General Category > The Knowledge

Direct Mount brakes

(1/5) > >>

cygnet:
I've been idly perusing new (road bike) frames, and a few manufacturers are using direct mount calliper brakes on their framesets.

Are these recommended by the panel, or are they the Mini-disc of brake systems lying between the CDs of 'normal' callipers and the MP3/FLAC of disc brakes?

Torslanda:
I've no direct experience but my simple brain can't see any major improvement over standard dual pivots. Shimano will give you all the usual BS about 'response' & 'clarity' 'feel', which, if you absorb it all, makes you think the latest MegaEvoLiteDuraSLX is almost a cure for cancer. Think HiFi magazines testing OFC leads and claiming to be able to hear the difference.

If you want to stop use discs. Hydraulic for power with modulation. Cable/hydraulics if your budget won't stretch to SRAM Red or your frame won't accommodate hoses. Cable discs are still better than rim brakes, especially if you're on the lardy side.

I used to say cable for reliability but the kind of off that would leave you stranded with borked hydraulics is the kind of off that generally would mean you're going home in a meat wagon anyway.

If you're going with rim brakes for whatever reason, check carefully the compatibility of the levers and calipers. Same goes for cable discs. It's no fun getting to the top of the Izoard and zooming down the other side only to discover the levers are coming back to the bars and all you're generating is smoke and noise...

ETA If you do opt for direct mount calipers it may limit your choice of groupset due to compatibility.

citoyen:
I like them. They're very good. However, standard mount Ultegra brakes are also very good, as are 105 brakes. And indeed the latest Tiagra brakes. Like most technological 'advances' in cycling, I couldn't say whether the supposed advantages of direct mount stand up to scrutiny.

I don't think I would specifically seek out a bike that used them, but nor would I reject a bike that came with them. I think they mainly come with 'aero' bikes where the main advantage is supposed to be that their lower profile means they can be more 'integrated' with the frame (although mounting them under the bottom bracket is a BAD thing to do for other reasons). They are also a few grams lighter, and supposedly flex less.

I've also read that they give more progressive braking, whatever that means.

mattc:

--- Quote from: citoyen on 12 December, 2017, 05:59:27 pm ---I've also read that they give more progressive braking, whatever that means.

--- End quote ---
They probably climb better, wick better, and make the ride more "responsive" too. (Sorry, I've been catching up on old Cyclist issues ... )

But yes, they seem like a really good idea - that will make very little real world difference. And putting calipers under the chain-stays of a bike not being used by a pro ...  :facepalm:

Brucey:
marginal gains (at best) vs troubles if you want to fit a different groupset on that frame, and/or troubles because of stupid brake positioning for UK conditions. 

Ask yourself how popular 'U' brakes were about a year after they came out; they were once the next best thing to sliced bread, too..... ;)

cheers

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page