Is there any disadvantage to going with the largest rotor diameter the frame/fork can take, except for the weight penalty?

I find larger rotors tend to be more prone to warping/rubbing – not when new of course

The latest thinking on here is that they may also not reach a good operating temperature, restricting the pads performance.

I run 200 and 180 for general XC stuff as thats whats on the bike and the bike does everything, they work just as well on my local loop thats is fairly tame as they did in the Alps, maybe i dont need them so large but thats what I have.

They still get mighty warm on a prolonged braking stretch so unless you have zero hills at all I cant see why they shouldnt ever bed in.

ps I never ever do more than pop the new pads in and go for a ride either, and dont suffer from poor performance or bedding in issues so often talked about.

I've experienced that "too large a rotor" problem moving from 160 to 180. Just seemed like the brakes never really got up to temperature quickly enough, so the first attempt at braking after a long climb in cold conditions was always a bit pant-wetting. Rotors have always been XT and the pads have been the same, so size is the only variable I can think of. I've gone back to 160 on the Blur. I'd consider larger if I was doing long, sustained descents.