TRP Cycling Releases New S05E Race Rotor

Apr 16, 2024
by TRPCyclingComponents  
photo


PRESS RELEASE: TRP Cycling

We are proud to announce the release of our newest rotor, the S05E, available in 203mm and 220mm sizes (2.3mm thickness). Boasting a 10% increased deceleration rate and enhanced temperature stability, the new rotor is engineered to deliver peak performance in the most demanding riding conditions.

photo
Oisin O'Callaghan clinching the RS05E's maiden victory at the 2023 UCI DH MTB World Cup #7 (Snowshoe, WV).

bigquotes“I’ve been using the new TRP rotors now for almost a year and instantly noticed a sharper lever feel when you first initially pull the lever. As a racer your braking points are super important and this is a huge help when you‘re braking at the last second.—Oisin O'Callaghan

Deceleration Rate From 40NM of Lever Force

The results were obtained by evaluating an optimized ratio of smaller laser-cut holes, enabling the rotor to reach optimal temperature rapidly and cooldown efficiently. This attribute is crucial for downhill and heavy trail riding, where quick transitions between ascent and descent demand responsive braking performance.

photo

Negative To Positive Space Ratio

During descents, the S05E rotor maintains a consistent temperature, ensuring reliable performance throughout the ride. Its ability to dissipate heat efficiently prevents overheating, allowing riders to maintain control and confidence on the trail. In high-performance riding scenarios characterized by rapid brake activations, the S05E rotor also minimizes heat buildup over extended runs, delivering sustained performance and reliability.

photo


photo


Key Features:

• New hole pattern for improved heat management
• Improved temperature stability over sustained descents
• Laser cut for increased accuracy
• 10% Improved deceleration rate
• Increased surface area for heat dissipation
• Improved bite and bed-in performance
• Optimized for DH performance
• Weight: 203mm- 204g, 220mm- 240g
S05E Testing


Enhance your bike's performance with added stopping power and reliability. The S05E rotor is now available for purchase in the US and Canada on trpcycling.com. For customers in Europe and other parts of the world, contact your TRP distributor or local shop.

For more information click here.

Posted In:
Reviews and Tech Press Releases Brakes Trp


Author Info:
TRPCyclingComponents avatar

Member since Sep 2, 2016
10 articles
Report
Must Read This Week
Downhill Bikes of Sea Otter - Part 1
51978 views
Pinkbike's DH Fantasy League: Get Your Team On The Line - Fort William is in 10 DAYS!
42297 views
Downhill Bikes of Sea Otter - Part 2
41398 views
Bike Check: Evan Wall's Haro Greer Prototype Enduro Bike
40883 views
First Ride: Canyon Neuron:ONfly - a Lighter 140mm eMTB
39286 views
Pinkbike Poll: Riser Bar or Extra Spacers Under the Stem?
38035 views
Vivo Cycling Previews All-Aluminum 12-Speed Derailleur
37567 views
The Ultimate Recap of Sea Otter 2024
36725 views
Sign Up for the Pinkbike Newsletter - All the Biggest, Most Interesting Stories in your Inbox
PB Newsletter Signup

119 Comments
  • 173 9
 Can the bike industry please be done with 203mm rotors? Clean 20mm increments are much easier to work with.
  • 12 1
 ^this^
  • 58 0
 Its not even about 203mm directly, just choose one and ditch the other already!
  • 26 48
flag mcharza (Apr 16, 2024 at 7:07) (Below Threshold)
 Did you not know that 203 mm comes from the imperial measure 8 inches?
  • 88 3
 @mcharza: Did you know we still don't want an 8" rotor
  • 32 5
 @mcharza: I already knew that. It doesn’t change the fact that it’s a stupid size to continue using. Especially when most of the industry has shifted to 200mm.

The worst is a frame/fork that’s 203mm direct mount, you can’t mount 200mm rotors on it, and a 220mm rotor requires a special +17mm adapter.
  • 37 32
 Probably just drop 200 as way more companies use 203. The actual size is irrelevant.
  • 3 1
 @DizzyNinja: Now I know
  • 10 3
 For real. The inclusion of the 203mm size drives the need for so many additional adapter options.
  • 7 1
 @Nobble: Wow, someone makes frames or forks with 203 direct mount. I didn't know that. Could you tell me a few, thanks.
  • 36 3
 @Nobble: who other than SRAM makes 200mm rotors? Pretty much all rotors are 203mm.
  • 10 0
 @mcharza: Off the top of my head, the RAAW Madonna is a 203 direct mount and the Fox 40 is a 203 direct mount.
  • 7 1
 @DaneL: Are they really 203.2 mm then?
  • 4 0
 But what about my old 205mm hope rotors
  • 19 2
 Just have your buddy spin the wheel while you drag a file over the circumference of your 203mm rotor until 1.5mm of material is gone. I’m sure nothing will go wrong.
  • 17 0
 @stubs179: I thought you were taking the piss. But you sir are correct every major company other than Sram is using 203 discs. With a special shout out to Hope and Galfer who make both 200 and 203 discs
  • 17 2
 @stubs179: Hope does.

If you do 200 instead of 203, you have even 20mm jumps across all rotor and mount configurations which simplifies adapters significantly.
  • 3 0
 @BikesBoatsNJeeps: a 1.5mm spacer seems safer
  • 11 2
 Please, let's drop the 203mm size. 20mm increments makes things eaiser with 20/40mm adapters, consistent 20mm increments is generally more intuitive, and having both 200 and 203mm used in the industry is dumb.
  • 24 3
 Can we get rid of either 30.9 or 31.6 seatposts while we are at it?
  • 10 0
 @mcharza: This rotor is 24 barley corns in diameter. Got it.
  • 6 4
 @alexsin: I’m for it.

If fact, let’s get rid of both and embrace 34.9. Bigger diameter means better droppers.
  • 2 2
 @mcharza: make it 203.2 then, to be exact Smile
  • 1 0
 @Nobble: That makes too much sense, get outa here
  • 8 0
 @alexsin: i was recently rejoicing the lack of available seat tube diameters. It wasn’t that long ago that you had (at a minimum) 25.4, 26.6, 26.8, 27.2, 30.9, 31.6, 34.9. I think Cannondale still uses 25.4 on their road bikes.
I have two old Trek 730s, one for me and one for my wife, hers is one year older than mine, mine has a 26.6 post and hers a 26.8.
  • 2 0
 @Nobble: Which is annoying. Finding a 17mm post to post adaptor can be tough.
  • 3 2
 @mcharza: Did you not know that 220 is 8.66 imperial inches, 160mm is 6.3in, 180 is 7.1 imperial inches? None of them every made any sense compared to imperial, except maybe 185mm which is _super_ close to 7-1/4in.

If they actually wanted round imperial inches for some incredibly stupid reason, they wouldn't do 220mm for 8.66in. Instead they should do 215mm or 216mm for ~8.5in or 222mm for ~8.75in.

At least 220 is better than 223: let's start with a nice round imperial approximation (203), then add a nice round metric (20) on top!
  • 6 1
 @stubs179: Not irrelevant, because with consistent gaps the whole way, the number of adapter/spacers is minimized. You only need 20mm and 40mm adapters to cover the whole range of what most frames and forks can fit. IE: a frame or fork with PM180 often has a max of either 200 or 220 rotor size, a PM160 frame likely has a max of 180 or 200, etc.
  • 3 0
 @alexsin: not unless they're both gone and 34.9 is king!
  • 3 0
 @buildandride: Hence why 223mm rotors are (stupid) thing. Imperial-based starting point with round metric increment stacked on it! #winning
  • 3 0
 @buildandride: NSB and Hope are the only two that I'm aware of being available
  • 2 0
 @Nobble: Cool, then I can bolt the industry standard rotor directly to the frame or fork Smile
  • 3 1
 203mm rotor + Sharpie + angle grinder = 200mm rotor.
  • 8 3
 @Nobble: you have some serious existential issues with your 3mm dilemma, considering that a pair of washers can solve your problem...
  • 2 0
 Braking news
  • 1 1
 @stubs179: It's more about having a simple standard referencing even numbers which are easly identifiable to people. The language is clean and simple making decisions, helping people to understand and recognize without having to learn the complexity of variables and correlating those varianbles the fork post mounts and hardware needed. KISS
  • 3 0
 Also, forks lowers should start at 200mm post mounts and be standard for direct mount on all forks 150mm and up to 170.
  • 2 1
 @likeittacky:

Industry should standardize brake pads as well- a few mm here and there just to be different and bam you have a zillion pads shops have to stock. Make 2 pot and 4 pot organic and 2 and 4 pot metallic standard sizes and be done
  • 1 0
 @HonzoBro: Gonzo, one of us is confused? Are you high or am i misreading what your are trying to say??
  • 1 0
 @briain: Because 203mm is 8 inches.
  • 3 0
 @stubs179: I don't know how I'm supposed to feel about the American brake designing using a metric increment of 200mm and the rest of the world using 8" rotors.
  • 2 0
 @briain:
SRAM also make the Centerline in 200 and 203.
Just because everybody is doing it doesn't mean it makes sense, though.
  • 1 0
 @notthatfast: I don't think anyone has an issue with a 203mm, just offer a 203 and 200 for those of us who refuse to run a 203 lol
  • 2 0
 @dmackyaheard:
Agreed.
And maybe don't make PM203 frames/forks. Please.
  • 2 1
 Blame sram for 200. And remember, not that long ago, there were 180, 183, 185, &190mm rotors.
  • 3 1
 @DizzyNinja: How about 31.8mm bars? (1.252”) Or 31.6mm seat posts? (1.244”). There are still some hidden imperial sizes in bikes that we just accept. At least when a company goes for the 203 over 200mm rotors, anyone with a 200mm mount can add two washers and run 203mm, whereas all 203mm mounts can’t size down. That said, TRP kept the 220mm and not 223mm for the large rotors… odd
  • 1 0
 @hot-beef-sundae: Also 165 mm.
  • 1 0
 @BikesBoatsNJeeps: my Bontrager frame from 98 is a 27.0mm.
  • 1 0
 @alexsin: I love the idea of fewer standards but seat post diameter is determined by the frame's seat tube, which in turn helps to determine the ride characteristics of the bike (to an extent). Could just move to a skinny post with shims, but the fashion police won't be happy.
  • 1 0
 @novas752: I know were it comes from but the fact every other disc size is not a round imperial size 140,160,180 and 220. One of those things I didn't spend that much time thinking about
  • 1 0
 @slovenian6474: Its ok SRAM are going to rebrand there wheels as 622mm diameter 29ers be danmed
  • 1 0
 @notthatfast: I've come realise that common sense isn't so common
  • 1 0
 @BikesBoatsNJeeps: my trusty old Kona KingKahuna Ti was 27.0
  • 1 0
 @caspar: ooohhhh that’s a rarity. When I was a kid I remember BMXs used imperial seat posts.
  • 1 0
 @briain: you mean like 650b and 700c wheels?
  • 2 0
 @RonSauce: downright unamerican I say
  • 1 0
 @BikesBoatsNJeeps: You mean like 1" (25.4 mm) seatposts? They still do.
  • 1 0
 @gnarnaimo: If someone asks you how tall you are, what do you say?
  • 1 0
 @briain: I have a SRAM 203mm rotor at home proving they make both sizes too!
  • 2 0
 @buildandride: Agreed! My Canyon Sender came with a 200F/203R rotor pairing so I needed +20/+17 adaptors to run 220 rotors. The +20 I had. The +17 took a couple of weeks to get.
If I knew about 223 rotors I could have bought one of those instead and used my existing +20 adaptor (but maybe a 223 rotor is as hard to get as a +17 adaptor???)
  • 1 0
 @psmithski: 210 barley corns
  • 3 0
 @Nobble: 203 DM? *Insert Biden confused GIF
  • 19 0
 I’m so curious about the marketing here, specifically why include that table of accelerations at different lever forces between the two model rotors. Because the story being told elsewhere in the press release is pretty straightforward. But if you look closely at the table it _undercuts_ the story. There’s too much variance between the six runs at 40 nM for the two means to be considered different. Open up your preferred stats calculator and check. I’d like to know who is the mountain bike media consumer they imagine really wants to see the table, wants to see a token that a company is ‘data driven’ or whatever, but also isn’t really going to read what it says. It’s kinda condescending.
  • 4 0
 As soon as they claim 10% increase (over what?) the figure table is welcome.
But I agree there is much variance. At least the latest rotor seems more conststant than the previous one.
  • 4 0
 Yeah, the table is lacking. What is the blue indicating? It's the middle of some columns, highest in some, and lowest in others. I think that charts are the key, showing the consistency in the new one, even if the max or average might actually be lower for some input forces. And the table is just there to look cool: "we do numbers!"
  • 3 0
 Don't include graphs or tables if you're not going to use them to support the text. No indication of what blue means. Think the marketing dept asked engineering for something for the press release and they just stuffed it in. Heat dissipation is touted as the benefit with no explanation or discussion of the inverse impact on thermal capacity.. Friction has an optimal temperature range. Dissipation and capacity design changes will impact how soon the optimal range is reached and how long it is maintained
  • 4 0
 After being very confused for quite some time, I think I've figured it out:
Putting the raw data into a spreadsheet, the numbers in the table are raw measurements (blue or otherwise).
The blue numbers seem to have no relevance and likely a formatting issue.
Taking the average of the three numbers gives the results listed in the title 7.8 v 8.6 m/s^2, which is the 10% difference as claimed.
^^This is true for the 40N case only (Not 40 NM as described above the table (by which they likely meant 40 Nm, which is wrong regardless)).
At other lever forces, the increase in deceleration ranges from 5.6% to 16.3%, there is no guidance as to why they chose 40 N.

TL,DR; Not ideal material for a press release if you need 15 minutes and a spreadsheet to decipher a table of numbers.
  • 3 0
 The confusing thing for me was the performance charts showing the new S05 rotor on the left and original S01 on the right, then scrolling down to detailed photos with the old S01 rotor on the left and the new S05 rotor on the right.

First, people read left to right so it would have been more intuitive to show the original rotor graph then the new one next as a ‘before/after’.

Second, just consistency in the marketing layout goes a long way. I spent more time confirming which rotor I was looking at than taking-in the written information.
  • 2 0
 @NigelW: Are you sure they didn't mean nanomolar?
  • 1 0
 @cwatt: "First, people read left to right"

Nope, not all peoples. Look it up.
  • 2 0
 @justinfoil: Sure, there are several languages that don't... but this post was written in a language that *does*. People who are reading this, are reading from left to right. noitcerid etisoppo eht ni daer ot drah yllaer eb nac tI.
  • 1 1
 @barp: Then say that "this current language is LtR, the pic layout should match".

But "First, people read left to right" is still straight up wrong.
  • 21 1
 looks like a golfer shark rotor
  • 11 1
 hopefully at half the price
  • 3 0
 only so many ways to drill and or slot rotors
  • 2 0
 but with more holes, thicker, stiffer and cheaper Big Grin
  • 13 0
 @arek-hs: There's a dirty joke in there somewhere...
  • 8 0
 At 220 lb rider weight, I've run all brands of rotors and pad compounds. The Hope and TRP rotors are the very best i've experienced. Whatever alloys they use have wonderful friction properties, i've never glazed a TRP or Hope rotor.
  • 4 1
 TRP rotors suck compared to Galfer Sharks. Although this new design is a blatant copy haha
  • 11 0
 Where's the centerlock option? (ducking for cover now...)
  • 1 0
 I have been using center locks for the last three years.i am unreasonably annoyed by 6 bolt now.
  • 7 0
 The TRP DH-R Evo brakes are great.
I prefer them to the Code RSC that I previously had.
I might try these rotors when the original one’s need replacement.
Highly recommend MTX brake pads as well.
  • 2 0
 The main thing I learned about the RS01E rotor was how much of a pain they are to bed-in with basically all pad compounds. Also a pronounced tendency to howl at both low and high temperatures.

This rotor mostly looks like it has more holes in it, so I don’t expect those things to change.
  • 1 0
 I love my TRP DHR Evos. The worst thing I can say about them is they took forever to bed in, especially with Galfer pro pads. Perhaps the stock TRP pads bed in quicker. But the TRP brakes have been silent for me. They don't howl under any circumstances. Cold, hot, wet, dry. I've got about 40 hours of riding on them so far.
  • 2 0
 @blang11: The howling was with the TRP sintered pads, not the stock blue organic ones. I've given up on them and switched to an MTX red/gold f/r combo which has been a revelation.
  • 1 0
 Its interesting how the Commencal Muc-Off team was running Galfer Shark rotors in the development process of the rotors, then the next year moved to TRP rotors, off Galfer and now has a direct copy of the Galfer rotor, without the heat syncs.
  • 4 0
 clicked link for more information, no information to be found.
  • 15 0
 It even stopped their website
  • 5 0
 dealer.trpcycling.com/product/rs05e-2-3mm-203-220mm

MSRP: 203mm- $69.99, 220mm- $76.99

EMBARGO: APRIL 18, 2024 8:00 AM MT (Do not post for sale online or share until this date)
  • 1 0
 @n734535: and "You must be logged in to view pricing". Haha!
  • 2 0
 I havent tried these nor does my slow ass need them, i need to brake less. just came here to say i've been loving my quadrium brakes!
  • 2 1
 A great way to brake less is to brake harder, and these might help that if they keep the temps as consistent as they say.
  • 2 0
 @justinfoil: i have had the opposite experience, switching from saints to trp the more modulative brakes help me brake intuitively, as i commonly over braked with the saints.


I don't discount the technical claims of this product, I just don't have a brake fade issue with my current setup! My TRP's are so good i don't see room for improvement outside of rider mods!
  • 2 0
 @way2manyhobbies2keep: don't forget that braking harder is not the same as over-braking. Should be braking as hard as possible (max deceleration) for the shortest possible time. Modulation/feel definitely helps with that since "as hard as possible" is continually varying.
  • 2 0
 @justinfoil: correct, but that's the rider mod I was referring to.

I would note that with my terrain I am usually traction limited on braking (not uncommon) so again, my brakes are so good already that they are not the issue. Its rider, tires, conditions.

Love my TRP's
  • 3 0
 @way2manyhobbies2keep: I love your TRPs as well
  • 3 4
 Could the increased power actually be from the greater total length of biting edges from lots of small holes? Rather than the rapid heating/cooling?

Kind of like how big numbers of small sipes on a winter car tire create more gripping edges?
  • 4 0
 I don't think that's how brakes work. The leading edge of the pad is such a tiny portion of the pad area, if there was any more biting edge force it would be a proportionally small force compared to the rest of the pad against the rotor's surface.
  • 2 1
 @justinfoil: Yeah I wonder. When I imagine running my finger over a rotor with no holes, or one with many, certainly there is more friction with the holes.

Also, my intuition is the softer the brake pad material the more the biting edges might matter. A really hard brake pad wont catch on them at all.

After all there is something like 1500 PSI of pressure at the hose and probably hundreds of PSI at the pads jamming the brake pad material against the rotor.
  • 2 0
 @eastonsmith: your finger is many magnitudes softer than even the softest brake pads, not a valid comparison at all.

Their data doesn't show much more absolute force anyways. Only marginal differences in max decel per input force, the consistency is the highlight of that data.
  • 1 0
 to me it looks like the small holes would make it easier for mud to settle inside and harden, or would the fast rotation of the rotor prevent that?
  • 2 1
 washing your bike helps and if there's enough mud to block the disc. I think you have bigger problems
  • 2 0
 I just pulled the drill out and I am going to add some more holes to my current rotors. Drillium is back baby
  • 3 5
 "Increased surface area for heat dissipation"

And decreased mass for heat capacity. Does it matter if the rotor dissipates heat faster if it can't hold as much heat to begin with? It's all trade-offs, and doesn't this one keep more heat in the pads and caliper? Which is arguably a worse place for it...
  • 1 0
 The one mismatched rotor bolt in the lead photo is an interesting choice.
  • 1 1
 And to not hide it behind the frame...
  • 1 0
 John Hall’s bike?
  • 1 0
 Just stop it. Now I need some of these too…. f n a
  • 1 0
 No 160mm version? Pass.....
  • 1 0
 hopefully these ones will actually be true.
  • 2 1
 "new hole patterns" had me panicked
  • 1 0
 That one silver bolt triggers my inner Monk!
  • 1 1
 Will using it make me faster?
  • 1 1
 30.6% more holes has gotta be like at least 15.3% more speed!
  • 4 0
 No, these brakes slow you down.
  • 1 0
 I feel a "whoosh" is required Wink
Below threshold threads are hidden







Copyright © 2000 - 2024. Pinkbike.com. All rights reserved.
dv56 0.049369
Mobile Version of Website