Rich Payne: Good day people.
We are out here comparing brakes.
I have got two sets of brakes, a four-pot and a two-pot.
We're going to be looking at the comparisons between the two with regards to power.
Now, one of them obviously has four pistons, the other has two pistons, and to keep things
fair, I also have the same pad compound in both, and just to mix it up a bit, we've got
two different rotor sizes as well.
203 and 180, both by the same manufacturer so all should be fair and square.
We're going to be doing the comparisons of the brakes in two different ways, a controlled
test looking at stopping distance adding more practical test out on the trail.
It's also worth saying that I'm going to be doing it on exactly the same bike every single
time.
Things like tires and suspension, stuff like that, won't change to try and keep it as fair
as possible.
Let's take a quick look at the anchors then.
First up on my bike, I have got the four-pot brakes, called that because they have got
four pistons, two each side.
The heavier of the two brakes but should offer them more power.
Let's have a quick look at the others.
Two pots, called that because they have a piston each side.
They are lighter but a little less powerful.
Let's see how that is going to relate to on the trail.
I've got two experiments lined up for you today then.
The first, the more controllable of the two is going to use stopping distance as our measurement
to see how powerful the brakes are.
With a set running distance and at a set in speed, I'll get to a point and brake as hard
as I can.
Now, obviously the most powerful configuration, we'll see what that is, should produce the
shortest stopping distance.
The second test, the more practical of the two if you like or the more relatable is actually
going to be timed runs on a trail, where I'll do several runs on each configuration of brake
and do an average of the times and we'll see what was quickest, what was slowest, what
maybe there was very little difference in and I think it could throw up some really
interesting results.
[music] Wow, that was quite the hectic day out on
the trails.
Many, many runs were had, and it's nice to now to be back in the shed and a bit more
chilled.
I tell you what, I got a ton of numbers to crunch through and do some averages, work
out some fastest, some slowest and there's some really interesting results in there.
Then this was a test of obviously different brake configurations.
Two pots, four pots, 180 mil, and 203 mil rotors and which configuration will offer
up maybe the most power and prove to be the best for out on the trail.
We did this, like I said, with two different experiments.
The first, the most controllable of the two which was, like I said, are braking distance.
Roll in, 16.5 mile an hour, jam on the brakes, see how quick you stop and what that distance
is to measure.
The second, the more practical of the test out on the trail.
I chose about a 40-second long piece of trail and that had a good mixture of some tight
switchbacks, some far sections, some turns, some sprints, a little bit of everything in
it just to give us a good general overview.
I think it's probably time we delve into the first one because I can see you're all chomping
at the bit to know the numbers so let's have a little look.
[music] Experiment numero uno then, our brake distance
test.
I had a point where I was going to brake at.
I'd hit that point at 16.5 mile an hour.
I know it wasn't quite 82 miles an hour when you travel in time, but we do then jam the
brakes on.
Obviously, there are lots of variables that can still affect these things like reaction
time, keeping an eye on my speed.
As much as I try to keep it the same every time, it can always vary a tiny bit.
The surface, the thing that did stay the same was the bike the whole time.
Like as I said, we kept the same pad compound between all the different brakes.
It was all Shimano brakes, and all Shimano rotors.
It was as fair as I could possibly make it whilst being out on the trail, but the numbers
then, two pot with 180 mil discs took a distance on average over three tests of 5 meters 32.
Two pot with 203s, 4 meters 86, four-pot now with 180s was 5 meters and 3, and four-pot
with 203s was 493.
Now, let's take a quick look at this.
What we can gather is that the configuration that you'd expect to have the least power,
the two-pot with the smaller rotors, did have the biggest stopping distance or the longer
stopping distance at 532.
However, on the other end of the spectrum, the two pots and the four pots but both with
larger rotors were very similar in stopping distance 486, sorry, and 493.
7 centimeters in it which is nothing really.
I think what that shows then is that in a pure power test-- I know it's not the quickest
we could have been going and there was no potential heat buildup in the brakes to cause
any kind of fade or anything like that.
It shows that the rotor size, I suppose, matters more than the actual amount of pistons or
the caliper you use.
You could get away with running a smaller caliper potentially, to save a bit of weight,
but as long as you've got that big rotor to provide the most leverage or generate the
most force, well then your braking distance isn't going to be affected too much.
However, I think out on the trail it's going to be different but on a set run-in with a
set stopping time, really interestingly, that it's similar in their distance that it took
them to stop.
Like I said, on the other end of the scale, the two-pot with the 180, it is obviously
going to be as you'd expect, the biggest stopping distance 5 meters 32.
You've just got the least power on offer there.
No huge surprises on that one.
What I did notice feelings-wise was that jamming the brakes on with the larger rotors, you
could tell that you had to be quite careful on the front to not pitch you over to the
bars too much.
They did offer a lot of power and that feel was there instantly.
It was a noticeable feel over the smaller rotors again.
[music] On to a more practical test then.
This was on an actual piece of trail that I'd chosen.
It was, give or take, 40 seconds long.
Like I said, I had a wide variety of terrain and obstacles in it.
There was some heavy braking, some accelerating, some tight switchbacks, and so on and so forth.
Again, the bike I didn't touch throughout the entire test.
Tire pressures, suspension, lever angles, even none of that was changed, just the rotors
and calipers and then obviously bled through.
Also, it is worth noting that both of them were embedded in so that there was fading
going on there or the time it takes to bend them in a little bit.
The numbers.
Over a, give or take, like I said, 40-second piece of trail.
The two pots with the 180s, there were 39.3-second runtime.
The two pot with the 200 discs, 40.3.
Now, you're wondering why is that slower?
Actually, I made a bit of a coock-up, I'll be honest.
I did slide out on a corner so therefore it is going to affect that average time a little
bit more.
I don't think it's quite a fair representation as I think it would be contending with the
quickest times, which speaking of those, four-pot with a 180, 38.8 so about just over half a
second quicker and a four-pot with a 203 mil was the fastest time, 38.7.
Again, it's only a small section of trail that I know.
It's not going to be representative of you out smashing the alps and these big mountain
trails but it does show that obviously, again, the most powerful brake configuration is the
quickest.
I just felt that I could brake the latest intersections.
I felt like the power was there instantly.
With the two pots with a smaller disk, you could just notice that when you were charging
into something with speed, that you'd have to get on the brakes a little bit earlier.
These experiments then, they were more of a look at their practical applications and
the alterations in the brake.
We didn't have testing equipment like telemetry or putting them in some crazy machine in a
lab because who does that?
Let's be honest, apart from the manufacturers.
What we wanted to do is try and tell you guys how the actual field changes on a trail.
Again, we didn't have a big mountain so this is worth noting that brake fade can be a problem,
brake pad compound can change and can obviously, again, alter the feel of the brakes.
What we can take away from it is that especially in the practical, the timed run, the time
between a two-pot with a 200 mil and a four-pot with a 200 mil, although seems great in this
test result, I think actually is very little in real-life terms.
The size of the rotor can play a huge part over the size of the caliper you're using.
Whether you have a trail bike or a big enduro bike, you might be looking at saving the weight.
If you only ride the shorter stuff, going for that two-pot caliper with a bigger rotor.
If you are smashing bigger mountains then, probably the most powerful option is going
to be for you.
Food for thought, I know.
Anyway, I hope you've enjoyed this video and I'd love to hear what brake setups and configurations
you guys use in the comments below.
Do let me know.
I hope you've enjoyed it.
As always, like and subscribe to our channel to watch more awesome content.
I look forward to seeing you again.
Happy shredding.
Catch you later.