[justinfrankel]

I have short-reach dual pivot brake calipers on a bike which sees >2000 miles year-round each year in NYC, and my rims are still fine after 7 years.

From my experience, stopping distance is usually dictated by road conditions more than the brakes. This is with 34mm wide tires, and properly adjusted brakes (a lot of times when people complain about rim brakes, the issue is that they are not working properly).

Side note: fenders are a must!

[grogenaut]

Sure and the point is discs will much more easily stop you, the limit of the stopping power is not the brake (friction on rim) like they are in cantilevers, but with the overall physics of the system. Discs are generally in alignment, or very very obviously out of alignment (rubbing loudly), canti's have a lot more room for error.

I'd much rather have a brake system that out performs the rest of the equation than not have enough stopping power.

[mikestew]

In Seattle, I’m not the only one on my race team that would eat rims every year or two.

Fact is, rim brakes are inferior in every way to just about every alternative, save two: they’re inexpensive and lightweight.

[uk_programmer]

> I’m not the only one on my race team that would eat rims every year or two.

This really says it all. When I am cycling to work, I am not trying out for the tour de france or trying to beat someone else's strava record.

> Fact is, rim brakes are inferior in every way to just about every alternative, save two: they’re inexpensive and lightweight.

It doesn't matter if they are inferior. My regular disc brakes on my Ford Focus is inferior in every way compared to whatever they put on a Ferrari. However they are perfectly is sufficient and safe for driving to work and back.

The best argument you can make for discs vs traditional rim brakes would be that the modulation is slightly better.

It really annoys me that a lot of cyclists seem to push very expensive kit that for the commuter is completely unnecessary.