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
gentle modulation.
Cable always is less modular than hydraulic nature of the technology, and
the fact you have wound them back says you do think they are grabby,
braking hard but on the edge ie keeping the tyre on the edge of grip with
the rear wheel trying to lift potentially is much easier with such systems.
Wrong... I have no trouble modulating them, but, originally, a full
pull would actually lock up both front wheels at way too high a speed.
When a dog ran out in front of me on a rather fast downhill I panic
stopped, stopping much quicker than I needed to. It lifted the rear
wheel off the ground and almost slamming the chain rings into the
ground. I backed them off to make them anti-lock like on vehicles, not
because they were grabby.
doesn?t do as you can feel the bite point and the slip point of the tyres.
Nonsense... locking up the wheel on a full pull is not the definition
of grabby brakes. Any decent brake system should be able to lock up
the brakes.
That?s why the old school roadie with its Rim brakes is more grabby than
even the MTB with its 180mm rotors which are levels more powerful than the
commuter bike with old hydraulic disks and the Gravel bike. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And? That?s not a type of riding that will push brakes, nor will road useIt can give at low speeds anyway an illusion of power, but I can?t imagine
with the riding you do that you?re remotely pushing the brakes hard.
A few years back I was averaging 17/18 miles per hour on 40 mile
rides. There were occasional road and highway crossings where I'd
hadn't planned on stopping but quickly had to stop. The first five/six
years on thr Catrike I often rode 60/70/80 mile rides on some fairly
hilly terrain, where, once again, there were highway crossings. On
some of those downhills I was doing over 40 MPH. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
in general, there is a reason disks started with MTB?s and even now have
larger rotors and 4 and even 6 pot brakes.
I don't think my riding pushes the brakes at all. That's why I said I
have no reason to look for better brakes. My brakes are still capable
of stopping me very quickly, even at downhill speeds, which >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> admittedly, I don't much any more.
With the CatTrike weight static ie you can?t move on the seat back, whenTruth is that throwing the weight forward when the center of gravity
braking plus the bulk of the weight forward Its not surprising that the
potential to lift the rear wheel is there. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
is about rear axle hieght makes it harder to lift the rear wheel than
on a two wheeler where the center of gravity is 20/24 inches higher.
I?d be very surprised if that is true!
It's a simple fact that raising the center of gravity makes things
easier to tip over. Panic braking on a standard two wheeler can
actually lift the rider weight up and forward.
Since you?ve claimed to worry about hitting your chainrings, which like
your legs are quite forward of the front axel of the CatTrike lifting a
rear would seem much more of a thing, at least for that type of tadpole
design, the Adaptive MTB?s being used in much more challenging terrain the
weight is further back, and thus can have big hydro disks and so on.
I don't worry about hitting the chain rings on the ground, I simply
know that it's possible. It's actually much more common for two wheel
riders to lift the rear wheel when braking hard given the higher >>>>>>>>>>>>>> center of gravity.
https://zizebikes.com/bicycle-braking-how-to-avoid-the-over-the-handlebar-crash/
I'm pretty sure I've done it more times on two wheelers than on the
Catrikes, but granted I used to ride my two wheelers pretty hard and
some would say "carelessly."
Roger Merriman--Roger Merriman
C'est bon
Soloman
--
C'est bon
Soloman
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Roger Merriman
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Right. Two different discussions here; braking
effectiveness and then rider/vehicle handling & height of cg. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
Yup modulation which is independent from braking force, yes hydraulic
system tends to have more power, but they also vary by some margin, I have
3 bikes with Hydraulic discs all with different levels of absolute braking
strength, and none are that powerful, ie no 4 pot systems and so on.
One of the commute bikes I had previously was similar to the commuter I now
have, but with V brakes, if cheap ones, but still fairly good and much more
likely to lift or lighten the rear wheel, in a that dog is crossing my path
I need to stop sharply than the old MTB derived Commuter as hydraulic
system have better modulation.
Lifting a rear wheel slightly isn?t a problem, just the nature of the
technology.
A trike whose chainrings and thus legs, (which a colleague of mine used to
say are remarkably heavy to lift after amputations!) are all way out in
front of the front hub, so while it?s overall length it?s long, it?s
wheelbase is not, all of my bikes have longer wheelbases >>>>>>>>>>>>
That?s a lot of weight forward, the fact it?s got a lower centre of gravity
isn?t going to change that.
I suspect that cables are used for ease of folding and maybe cost saving?
Roger Merriman
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. My single piston avid
brakes have served me well, and if someone gave me a set of hydraulic
brakes I'd put them up for sale. I've used the Avid's ability to >>>>>>>>>>> modulate to slow down on fast curvy downhills where equally modulating
the front wheels is critical. They're also capable of locking the >>>>>>>>>>> front wheels on a fullpull, although admittedly, my pull is probably
above average, which is why I backed them off. As for center of >>>>>>>>>>> gravity, my center of gravity is further forward than on a two >>>>>>>>>>> wheeler, but it's much lower and like I said, lifting the rear wheel
on a two wheeler is more common than on a Catrike.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
+1
Braking variables are dependent more on swept area (disc
diameter) than puck size or mechanism (cable/hydraulic) or >>>>>>>>>> 2/4 pistons or pad material and so on.
There is a healthy jump in just braking force, just going Hydraulic, after
all plenty of 160mm road/Gravel and originally MTB?s but a larger rotor
doesn?t appear to be enough to close the gap even if you installed 180 or
203mm rotors, and equally 4 pot callipers are most definitely more powerful
again, larger rotors is one way to maximise power but the intended design
will will have more impact.
It would be rough equivalent of going to 203mm rotors but considering BB7
And your vehicle notably has excellent rotor diameter to
wheel diameter!
is a old design it?s well over 10 years if not more, and that isn?t going
to suddenly make it a powerful brake let alone the very front forward >>>>>>>>> weight distribution of the CatTrike.
Rotor size and % to wheel isn?t a huge difference, much more so is the
brakes intended use and thus design.
Roger Merriman
I have Sram G2 on my FS and Avid BB7 on my hardtail. Both have 180/160 >>>>>>>> mm rotors front/rear.
The G2s have decidedly more power, but also better modulation than the >>>>>>>> BB7s. The BB7s have plenty of power (especially for a guy my size) and >>>>>>>> modulation. I'll take the bike that is better suited to the terrain I'll
be riding.
hate the feel of those!
Roger Merriman
180s would dissipate heat even better.
All being equal yes but there is various technologies in cooling rotors and
pads so fairly reasonable to expect that the new rotor will hold on longer
than a cheaper larger rotor, the newer calipers with finned pads definitely
do, as ever depends on what your reasonably going to expect, my mate with >>>>> the E MTB though he has a heavier bike, he?s not as happy in technical >>>>> stuff and so doesn?t bother with the finned variants as makes zero
difference to him but is more expensive.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Roger Merriman
My Avid G2 180mm disks are over 4 years old with 9400 miles and I'm
thinking about replacing them at $41 apiece which puts them at or over >>>> the average price for the standard six bolt disks. It looks like the
more expensive disks simply have a fancier type of attachment.
point the old commute bikes rear wheel is 10 years old and has done 20,000 >>> miles rotor is fine last time I checked.
You can get cheap and expensive rotors in 6 bolt or Center lock fittings >>>
There are few techniques to try to dissipate heat a cheap solid rotor is >>> the bare minimum, but for your use, and myself on the commute itAs
absolutely fine.
--Roger Merriman
C'est bon
Soloman
In my opinion, the two piece disks are nonsense. They call them
"floating," but as I understand it, they don't really float. It seems
to me that the best heat dissipation would come from the "spokes" from
the disk surface down to the hub.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
It's primarily the airflow across the disc, moreso on larger
discs and at higher airflow (speed).
https://www.thermal-engineering.org/thermal-analysis-of-braking-systems/
https://pubs.sciepub.com/ajme/2/4/2/image/fig22.png
On Sat, 23 Aug 2025 08:22:04 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 8/23/2025 6:07 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On 23 Aug 2025 09:38:33 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On 22 Aug 2025 23:00:46 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote: >>>>>Did you measure them and or just check them out ie how worn do they look? >>>> IAd not of thought 4 years with your useage would do much wear. Case in >>>> point the old commute bikes rear wheel is 10 years old and has done 20,000 >>>> miles rotor is fine last time I checked.
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On 21 Aug 2025 15:19:59 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote: >>>>>>>
zen cycle <funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 8/19/2025 7:43 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:I have or rather about to collect the gravel bike with a new slightly >>>>>>>> higher end rotor 160mm to cope with heat, did suggest sintered pads but I
AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 8/19/2025 3:51 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On 19 Aug 2025 19:01:46 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 8/18/2025 7:42 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On 18 Aug 2025 10:04:05 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 17 Aug 2025 09:21:33 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
That?s the definition of grabby! That?s what a brake with decent modulation
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 16 Aug 2025 22:00:37 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 16 Aug 2025 15:53:22 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:Wrong.. they're not the least bit grabby. Most of my braking involves
What you?re describing is a grabby braking system, or one without much
On 8/16/2025 3:27 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 16 Aug 2025 12:38:16 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:Stopping a two wheeler with the center of gravity 20/24 inches higher
On 8/16/2025 12:14 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 16 Aug 2025 16:43:00 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
<https://youtu.be/b0P5imJ5KFY?si=NgEExOW8I3YJC310> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Sort of interesting, I disagree with the disks got UCI clearance so
research stopped narrative (he is a Ex Pro) as plenty of disk road
bikes
and even proto Gravel bikes around then and before ie CX bikes with
more
space for bigger tyres and multiple bottle cages for hacking about the
woods.
Ie the Pro?s were playing catch up to the consumers. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Interesting that it did largely stop dead Hydraulic rim brakes unlike
for
example cable disks which maybe the development >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has stopped still using
same designs from 2005 or so, but they are sold and used.
Likewise rim brakes which are still about even new bikes as I did last
year, with the ?old school? roadie /commuter >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Roger Merriman
With two front wheels with 40 CM tires, the Avid BB7 brakes are all I
need. I've actually backed off on them so a full pull will not lock
them up until I've slowed down to 7 or 8 MPH. I prefer not lift the
rear wheel off the ground and slam the chain rings into the ground.
I swapped out the MTN calipers for the road versions so I can use Cane
CreeK 200TT bar end levers
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Nice setup for your vehicle. Hub brakes are always >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dramatically more effective on smaller wheels of course.
The Catrike's front wheel hubs are very different from a two wheel
bike in that the wheels are only supported on one side. A hub brake
could be done, but not with entirely different headsets and wheel
support system.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Right, stub axle like an auto or many modern motorcycles.
Regarding braking, any hub brake (drum, belt, roller, CB or
disc) will have dramatically increased effect on a 20" wheel
compared to a 700C wheel.
This is very evident in practice, as ancient bicycle >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mechanics demonstrated with Atom drum brakes on Schwinn >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Krates, leaving long black marks on dealership tile floors
long long ago. Atom drum brakes are unimpressive at best on
a 700C wheel.
Even a band brake is snappy on a Panasonic 12" folder! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
than me on the Catrike is very different. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
modulation which is a generally a trait of cable disks. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
gentle modulation.
Cable always is less modular than hydraulic nature of the technology, and
the fact you have wound them back says you do think they are grabby,
braking hard but on the edge ie keeping the tyre on the edge of grip with
the rear wheel trying to lift potentially is much easier with such systems.
Wrong... I have no trouble modulating them, but, originally, a full
pull would actually lock up both front wheels at way too high a speed.
When a dog ran out in front of me on a rather fast downhill I panic
stopped, stopping much quicker than I needed to. It lifted the rear
wheel off the ground and almost slamming the chain rings into the
ground. I backed them off to make them anti-lock like on vehicles, not
because they were grabby.
doesn?t do as you can feel the bite point and the slip point of the tyres.
Nonsense... locking up the wheel on a full pull is not the definition
of grabby brakes. Any decent brake system should be able to lock up
the brakes.
That?s why the old school roadie with its Rim brakes is more grabby than
even the MTB with its 180mm rotors which are levels more powerful than the
commuter bike with old hydraulic disks and the Gravel bike. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Since you?ve claimed to worry about hitting your chainrings, which likeAnd? That?s not a type of riding that will push brakes, nor will road useIt can give at low speeds anyway an illusion of power, but I can?t imagine
with the riding you do that you?re remotely pushing the brakes hard.
A few years back I was averaging 17/18 miles per hour on 40 mile
rides. There were occasional road and highway crossings where I'd
hadn't planned on stopping but quickly had to stop. The first five/six
years on thr Catrike I often rode 60/70/80 mile rides on some fairly
hilly terrain, where, once again, there were highway crossings. On
some of those downhills I was doing over 40 MPH. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
in general, there is a reason disks started with MTB?s and even now have
larger rotors and 4 and even 6 pot brakes.
I don't think my riding pushes the brakes at all. That's why I said I
have no reason to look for better brakes. My brakes are still capable
of stopping me very quickly, even at downhill speeds, which >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> admittedly, I don't much any more.
With the CatTrike weight static ie you can?t move on the seat back, whenTruth is that throwing the weight forward when the center of gravity
braking plus the bulk of the weight forward Its not surprising that the
potential to lift the rear wheel is there. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
is about rear axle hieght makes it harder to lift the rear wheel than
on a two wheeler where the center of gravity is 20/24 inches higher.
I?d be very surprised if that is true!
It's a simple fact that raising the center of gravity makes things
easier to tip over. Panic braking on a standard two wheeler can
actually lift the rider weight up and forward. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
your legs are quite forward of the front axel of the CatTrike lifting a
rear would seem much more of a thing, at least for that type of tadpole
design, the Adaptive MTB?s being used in much more challenging terrain the
weight is further back, and thus can have big hydro disks and so on.
I don't worry about hitting the chain rings on the ground, I simply
know that it's possible. It's actually much more common for two wheel
riders to lift the rear wheel when braking hard given the higher
center of gravity.
https://zizebikes.com/bicycle-braking-how-to-avoid-the-over-the-handlebar-crash/
I'm pretty sure I've done it more times on two wheelers than on the
Catrikes, but granted I used to ride my two wheelers pretty hard and
some would say "carelessly."
Roger Merriman--Roger Merriman
C'est bon
Soloman
--
C'est bon
Soloman
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Roger Merriman
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Right. Two different discussions here; braking
effectiveness and then rider/vehicle handling & height of cg. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Yup modulation which is independent from braking force, yes hydraulic
system tends to have more power, but they also vary by some margin, I have
3 bikes with Hydraulic discs all with different levels of absolute braking
strength, and none are that powerful, ie no 4 pot systems and so on.
One of the commute bikes I had previously was similar to the commuter I now
have, but with V brakes, if cheap ones, but still fairly good and much more
likely to lift or lighten the rear wheel, in a that dog is crossing my path
I need to stop sharply than the old MTB derived Commuter as hydraulic
system have better modulation.
Lifting a rear wheel slightly isn?t a problem, just the nature of the
technology.
A trike whose chainrings and thus legs, (which a colleague of mine used to
say are remarkably heavy to lift after amputations!) are all way out in
front of the front hub, so while it?s overall length it?s long, it?s
wheelbase is not, all of my bikes have longer wheelbases >>>>>>>>>>>>>
That?s a lot of weight forward, the fact it?s got a lower centre of gravity
isn?t going to change that.
I suspect that cables are used for ease of folding and maybe cost saving?
Roger Merriman
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. My single piston avid
brakes have served me well, and if someone gave me a set of hydraulic
brakes I'd put them up for sale. I've used the Avid's ability to >>>>>>>>>>>> modulate to slow down on fast curvy downhills where equally modulating
the front wheels is critical. They're also capable of locking the >>>>>>>>>>>> front wheels on a fullpull, although admittedly, my pull is probably
above average, which is why I backed them off. As for center of >>>>>>>>>>>> gravity, my center of gravity is further forward than on a two >>>>>>>>>>>> wheeler, but it's much lower and like I said, lifting the rear wheel
on a two wheeler is more common than on a Catrike.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
+1
Braking variables are dependent more on swept area (disc >>>>>>>>>>> diameter) than puck size or mechanism (cable/hydraulic) or >>>>>>>>>>> 2/4 pistons or pad material and so on.
There is a healthy jump in just braking force, just going Hydraulic, after
all plenty of 160mm road/Gravel and originally MTB?s but a larger rotor
doesn?t appear to be enough to close the gap even if you installed 180 or
203mm rotors, and equally 4 pot callipers are most definitely more powerful
again, larger rotors is one way to maximise power but the intended design
will will have more impact.
It would be rough equivalent of going to 203mm rotors but considering BB7
And your vehicle notably has excellent rotor diameter to >>>>>>>>>>> wheel diameter!
is a old design it?s well over 10 years if not more, and that isn?t going
to suddenly make it a powerful brake let alone the very front forward
weight distribution of the CatTrike.
Rotor size and % to wheel isn?t a huge difference, much more so is the
brakes intended use and thus design.
Roger Merriman
I have Sram G2 on my FS and Avid BB7 on my hardtail. Both have 180/160
mm rotors front/rear.
The G2s have decidedly more power, but also better modulation than the
BB7s. The BB7s have plenty of power (especially for a guy my size) and
modulation. I'll take the bike that is better suited to the terrain I'll
be riding.
hate the feel of those!
Roger Merriman
180s would dissipate heat even better.
All being equal yes but there is various technologies in cooling rotors and
pads so fairly reasonable to expect that the new rotor will hold on longer
than a cheaper larger rotor, the newer calipers with finned pads definitely
do, as ever depends on what your reasonably going to expect, my mate with
the E MTB though he has a heavier bike, he?s not as happy in technical >>>>>> stuff and so doesn?t bother with the finned variants as makes zero >>>>>> difference to him but is more expensive.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Roger Merriman
My Avid G2 180mm disks are over 4 years old with 9400 miles and I'm
thinking about replacing them at $41 apiece which puts them at or over >>>>> the average price for the standard six bolt disks. It looks like the >>>>> more expensive disks simply have a fancier type of attachment.
You can get cheap and expensive rotors in 6 bolt or Center lock fittings >>>>
There are few techniques to try to dissipate heat a cheap solid rotor is >>>> the bare minimum, but for your use, and myself on the commute itAs
absolutely fine.
--Roger Merriman
C'est bon
Soloman
In my opinion, the two piece disks are nonsense. They call them
"floating," but as I understand it, they don't really float. It seems
to me that the best heat dissipation would come from the "spokes" from
the disk surface down to the hub.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
It's primarily the airflow across the disc, moreso on larger
discs and at higher airflow (speed).
https://www.thermal-engineering.org/thermal-analysis-of-braking-systems/
https://pubs.sciepub.com/ajme/2/4/2/image/fig22.png
You're right of course.. I was, for some reason, thinking about heat >dissipation during the actual braking. Probably not much dissipation
going on then.
