>>1866946> A box has a "simple" shape too but isn't aero. what a retarded argument to absurdum. You know that head tube is more aerodynamic than a rim brake calliper and the associated cable housing, don't lying to yourself just because you are too poor to afford a new bike.
>See those channels that catch air while it spins to cool it off so it doesn't melt? That's pretty much the opposite of 'aero'. Rim brakes don't have that.You mean those vanes that redirect air over a heat sink? I mean, it looks a lot more aerodynamic than a rim brake with those parts sticking out and creating turbulance.
> Post your aerodynamics phd then.As someone who has a PhD and spent half a decade working around academics who had PhDs, a PhDs don't really mean much for intelligence and knowledge. Yeah you know a lot about a super niche subject and you are one of a handle of people that understand this topic, but that is all you got. Zoom out to the boarder topic and you are pretty average.
> If your tire width and rim width match then the side of your tire is flat. If they don't match then you're fucked anyway.Yeah, at the circumfirence. But from there you can start tapering the rim, get creative with things like zipp's dimples, etc. You cannot do that with rim brakes. Also forgot to mention earlier, disc means you can make the entire rim out of carbon without sacrificing braking performance. Carbon brake tracks are so fucking bad I have no idea why people even used them.
> Could've been 6.7 without disc brakes.Weight limit is 6.8kg. Regardless, my original point was that the weight difference between disc and rim is so close that it is an irrelevant arguement to make.
