Gunnar introduced chainstay disc mounts 3 years ago on the Rock Tour and last year on the Fast Lane. What are the pros and cons of using on the Rock Hound, as well?
vs. 
Which Disc Mounts on Off-Road Race Bikes
Previous post: June 12 Factory Ride
Next post: July 17 Factory Ride
{ 12 comments }
Silly cable/hose routing on the chainstay mount.
Now how about post mount vs I.S. disc mount?
Chainstay disc cable routing: Not insignificant controversy. On the Rock Tour we provide zip tie guides on top to the chainstay and under the downtube. We could run them up the seat stay and under the top tube. Any other thoughts on this?
Mounting: We follow the international standard. You can always adapt to post mounts.
How about disc mounts for a crosshairs?
Excellent question. Now that the UCI allows disc brakes – how do we do it? I’d like to start a separate thread on that topic. We’re looking to solve the controversy of chainstay or seatstay mounts for Rock Hounds.
My wife has a Fastlane and the cable routing to the rear brake works fine . The chainstay mount seems to make a lot of sense if you want to easily put a rack on the bike. It’s one reason I’m considering a Rock Tour for myself.
Perhaps it is just for looks, but I do not like the brake mounts on the chain stay. The cable just seems natural running across the top tube (top, bottom, does not matter to me) and along the seat stay.
If someone was using hydros, then I think the mounting becomes real important. I think that requires a banjo fitting that can be adjusted, right? (again, I am thinking along the lines of the brake line running down the bottom of the seatstay).
Is there a function reason for the brake mount on the chain stay?
I ride a single speed commuter set-up with disk brakes. Occasionally I have to stand up. I used to bump into the break cable that ran along the top tube too often. This situation was annoying. I ended up using housing all the way to the disk brake. Personally, I like the idea of a clear top tube. There are pros/cons trade offs to all design choices.
We find sometimes larger feet hit the disc when on the chain stay. Larger frames do not generally have longer stays but their riders generally have longer feet.
On the seat stay there is only interference with rack mounting.
Cable routing works either way but there is a water collector inherent with the chain stay mount. A bigger issue I think would be the length of housing causing mushy brakes with the greater leverage of a road lever. Cable stops would help this or stiffer housing. Why do we need full length housing?
Excellent comments! I will check how much the brake calipers go outboard of the chainstays.
Cable stops: we agree that cable stops provide better braking than housing, though improvements in housing technology have reduced the compression issue. Riders choosing to mount hydraulic brakes will find cable stops problematic. Indeed hydraulic brakes also solve the mushiness issue, as well, making them preferable for race applications.
Thanks!
The only reason I’m aware of to mount on the chainstay is for rack mounting clearance. I own bikes with both styles and I think the chainstay mount makes it harder to remove and install the rear wheel. It’s not that bad and it’s well worth the trade off for rack clearance, but I can’t see any reason to go to it for a bike that isn’t going to run a rack.
Excellent points. There are seatstay disc mount designs with rack eyelets on the rear. What experiences do people have using them?
I like the cable routing used for the chainstay mounted brakes, keeping the top tube unencumbered. However, my size 11 shoe passes within 2 cm of the adjustment knob of an Avid BB7 brake. Not a problem for me, but might be for someone with a larger foot.