zackclark70 said:
For anyone that thinks cable breaks are better than hydro please provide evidence
You're talking to someone who's been riding bikes seriously for thirty years, working on them professionally starting twenty-five years ago, and who has tried pretty much every style of bicycle brake. During that thirty year span, I've weighed from 220ish pounds to over 400. The latter was while I lived in very hilly Seattle (where my second e-bike weighed about 120 pounds with batteries and luggage). I have been obligated by circumstances to understand limitations of bicycle brakes that you will never confront in your life.
Any brakes that can tip up your bike on its front wheel are observably as strong as you can possibly use. Almost any kind of brake can in principle provide this much force-- some more easily than others, of course. But it's very easy to demonstrate that any of a bunch of different cable brakes meet this criterion. BB7s and linear-pulls are certainly among them.
I already explained to you why good rim brakes can absorb and dissipate more kinetic energy than disks. It's a simple matter of heat capacity, conductivity, mass, and surface area exposed to air. Instrumented testing in Germany has already shown that even normal rim brakes on average rims can handle more continuous braking power than all but the best discs. Make the rims unusually massive and there's no bicycle disc brake anywhere that can match them. And with a rim brake, you don't need nearly as much force at the pads for a given braking force, because the rotor (the rim) is so much bigger.
Your glowing discs example is a demonstration of how rim brakes are in some ways superior to bicycle discs. No rim ever gets nearly so hot as that, because even e-bike braking power levels can't possibly move enough energy to do it. Yet your discs were pushed right to their limits.
The organic pads on my first Hayes disc brake were burned right down to the backing plates in less than twenty miles of city commuting. The self-energizing cantilever brake that I used before then had worked without issues for thousands of miles. And it was just as strong as the 203mm disc, too. I kept the disc brake, switched to metallic pads, and got good service from it for many years. But really, the only thing the disc brake did better than the rim brake was that it didn't chew up the rim while riding in wet, gritty conditions.
It's okay to prefer hydraulic disc brakes because of how they feel. But that's all it is-- feel. It doesn't make them any stronger or any safer than cable discs or rim brakes. It's just like the accelerator pedals on "sporty" economy cars, which are designed to give a lot of throttle action with only a little push of the pedal. That doesn't make the engine any more powerful or the car any faster, but it creates a false impression of a powerful engine at the expense of controllability. Likewise, hydraulic discs on bicycles give the impression of great braking power because they're grabby at low lever effort-- but maximum instantaneous braking power is limited by the bike's weight distribution and surface traction, not the brake itself. As for maximum continuous braking power, that's where rim brakes beat discs.