Ahhh I see, Those nozzles are for the "Wet" test I presume then, so the test has no representative air flow, and the test cycle is a short sweet few pulls on each lever to produce some pretty lines to shove in the comics…

From having worked in Development test Labs on power tools in a previous job I can tell you that shite would never have flown, repeated on/off under load cycles run day and night you could get through a products entire expected working life in 24-72 hours depending on the product and the operation, monitoring key component temperatures and ambient (as a base line), basically mechanical torture is required to get any idea of performance over an extended period simulating environment in a Lab isn't too tricky either but you have to think a bit laterally, for instance what is the true value of their "wet" test? do they include any aggregate material in the water jets? I've yet to go on a wet ride and not get muddy silty water splashed all over the shop very seldom do you get lovely clear water, while your at it the odd damp road ride will probably mean a it of oil/diesel gets mixed in with it too…

As for their lovely linear braking lines produced using just 3 lever force settings, why are they not forcing it to put up with a mixture of low force dragging and sudden high force jabs? far more representative of many riders use of the brakes probably…

Did they measure pad thickness before, part way through and after the tests? did they bollocks… 10 "bedding cycles" and 9 dry/9 wet pulls is hardly a conclusive test, I doubt that Fibrax would be so lax in their own real product testing, it's just a bit of cheap magazine filler…

i know many of you like to shoot down all test/reviews/everything ever. But whilst that is not "real world" if they were all test in the exact same way, then surely it gives some correct finding/piece of information. What i can tell you is saint brakes rock!!

Read cookeaa's post again.

I personally like seeing experiments and their results, and I find well-written reviews quite helpful when deciding what to buy, especially with regards to any long term problems (though I use common sense and don't base my decision solely on a review).

This would have been a really interesting experiment, but because they didn't really put enough thought and planning into it the results are completely useless for all the reasons stated in the thread. I was very disappointed. It's only being shot down because it's ASKING to get hit.

Neither of those graphs take into account the coeff of friction. Those test are basically done on a tarmac road with 60a tyre compounds on the flat. What about in mud from last nights rain whilst pointing down a 100% into a corner on bald road tyres or conversly very grippy spikes. The nominal power of brakes is more or less meaningless in itself because brakes can only ever be as good as the tyres and the surface they're stopping you on.

By the way I have old Saints with xtr levers and goodridge on my glory no problems ever and xt's with old saint levers on my xc reign 160mm rotors and never had problems with them except pump, ocaisionally.

Yes, the old Saints are OK, but the new Saints are way better.
You can't add power when out on the trail, so I think it's interesting to see how they perform in controlled conditions.

I'm sure there's a million more variables you could add to this test. But it's better than what we normally have – forum hearsay & reviewers trying to find new words to describe 'eye-popping'

then surely it gives some correct finding/piece of information

No, it just looks like it does. For example, if the error in the measurements is sufficiently large, then you just have a collection of lines drawn essentially at random. It's fine as what it is, ie a magazine feature, but it has no scientific merit.

In all honestly the Anecdotal evidence from forums is more valuable than this group lab test as it’s at least based the “nearest to real world“ testing conditions you can get… the actual real bloody world!

The main reason for conducting a Lab test of any product weather for consumer testing or product development, should be to simulate a significant period of use (i.e. a year or more usefully a products entire expected life) in a relatively short time frame, we used to leave Rigs running overnight, PLC controlled, repeated cycles with Data loggers monitoring temperature, current, even noise, anything that gave and indication of wear rate and potential causes of failure, and we ran them to the end of the test period or until they failed, whichever came first, then spent ages painstakingly disassembling, measuring, photographing and taking notes on any and all damage and wear…

Like I said their test doesn’t even simulate a single ride let alone a years worth of use…

You could easily make a brake that produces double the pad friction and therefore twice the “stopping Power” of a current saint and that test would prove it was twice as “Powerful” it would still most likely tear itself to pieces in half the time and this test method would leave you none the wiser regarding durability, what I’d want to know is a Saint actually more durable and more consistent for it’s entire operating life than a Tektro?, it may sound a stupid question, but I bet you nobody has a conclusive answer to offer…

The other thing is braking is not all about “Power” there is a significant qualitative aspect, the magazines like to call it “modulation” but basically 80% of your braking is probably “control”; scrubbing off speed, not panicked fistfuls of lever, bringing you to a juddering Halt. This test tells you very little about what is likely to be the majority of the brakes use…

I would rather have ten more or less un-biased, “non technical” consumers tell me “I found the Saint great, very powerful, But….“ than one bloke with a laptop telling me “This’un be best, see here on my Graaaaph!”