Decent cable disc brake callipers for Shimano STI levers

[Phil W]

If it is post mount on the fork then you can get different adapters (to move the caliper more outbound) for different rotor sizes. As long as fork doesn't taper too sharply you may find that a 160mm rotor is a possibility.

[Brucey]

Stuck with 140mm rotor on the front- surely the caliper mount position reflects the rotor size?

You have post-mount brakes; there are various sizes available but this is a PM +30mm adaptor;



just occasionally on a road/CX bike a larger disc  won't fit because it fouls with the fork blade, so check this before you take the plunge.

Assuming the brake track is ~16mm wide going from 140 to 160mm takes the centre of the brake track from ~62mm radius to ~72mm radius, i.e. + 16%.  The brakes will be +16% more powerful and won't fade or the disc itself wear out quite as quickly.

Although they are an older design (which is meant for higher MA levers than NSSLR ones) you might even find that the 'crap' BB5s work quite well, once they are fitted with decent pads and cables....

cheers

[Adam]

Two winters have killed my TRP Spyke, now needs frequent adjustment and feels rough.  Not sure what to replace it with, I like the BB7's on another bike but the TRP's fit better with the rack. I haven't noticed any braking difference between them.

I've found the opposite - that TRP Spyres deal with winter much better than BB7s, as well as not requiring so much adjusting over time.

[grams]

Quick follow up to this:

- I went out and bought some Spyres. They're much better designed than the Shimanos, look neater, easier to adjust, better in every way. Felt great on the workstand. Went out for a test ride... absolutely no improvement. Just no bite onto the rotor.

- So I did some googling and apparently compressionless housing would transform them. Again, felt great on the workstand, much firmer. But out on the road... no improvement.

- So I saw a good deal on TRP HY/RDs and went out and got one for the rear and decided to get a proper full hydraulic for the front*. Been out on a test ride and both of them work infinitely better than the various mechanicals ever did. And apart from bolting them on vaguely centrally I've spent zero seconds adjusting either of them.

(* I have a triple chainset on this bike, otherwise I'd have gone full hydraulic)

[Brucey]

just a word or two  of warning re the HyRds; if the brake arm doesn't return fully for whatever reason, the brake will no longer self-adjust. Self adjustment is great but (esp in the wet) f pad wear rates are higher than normal you can just run out pf pads unexpectedly.     Also if a rear HyRd brake is fitted on the chainstay, water can quite easily dribble down the MC pushrod and sit on the back of the MC seal.  Under certain conditions (to my surprise) water can even get sucked past the MC seal and into the hydraulic circuit.

Provided you avoid a few pitfalls HyRds can work for you. On the other hand I've encoutered folk who have scared themselves witless in hilly country because they have run out of pads/bite, usually due to having the brakes set up wrongly.  'Never again' is often the reaction to this.

FWIW the true behaviour of a disc brake is often not evident on a short test ride; pads need to bed in.  Few mechanical brakes allow both pads to articulate fully too, which means that if the mounts have not been faced and/or the caliper aligned properly, any mechanical brake can take ages to come good. By contrast hydraulic systems allow a small amount of 'tilt' in the pads so up to a point the brakes still work even if the mounts/alignment ain't perfect.

cheers

[grams]

just a word or two  of warning re the HyRds; if the brake arm doesn't return fully for whatever reason, the brake will no longer self-adjust. Self adjustment is great but (esp in the wet) f pad wear rates are higher than normal you can just run out pf pads unexpectedly.

The thing you describe as a failure mode of HY-RDs is how mechanical disc brakes work at their best.

My biggest worry with the HY-RDs is the lock button, which gives my enemies an unnoticeable, tool-free way of completely disabling my brakes. Thankfully only the back one.

[Brucey]

just a word or two  of warning re the HyRds; if the brake arm doesn't return fully for whatever reason, the brake will no longer self-adjust. Self adjustment is great but (esp in the wet) f pad wear rates are higher than normal you can just run out pf pads unexpectedly.

The thing you describe as a failure mode of HY-RDs is how mechanical disc brakes work at their best.

sort of; the bite point of (correctly set up) HyRds is usually about half-way down (lower than with most full hydraulics and full mechanicals), and it isn't unusual to have 'normal braking' with the lever about 2/3rds of the way to the handlebar.   The low bite point seems to disconcert some folk but it also means that you are 100% reliant on the self-adjustment to work; if it fails then you only need wear off a small amount of brake pad before the lever is against the bar. This can all happen much more quickly than running out of pads in a full mechanical brake simply because the lever stroke between 'normal' and 'you are in the poop'  is so much smaller.

My biggest worry with the HY-RDs is the lock button, which gives my enemies an unnoticeable, tool-free way of completely disabling my brakes. Thankfully only the back one.

one of the little habits I have got (and which I would recommend to others) is that I routinely pull on the brakes before I set off.  If some cheeky monkey has been tampering with the brakes (or more likely I have...) I would expect to find out this way.

cheers

[Nightmare-1]

Quick follow up to this:

- I went out and bought some Spyres. They're much better designed than the Shimanos, look neater, easier to adjust, better in every way. Felt great on the workstand. Went out for a test ride... absolutely no improvement. Just no bite onto the rotor.

- So I did some googling and apparently compressionless housing would transform them. Again, felt great on the workstand, much firmer. But out on the road... no improvement.

- So I saw a good deal on TRP HY/RDs and went out and got one for the rear and decided to get a proper full hydraulic for the front*. Been out on a test ride and both of them work infinitely better than the various mechanicals ever did. And apart from bolting them on vaguely centrally I've spent zero seconds adjusting either of them.

(* I have a triple chainset on this bike, otherwise I'd have gone full hydraulic)

Why does the triple chainset stop you from having a hydraulic rear brake?

[Feanor]

Quick follow up to this:

- I went out and bought some Spyres. They're much better designed than the Shimanos, look neater, easier to adjust, better in every way. Felt great on the workstand. Went out for a test ride... absolutely no improvement. Just no bite onto the rotor.

- So I did some googling and apparently compressionless housing would transform them. Again, felt great on the workstand, much firmer. But out on the road... no improvement.

- So I saw a good deal on TRP HY/RDs and went out and got one for the rear and decided to get a proper full hydraulic for the front*. Been out on a test ride and both of them work infinitely better than the various mechanicals ever did. And apart from bolting them on vaguely centrally I've spent zero seconds adjusting either of them.

(* I have a triple chainset on this bike, otherwise I'd have gone full hydraulic)

Why does the triple chainset stop you from having a hydraulic rear brake?

Are there any Triple front ( left ) STI shifters with hydraulic brake cylinders?
Triple groupsets are out of fashion, and I don't know of any current groupsets that would have a triple front shifter and hydraulics.

I may be wrong, of course.

[grams]

Yes, there’s no overlap between groupsets that offer triples and groupsets that offer hydraulics, at least in Shimano drop bar systems.

[FifeingEejit]

Stuck with 140mm rotor on the front- surely the caliper mount position reflects the rotor size?

Which mounting system on the fork?
IS, Post or Flat?

Shimano front flat mount brakes seem to come with a 140/160 plate that you switch round to suit disk size
TRP adapter for 160mm onto flatmount fork:
https://www.wiggle.co.uk/trp-flat-mount-adapter/?lang=en&curr=GBP&dest=1&sku=100591399&kpid=100591399&utm_source=google&utm_term=&utm_campaign=Shopping+-+All+Products&utm_medium=base&utm_content=mckv|s2DRhb5Cv_dc|mcrid|295292317327|mkw||mmt||mrd|100591399uk|mslid||&mkwid=s2DRhb5Cv_dc&pcrid=295292317327&prd=100591399uk&pgrid=58852352866&ptaid=pla-626287623075&gclid=Cj0KCQjwl8XtBRDAARIsAKfwtxCT46vpBh__51PbUzh34G9r8OBaR05wa1OYGys2ndUW-CrEzro0f9oaAidUEALw_wcB

Post and IS mount you get rather unweildy looking adapters
https://www.chainreactioncycles.com/brake-spares/brake-adaptors

[L CC]

I got sorted with the converter/extender as advised by phil w / Brucey.

[FifeingEejit]

I got sorted with the converter/extender as advised by phil w / Brucey.

Yeah... I didnt' notice the pager at the bottom of the page and didn't read the date of your post... 

[Nightmare-1]

Quick follow up to this:

- I went out and bought some Spyres. They're much better designed than the Shimanos, look neater, easier to adjust, better in every way. Felt great on the workstand. Went out for a test ride... absolutely no improvement. Just no bite onto the rotor.

- So I did some googling and apparently compressionless housing would transform them. Again, felt great on the workstand, much firmer. But out on the road... no improvement.

- So I saw a good deal on TRP HY/RDs and went out and got one for the rear and decided to get a proper full hydraulic for the front*. Been out on a test ride and both of them work infinitely better than the various mechanicals ever did. And apart from bolting them on vaguely centrally I've spent zero seconds adjusting either of them.

(* I have a triple chainset on this bike, otherwise I'd have gone full hydraulic)

Why does the triple chainset stop you from having a hydraulic rear brake?

Are there any Triple front ( left ) STI shifters with hydraulic brake cylinders?
Triple groupsets are out of fashion, and I don't know of any current groupsets that would have a triple front shifter and hydraulics.

I may be wrong, of course.

Ahh!
Thanks for that I didn't know mainly because I'm not interested in 11-12+ speed systems
I can't see the point for non competitive/professional use.
I mean, you can get a slightly wider gear range with slightly better cadence , coupled with worse chainline .

11x1 systems
For professional use they say it is a weight saving to not have a front derailleur and it is simpler.

Weight:
They have to make the bikes heavier now to comply with UCI rules.

Simpler:
We've used double/triple chainrings for decades without "major" problems, so what's changed.
Have Pro riders suddenly got "Thicker/dumber"?

Answer NO.
Also some teams are reverting to double/triple chainsets because of performance issues using 11/12x1.
They're also getting through chains/cassettes/chainrings quicker!

[grams]

My triple is so I can have a tiny chainring (24t) for easy hillclimbing at high cadence but otherwise run it 1x on the middle ring. The big ring is a freebie*. Mechanical indexed doubles are a nuisance unless you enjoy the constant sound of being on the wrong ring and it being time to shift *again*.

(* The new GRX 46/30 chainsets are are close to triples in construction, with a much smaller BCD for the little ring)

[Brucey]

for years my favourite triple chainset has been one which looks a bit like one for a half-step, but with a cassette that made it very close to a full step.  So it was most like running an alpine double but with an additional big ring.  This might seem pointless (vs an alpine double) but in fact it

a) meant that I could run n-1 sprockets, a shorter freehub body, and exploit this to make a lighter, stronger, less dished rear wheel
b) run better chainlines on the small chainring and larger sprockets (when you really need them) with no compromise to the higher gears
c) run more higher gears with good chainlines
d) run more higher gears using larger (smoother running, more efficient) chainring/sprocket combinations.

All this means that the bike is more efficient in normal use but it also runs nicely when I'm in the mood to use higher gears. The 'extra weight' of the third chainring is only about 100g over a double setup; it only needs to be ~0.1% more efficient to 'pay for itself' but I think it is about five times better than that. In point of fact there may be no 'extra weight', because the rear wheel can be  built light and wouldn't be as strong as it is without the reduced dish.

cheers

[Nightmare-1]

Nicely put.^^^

[Kim]

11x1 systems
For professional use they say it is a weight saving to not have a front derailleur and it is simpler.

Weight:
They have to make the bikes heavier now to comply with UCI rules.

Simpler:
We've used double/triple chainrings for decades without "major" problems, so what's changed.
Have Pro riders suddenly got "Thicker/dumber"?

The more compelling argument is off-road, where a front derailleur is susceptible to clogging with mud.  On-road it seems very much like change for change's sake.

[Jakob W]

for years my favourite triple chainset has been one which looks a bit like one for a half-step, but with a cassette that made it very close to a full step.  So it was most like running an alpine double but with an additional big ring.

What's the setup - is the cassette a very close-range one then, or have I misunderstood?

[grams]

The more compelling argument is off-road, where a front derailleur is susceptible to clogging with mud.  On-road it seems very much like change for change's sake.

There's enormous value in brainless sequential gearing, and never having to hear the chain scrape on the front derailleur. Although you can approximate the same with synchro and auto trimming Di2.

(I'd also have thought fans of simplicity would also be fans of 1x, but hating on the newfangled seems to outweigh that)

[Brucey]

for years my favourite triple chainset has been one which looks a bit like one for a half-step, but with a cassette that made it very close to a full step.  So it was most like running an alpine double but with an additional big ring.

What's the setup - is the cassette a very close-range one then, or have I misunderstood?

bit of both really; the bigger chainrings have (in round numbers) about 13.5% interval (expressed as an increase in chainring size)  and the cassette has 2T gaps in the small sprockets, starting with a 13T.  The result of this is that many of the gears on the big ring are near-duplicates of those on the middle ring.  This is not ideal for very fast group riding (you would be better off with closer gear ratios, even if some of them are less efficient) but for other uses it works for me; you can nearly always have an intrinsically efficient gear available. It also results in fairly 'brainless shifting' in that it doesn't matter if you swap between the bigger chainrings or between sprockets, you get about the same size shift either way, and the only double shift required is (like with an alpine double) when you go onto the small chainring.

edit; some other points;

a) with conventional gear levers you can feel where the levers are and therefore know what gear you are in, (even in the dark...) and
b) since the aim is to use fewer sprockets per chainring than normal, the chances of having to trim the FD are much reduced and
c) the sizes of the chainrings make for an intrinsically good small to middle shift. As with a true half-step the FD shift between the big rings is really slick
d) the whole setup is not super sensitive to exact  chainring size, so the middle and big rings could easily be varied to give 1/2 step or 1-1/2 step if needs be, with minimal adjustments.
e) ditto the small chainring; I can go +/- 2T without having to change anything really.

cheers

[Kim]

The more compelling argument is off-road, where a front derailleur is susceptible to clogging with mud.  On-road it seems very much like change for change's sake.

There's enormous value in brainless sequential gearing, and never having to hear the chain scrape on the front derailleur. Although you can approximate the same with synchro and auto trimming Di2.

(I'd also have thought fans of simplicity would also be fans of 1x, but hating on the newfangled seems to outweigh that)

Or friction shifting, which works pretty well for front mechs, as long as you're not too committed to fancy shifters.

Gears-inna-can neatly avoid all those problems and more, though obviously have other trade-offs.

It all depends on your priorities.  I don't think 1x is necessarily bad (see above re mud, or on a workhorse bike where it's less to maintain), other than market trends limiting the availability of components for other setups.


ETA: It occurs to me that you need more brains to keep your shifting in order if you can't see or feel what gear you're in.  My clicky shifters are the mountain bike kind, which tell you what's going on.  It's much easier to lose track with STIs, which is presumably where DI2 comes in.

[bludger]

The more compelling argument is off-road, where a front derailleur is susceptible to clogging with mud.  On-road it seems very much like change for change's sake.

There's enormous value in brainless sequential gearing, and never having to hear the chain scrape on the front derailleur. Although you can approximate the same with synchro and auto trimming Di2.

(I'd also have thought fans of simplicity would also be fans of 1x, but hating on the newfangled seems to outweigh that)

I marshaled a muddy cross race 2 weeks ago. I watched at least 5 riders lose their rear derailleurs to mud. Not just dropped chains, the mechs were actually dragged into the spokes and the whole system failed catastrophically. Honestly I think that internal gearing is the way to go for reliability wanters, carrying a spare derailleur hanger is one thing but I had never seen so many parts get damaged in one hour (this was a cross race observing a 'one bike' rule, so no pits/hoses etc).