Video: road.cc reader films moment he says his leg was cut by disc brake rotor

SingleSpeed wrote:

Just noticed...at 25seconds look at the bellend on the Speshulized...he's more interested at  looking at the pedestrians!

What a nice person you must be,  give yourself a pat on the back.

madcarew wrote:

What I really dont' understand is how chainrings are so much less dangerous, how there aren't regular photos and videos of people's injuries from chain rings and for calls for them to be banned.

Some hypotheses:

• Most of the time it's covered by the chain which has a larger surface area and doesn't get hot.
• It's in the middle of the bike and between the rider's feet, so unlikely to be the main point of impact.
• It'd be really hard to have a race with no chainrings, so calls to ban them would be moronic. (Yes, I know there are alternatives)
• "Well, that's a risk, so why can't we add two more?" isn't a great counter-argument to safety concerns.

Aside: I don't have an axe to grind either way. I'm thinking of upgrading to discs for training/commuting but I'd rather keep them out of races. Nervy amateurs on flat courses definitely don't need more braking power.

Skimos wrote:

SO, WHY NOT ADD SOMETHING TO THE BIKE THAT MAKES IT MORE DANGEROUS IS ABSURD!

I think you're missing the point a little. I think the difficulty with disc brakes is not really that they're dangerous, it's that the risk:benefit ratio is too close to even.

Anything you add to a bike makes it more dangerous, as anything serves as another object to whack or poke in a crash. If you look at bottle cages they are potentially unnecessary, as jerseys have pockets and top tubes can have soft, non-pokey bags to hold drinks whereas cages have sharp bits that I definitely wouldn't want in my eye. But I think most people would agree, the benefits of them outweigh the small risk of an adverse cage-related event should one crash.

On the other hand, disc brakes appear a bit more complicated. They improve some aspects of safety and enjoyment, to the detriment of others. For me, the ratio is weighted more toward benefit; I only ever rode sh1tty side-pull rim brakes on awful wheels that I could never set up properly before I got my first set of discs, that work damn well and are easy to set up. So, my perception is the benefits are great. Other people, who have used good rim brakes, will perceive it differently and end up with the ratio weighted toward disc brakes being risky. 

Which is fine, as given the lack of any robust data to give us quantified risks and benefits, we have to rely on our opinion. And everyone is allowed one. And we can all enjoy trying to convince ourselves (and others) that it's worth something 

All that said, this is a pretty solid addition to the 'risks' side of the argument. Speedy recovery Peter, you are indeed a hard man to have not even sworn...

700c wrote:

Yorkshire wallet wrote:

I don't think any company issuing disc brake equipped bikes has any responsibility to riders, other than them working properly.  Chainring manufacturers don't have any responsbility to ensure people don't get gouged by them or wheel manufacturers have any responsibility to ensure fingers aren't put in them.

If you fall off your bike there are a myriad of bits to injure you. I remember falling of my MTB and getting a bar in the groin area. Best solution was to not fall off. Pedals down shins, stems to the nuts, seat up the backside at speed. Don't crash. It's a bit like complaining your face got cut with glass after you put your car into a tree.

But missing the point surely? This injury wouldn't have happened with rim brakes. Fabulous triumph of marketing and the bottom line over health and safety, this 'innovation'. And actually perhaps less Spesh's fault than Shitmano's / Sram's whatever..

The injury wouldn't have happened if they had been riding track bikes, either. Or indeed if they had been on scooters. Or on foot. Or if they'd stayed home and "ridden" on Zwift.

surly_by_name wrote:

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

If you are adding something you as a company are saying is a safety benefit (it isn't ultimately) but injuries albeit rare can be caused and pretty bad ones as shown and the previous method could not then that is a basic failure to appreciate health and safety and go with fad/marketing/profit over H&S. disc brakes like so many other 'aids' and 'safety' devices lure the users into taking more risk (this is demonstrably proven in all walks of life) in the case of discs it brings in the belief one can go faster at certain points or maintain speed longer/brake later or indeed ride closer because they think they can brake better/faster (more accurately within a shorter distance), all the while failing to understand that human reactions are the limiting factor added on to which tyre limits are also exceeded in their ability to grip, particularly in the wet where discs do have a mechanical advantage over rim brakes. This results in as many incidents if not more, just like our polystyrene foamed lucky rabbitsfoot.

Just like seatbelts in cars.

Correct, the correlation between increased risk taking and more incidents is well known and statistically validated in the data pre and post seat-belt laws firstly in the US and later in the UK. It was even discussed in the house of Lords and the point made (it's available online) and yet again instead of modifying behaviour or restrictions enforced on both driver and machines yet another 'safety' aid was added, increasing incidents and KSIs of the vulnerable. Cycling SI have risen dramatically despite similar distances travelled. Medical science/ability to treat at scene keeps up to with respect to death toll but has not dropped similar to other modes in the last 10 years.

Discs won't change that (neither has increased helmet wearing in UK), discs in competition road riding won't reduce incident numbers or injury levels but has the potential to cause an injury that could not occur previous with rim brakes, all for a few seconds on approach to a bend on a high speed descent in the wet...yay, go discs!

gcj wrote:

madcarew wrote:

What I really dont' understand is how chainrings are so much less dangerous, how there aren't regular photos and videos of people's injuries from chain rings and for calls for them to be banned.

Some hypotheses:

• Most of the time it's covered by the chain which has a larger surface area and doesn't get hot.
• It's in the middle of the bike and between the rider's feet, so unlikely to be the main point of impact.
• It'd be really hard to have a race with no chainrings, so calls to ban them would be moronic. (Yes, I know there are alternatives)
• "Well, that's a risk, so why can't we add two more?" isn't a great counter-argument to safety concerns.

Aside: I don't have an axe to grind either way. I'm thinking of upgrading to discs for training/commuting but I'd rather keep them out of races. Nervy amateurs on flat courses definitely don't need more braking power.

 

I like the considered response

I dont' have an axe to grind either way either (?!?) Performance wise I think discs are great, I think they probably improve rider safety overall particularly in wet conditions. I dont have them.... yet.

Just a couple of things:

Much is made about the heat of the discs. Hot discs won't cut skin more easily than cold pieces of metal the shame shape and size. It's a non-sequitir.

It may be in the middle of the bike, and in high speed crashes, yes covered by a chain, but in plenty of crashes we see riders going over the top of prone riders,(hence exposed chain ring in great position to, ooo, slice someone's neck open?; and on some of these occasions said upper rider is going to be in little chain ring, and also frequently in these crashes chains come off, so leaving multipronged disc ready to puncture victim. In all the tens of thousands of these crashes a year, we very rarely hear of chainring injuries.

There are plenty of videos showing the difficulty of getting a spinning disc brake rotor to cut clothing, flesh, or shoes. Having looked carefully at this video it seems to me very likely that the injury was caused by the disc. As specialised have said it's the first such evidence they have, I think that this belongs very much in the 'fluke' bag as opposed to being strong evidence of the carnage causing propensity of disc rotors.

surly_by_name wrote:

700c wrote:

Yorkshire wallet wrote:

I don't think any company issuing disc brake equipped bikes has any responsibility to riders, other than them working properly.  Chainring manufacturers don't have any responsbility to ensure people don't get gouged by them or wheel manufacturers have any responsibility to ensure fingers aren't put in them.

If you fall off your bike there are a myriad of bits to injure you. I remember falling of my MTB and getting a bar in the groin area. Best solution was to not fall off. Pedals down shins, stems to the nuts, seat up the backside at speed. Don't crash. It's a bit like complaining your face got cut with glass after you put your car into a tree.

But missing the point surely? This injury wouldn't have happened with rim brakes. Fabulous triumph of marketing and the bottom line over health and safety, this 'innovation'. And actually perhaps less Spesh's fault than Shitmano's / Sram's whatever..

The injury wouldn't have happened if they had been riding track bikes, either. Or indeed if they had been on scooters. Or on foot. Or if they'd stayed home and "ridden" on Zwift.

I like your straw man

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

surly_by_name wrote:

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

If you are adding something you as a company are saying is a safety benefit (it isn't ultimately) but injuries albeit rare can be caused and pretty bad ones as shown and the previous method could not then that is a basic failure to appreciate health and safety and go with fad/marketing/profit over H&S. disc brakes like so many other 'aids' and 'safety' devices lure the users into taking more risk (this is demonstrably proven in all walks of life) in the case of discs it brings in the belief one can go faster at certain points or maintain speed longer/brake later or indeed ride closer because they think they can brake better/faster (more accurately within a shorter distance), all the while failing to understand that human reactions are the limiting factor added on to which tyre limits are also exceeded in their ability to grip, particularly in the wet where discs do have a mechanical advantage over rim brakes. This results in as many incidents if not more, just like our polystyrene foamed lucky rabbitsfoot.

Just like seatbelts in cars.

Correct, the correlation between increased risk taking and more incidents is well known and statistically validated in the data pre and post seat-belt laws firstly in the US and later in the UK. It was even discussed in the house of Lords and the point made (it's available online) and yet again instead of modifying behaviour or restrictions enforced on both driver and machines yet another 'safety' aid was added, increasing incidents and KSIs of the vulnerable. Cycling SI have risen dramatically despite similar distances travelled. Medical science/ability to treat at scene keeps up to with respect to death toll but has not dropped similar to other modes in the last 10 years.

Discs won't change that (neither has increased helmet wearing in UK), discs in competition road riding won't reduce incident numbers or injury levels but has the potential to cause an injury that could not occur previous with rim brakes, all for a few seconds on approach to a bend on a high speed descent in the wet...yay, go discs!

That's a psychological probem, not a technical one.  Discs brakes are safer, what a user does with that increased margin is up to them

nadsta wrote:

That's a psychological probem, not a technical one.  Discs brakes are safer, what a user does with that increased margin is up to them

In the case of seat-belts that isn't true, because the effects affect people other than the user of the seat-belt. So the risk is increased for those outside the vehicle with no benefit to them from the seat-belt.

In the case of disk-brakes it seems to me you are correct. People will increase risk-taking at most to a level that the brakes reduce risk, so total risk won't increase but people will have the option of behaving less cautiously without a downside - so where's the harm?

I'm bemused that disk brakes are such a controversial topic. I get vehicular cycling vs infrastructure, helmets yea-or-nay, high-viz, motorist-behaviour, Willo-vs-everyone-else-about-everything, arguments about sports, even off-topic arguments about Brexit or racism. But I don't quite get why anyone cares particularly about bicycle braking mechanisms.

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

nadsta wrote:

...

I'm bemused that disk brakes are such a controversial topic... But I don't quite get why anyone cares particularly about bicycle braking mechanisms.

It's the same as an argument between Catholics and Protestants in the 15th century. No proof of either belief system (which in any event are indisinguishable from an outsider's perspective), it's about faith and doctrine. Or in practical terms, "I care because if you are correct then my value system - which defines the clique that I belong to - is undermined".  Luckily there's no way of proving whether you are correct or not, so I can just shout a lot (or burn you and your co-religionists at the stake/on a flaming disc rotor) to "prove" that I am correct.

I suggest an embargo on this debate for 5 years and then see where the market takes us. To that end, I am going to refrain from expressing any further views on the merits or otherwise of disc brakes from this point forward.

nadsta wrote:

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

surly_by_name wrote:

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

If you are adding something you as a company are saying is a safety benefit (it isn't ultimately) but injuries albeit rare can be caused and pretty bad ones as shown and the previous method could not then that is a basic failure to appreciate health and safety and go with fad/marketing/profit over H&S. disc brakes like so many other 'aids' and 'safety' devices lure the users into taking more risk (this is demonstrably proven in all walks of life) in the case of discs it brings in the belief one can go faster at certain points or maintain speed longer/brake later or indeed ride closer because they think they can brake better/faster (more accurately within a shorter distance), all the while failing to understand that human reactions are the limiting factor added on to which tyre limits are also exceeded in their ability to grip, particularly in the wet where discs do have a mechanical advantage over rim brakes. This results in as many incidents if not more, just like our polystyrene foamed lucky rabbitsfoot.

Just like seatbelts in cars.

Correct, the correlation between increased risk taking and more incidents is well known and statistically validated in the data pre and post seat-belt laws firstly in the US and later in the UK. It was even discussed in the house of Lords and the point made (it's available online) and yet again instead of modifying behaviour or restrictions enforced on both driver and machines yet another 'safety' aid was added, increasing incidents and KSIs of the vulnerable. Cycling SI have risen dramatically despite similar distances travelled. Medical science/ability to treat at scene keeps up to with respect to death toll but has not dropped similar to other modes in the last 10 years.

Discs won't change that (neither has increased helmet wearing in UK), discs in competition road riding won't reduce incident numbers or injury levels but has the potential to cause an injury that could not occur previous with rim brakes, all for a few seconds on approach to a bend on a high speed descent in the wet...yay, go discs!

That's a psychological probem, not a technical one.  Discs brakes are safer, what a user does with that increased margin is up to them

technically it/they cause more harm in an off than a rim brake has ever done directly in over 50 years unless you have proof of an old stirrup brake puncturing a lung. discs are a failure on many fronts, not just in how they change how people think about braking, how much speed they can carry.

edit:

The injury wouldn't have happened if they had all been on the fucking Golf Course where these muppets belong.

DaSy wrote:

Yorkshire wallet wrote:

If you fall off your bike there are a myriad of bits to injure you. I remember falling of my MTB and getting a bar in the groin area. Best solution was to not fall off. Pedals down shins, stems to the nuts, seat up the backside at speed. Don't crash. It's a bit like complaining your face got cut with glass after you put your car into a tree.

Bar-end into groin - check

V12 with additional pins installed, down shin - check

Stem to nuts (also once into chest - don't ask) - check

Saddle point into anus at speed - check  - and that really f**king hurt!

I also went into a hawthorn bush head-first like a spear at speed once, I had to ride about 15 miles home, looking like Pinhead from Hellraiser with a trickle of blood from about two thousand tiny wounds!

I really don't miss MTBing...

I laughed at this a lot!  Apologies for laughing at your pain though...!!

SingleSpeed wrote:

Just noticed...at 25seconds look at the bellend on the Speshulized...he's more interested at  looking at the pedestrians!

Probably caught sight of his reflection in a puddle/shiny surface and bedazzled himself...

I V E  L O S T T H E  W I L L  T O  L I V E

N O  M O R E  M A S S  D E B A T E S  A B O U T  D E  B R A K E S 

Skimos wrote:

Aaaahhhh. Whether you like disc brakes or not the argument that parts of the bike are already dangerous... SO, WHY NOT ADD SOMETHING TO THE BIKE THAT MAKES IT MORE DANGEROUS IS ABSURD! SINCE THE BIKE HAS A DANGEROUS CHAINRING, ADDING SOMETHING TO MAKE THE BIKE MORE DANGEROUS IS OKAY! I can't believe bike insiders are saying this! Shouldn't the line be... Since the bike is already dangerous we should do what we can to make the bike as safe as possible? What is wrong with people?

A bike with disc brakes is perfectly safe. It's the nut that holds the handlebars that causes all the accidents. I have had disc braked bikes of varying sorts since 2002 - never had any safety issues with them at all, never seen anyone else have safety issues either. The above is extremely rare and given the nature of the collision a similar injury would most probably have occured from the spokes in the absence of a disc brake.

Colin Peyresourde wrote:

I'll give me own disc brake injury story. Pulling the air hose off my disc brake equipped cyclo-cross bike my hand jerked into the disc brake. Two massive cuts on my hand.

You could have suffered the same injury, but probably much messier and more likely to be infected, removing the airhose from the drive side ofg your rear wheel and putting your hand into the cogset. Solution: remove airhose from non-disc side of bike

Colin Peyresourde wrote:

... I don't think that they improve safety on a road bike - the braking on well maintained wheels is likely to be no better on disc brakes than rim brakes.

Sorry Colin mate, gotta 100%, provably, utterly demolish this myth right here. There is simply no contest - discs outperform rims in almost all circumstances, and are provably safe in others.

On long descents, there's no way a disc will cause a rim-heat-induced blowout - a relatively common occurrence in hilly areas.

Even the best rim brakes (Red22 + Swisstop pads on new, high-end rims) suffer in the wet. A freezing,  soaked 1hr descent of the Furkapass is still etched in my clawed, arthritic mitts. Had I had discs I'd have been down in half the time with a fraction the finger-hand effort.

In the dry, on short descents, sure - use rim brakes - I have several bikes for that. For poor weather, off-road or loaded, it's discs all the way.

KiwiMike wrote:

Colin Peyresourde wrote:

I'll give me own disc brake injury story. Pulling the air hose off my disc brake equipped cyclo-cross bike my hand jerked into the disc brake. Two massive cuts on my hand.

You could have suffered the same injury, but probably much messier and more likely to be infected, removing the airhose from the drive side ofg your rear wheel and putting your hand into the cogset. Solution: remove airhose from non-disc side of bike

I'm pretty sure it was the non-disc side. Anyway I didn't anticipate it would shred my skin....

KiwiMike wrote:

Sorry Colin mate, gotta 100%, provably, utterly demolish this myth right here. There is simply no contest - discs outperform rims in almost all circumstances, and are provably safe in others.

On long descents, there's no way a disc will cause a rim-heat-induced blowout - a relatively common occurrence in hilly areas.

Even the best rim brakes (Red22 + Swisstop pads on new, high-end rims) suffer in the wet. A freezing,  soaked 1hr descent of the Furkapass is still etched in my clawed, arthritic mitts. Had I had discs I'd have been down in half the time with a fraction the finger-hand effort.

In the dry, on short descents, sure - use rim brakes - I have several bikes for that. For poor weather, off-road or loaded, it's discs all the way.

My disc brakes suffer under prolonged wet conditions. It's only if it's not raining that they are better than rim brakes on a wet road as they don't get splashed.

well maintained rim brake wheels perform so well that you can accidentally skid your bike - not a function that I need replicating. There is a bit of a benefit to discs on a road bike, but having to replace the brake pads so often is not one of them.

Just my opinion, owning both sorts of brake system. 

Colin Peyresourde wrote:

My disc brakes suffer under prolonged wet conditions. It's only if it's not raining that they are better than rim brakes on a wet road as they don't get splashed.

Your brakes need looking at then

Colin Peyresourde wrote:

well maintained rim brake wheels perform so well that you can accidentally skid your bike - not a function that I need replicating. There is a bit of a benefit to discs on a road bike, but having to replace the brake pads so often is not one of them.

Locking up a wheel is a sign of a brake system that has rubbish modulation - that is a classic wet rim-brake problem. Nothing works until they dry off, then bam! they work too well, on a wet surface. That's a problem discs don't have as they start working from the outset - they have a much smaller area to clear of water, and the pressures / temperatures are far higher than a rim system, aiding sweeping/evaporation. Even if sopping wet, the time for a disc to start to bite meaningfully is way, way shorter than a rim brake, and you have much more control once it does start.

Plus, there's much less diesel film, rubber and mud to clear off first, unlike a rim surface.

Finally, I get about 3,000 shitty, wet UK miles between £10 stock Shimano pad changes. Far better value than rim brakes, mile for mile, and I don't eat new rims ever few years. Or ever need cables replacing. It's all win

petecb wrote:

Just to clear a few things up.

Specialized have just given me a call from their head office in California and we had a good chat. Very happy with them and I remain a big fan of the brand.

My initial e-mail to UK got what I felt was a dismissive response so that is why I sent the story in, bit of a knee jerk reaction in all honesty.

Stop the hating on the riding quality. Nobody starts as experts. It was a mixed ability ride and mistakes were made and I include myself in that. I hold no animosity towards anyone and hope to go on many rides with these guys over the summer. We will be sitting by a cafe laughing about it in a few weeks (I may just ride at the back though!) 

On reflection, yes this really is a freak incident but Specialized are grateful for the footage. To date they  have never had coverage of an incident involving disc brakes so I am sure this will be useful to them and can benefit rider safety in the future.

Stay safe everyone...

 

Yes but did you get any free stuff? 

petecb wrote:

Just to clear a few things up.

Specialized have just given me a call from their head office in California and we had a good chat. Very happy with them and I remain a big fan of the brand.

My initial e-mail to UK got what I felt was a dismissive response so that is why I sent the story in, bit of a knee jerk reaction in all honesty.

Stop the hating on the riding quality. Nobody starts as experts. It was a mixed ability ride and mistakes were made and I include myself in that. I hold no animosity towards anyone and hope to go on many rides with these guys over the summer. We will be sitting by a cafe laughing about it in a few weeks (I may just ride at the back though!) 

On reflection, yes this really is a freak incident but Specialized are grateful for the footage. To date they  have never had coverage of an incident involving disc brakes so I am sure this will be useful to them and can benefit rider safety in the future.

Stay safe everyone...

 

Great video Peter, emoticon wound not withstanding.  You and your buddies have proved the dangers of discs as they exist now in a group, one of road cycling' great debates of late. Kudos for doing what even the pros couldn't... 

Dont feel too bad for the kicking your mates' riding is getting here. But don't go easy on them either. To get hit by 2 bikes with that much time for them to brake/at that speed looks terrible. Ironically it's more natural to concentrate at chain gang pace and distances. You'll do well to remind them that as groups slow down attention wanders, and all sorts of mupettry can  ensue. Hope you heal well mate and soon rock some free Spesh shizz, their branding was blatant in your video