[Closed] Saint brakes can pull -1G

now if only I could find some mud that would give me 1G's worth of grip...

now with super powerful brakes I just dont see the point! I had tech V2's with vented rotors... they were stupidly powerful but they just make your wheels lock up and

loose grip!

I much prefer mid range power

Crikey, I have V2's with vented rotors and have had my retinas reattached due to their power and they come out bottom of the pile 😯

I find my original Saints to be brilliant. I have used them for xc as well as the Whistler bike Park and never felt like I needed anything more powerful.

However, if I had to replace my Saints I'd probably go for the new Saints as I love the Shimano reliability (or maybe SLX).

X2's are 'bottom' are they not...V2's are up near the top.

Doesn't that graph just show that in general [i]most[/i] brakes will stop you relatively quickly?

I much prefer mid range power

I can honestly say I don't think it's possible to have too much power in you brakes. Anything else is just user error. 🙂

It's not quite 1 g though is it? (at least at 150N)

looks a bit like if you pull funn 'drop outs' hard, they give less power than if you pull them less hard!

errrrrrrr.

i hope not! maybe should do that test again eh lads?

I have broke my face using saints (it may have been my fault) I use 160mm floating rotors and that is very strong, can't imagine the use for big 200mm plates, well maybe schladming.

Would like to try Xt.

All that graph seems to demonstrate is that i) most brakes are pretty similar, and ii) too much information on one graph renders it pretty useless.

Surley there comes a point where the wheels will lock out on any brake and if you pump the brakes to stop this happening wouldnt slightly less powerful brakes such as the M4's get the same result? ive never had a brake "not grip" due to lack of power, even on DH... (usually m4's) I guess what I am trying to ask is, if a brake starts to lock a wheel at 60% of its [b]potential[/b] stopping power why do you need more power or the extra 40%.. if that makes sense? I found with the tech V2's that the addtional power was just never used, you get to 60/70% of the possible power but by then your either stopped or the wheels are locked up or your pumping the brake at 60% of its ability.... I will get me coat now

X2's are 'bottom' are they not...V2's are up near the top.

Doh, can't tell the difference between blood red and lipstick pink 🙁

Where are the magura gustav they are supposed to be very strong.

Sorry to hear about your face tails! I have XT and can confirm they haven't broken my face yet.
How strong are your index fingers people? can you pull 150N? Or can you lift 15Kg it?

Yes easy. I can do pull ups on 2 index fingers, so that's 350N each.

They are "orsum" I've got all saint on the big bike and XTR with just a saint front caliper on my Pyre (180/160).

I remember coming back from Cwmcarn along the canal probably doing 17-18mph and a dog ran out probably a metre in front of me and froze, I autograbbed 2 big handfulls of brake, did a big endo and cracked my nuts on the top tube in mid air, and stopped centimetres away. I thought the dog was going to be roadkill but the power of the Saint saved the day. 😀

Sorry to hear about your face tails!

Was my fault was trying stoppies like wade simmons does on the collective, the main difference was a lot of skill.

Oooh check you out glenp! You're a light little guy, but a strong, light little guy 😉

"Saint saves dog" ...it's a good headline 🙂

because if you can lock the wheel at 60% potential, what percentage is it after an hour of downhill (say mega) maybe its then at 85% of its potential...

you might then be glad you hadnt lopped off the extra 40%.

im afraid that this test might not be entirely useful in the real world.

I guess I was refering to general riding around the uk and not the extremes of the mega

there's a video on youtube or similar of the magura test bed.

Its an old pair of bomber forks with a hub being driven off a big electric motor.

They run them at various levels of force/speed and see how long it takes the brakes to boil. Seem to remember reading that the pads usualy became ineffective long before fresh fluid would boil.

Although it did make me wonder if they could develop a perfectly beded in pad, the market to DH racers must be quite big, especialy in the winter where pads last just a few runs.

well for general uk xc riding discs arent required at all in terms of power IMO.

mud clearance, bent wheels, pad wear etc yes... but power. no.

Good point, do you want to buy my old V-brakes then? 🙂

Here's the same test in the (UK relevant) wet
[img] [/img]

no cos i dont ride that much pure xc!

why is half that second test missing?

just to throw in a curve ball, surley disc rotor size is the most important factor and how effective they are to distribute heat? I once ran mono minis on a demo 8 with 203 rotors, worked a treat, didnt overheat and just enough power, ok the m4's with 203's was better, but the Tech V2's with vented rotors was just overkill, perhaps at the mega or a similar course they would have been perfect, just not round any 5-10 min decents in Wales. That said if I lived in BC I would prob choose V2's

Saints give enough power that you can one finger brake all the time without even needing to pull hard. It's amazing how much difference only having to apply gentle 1 finger pressure for even the most aggressive braking makes as regards to finger and hand fatigue and so how well you can brake or even hold onto the bars by the end of a day of heavy braking.

Agree new Saints are overkill for trail centres or rides with easier descents but for rides with lots of steep descents, Alpine trips and DH riding they are perfect.

What they also allow you to do is run smaller rotors for the same amount of power reducing the likelihood of a rock or root strike bending the rotor.

That graph tells you very little really are those lines the result of a single opperation per brake or several averaged out?

I notice they put a couple of airlines pointing at the caliper from the sides/behind, surely that makes it a less representative test as the airflow is not comparable to "real world conditions" did they attach any thermocouples to look for heat increases, did they look at opperation over repeated mixed hard/gentle opperation?

It's a graph with some lines but the variables are not really detailed so all in all it's pretty toss...

I used to run the original Saints on 200mm rotors front/rear. Bloody marvelous they were! Even with my not-so-slight frame you could pull a rolling stoppie without too much difficulty!

I just loved the sheer levels of power, control and the fact they just "worked". The only brakes I have ever had that I actually wish I still owned (sold them on the Patriot they were attached to several years ago now...)

I may have to get some again....

my mono M4s (200 front 180 rear) were still working fine at the bottom of the mega and i had used them an awful lot coz im a pussy!
though i did have arm pump from hell!
had put fresh dot in them before i went out there

cookeaa, they couldn't even label the graph correctly, so don't expect every variable to be thought of.

I don't think this has been done properly at all. Notice on the first graph the Avid Code is the weakest brake. This is rubbish, the Code sh!ts on the Tektros and Shimano Deores in terms of raw stopping power (which for some reason are actually pretty high). Notice that the Code then seems to double it's deceleration in the wet.

Anyone looking at new brakes probably ought to ignore these graphs. Cookeaa, you are right they have no relevance to the real world at all, and certainly not in lab conditions (how does a Juicy 3.5 have more power than a Code, even in lab conditions?).

Its a bit difficult to tell as there seem to be two grey lines, but is that XTR up there on a par with Saint?

I don't think this has been done properly at all.

Indeed! Given the variation in performance between multiple versions of the same brake, the effect of set-up, rotor size, pad compound, bedding in, and real conditions (ie mud), etc., you'd have to be hopelessly optimistic to place any faith in their results.

Watch the video, he mentions some of those things.
Still more scientific than anything done by ST isn't it?

No, it's pseudo-scientific. No error bars on the graphs, not repeated using more than one of the same brake so no consideration of set-up issues, of questionable relevance to actual usage on a bike.

Can't read the dam graphs. Apart from teh big red line at the bottom of the dry graph which says avod codes are junk in the dry. Which is odd, as they rearrange me face on my DH bike.

The testing was done by Fibrax in Wrexham. This is the same company that sold hydraulic brake hoses that would explode under braking pressure.

The testing was done by Fibrax in Wrexham. This is the same company that sold hydraulic brake hoses that would explode under braking pressure.

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'