No, they are controversially discussed in the net: there are brakes on the marked with more braking power. But the hopes have a value finish. If you like their style of modulation and the look go for it. There are many MTBikers claiming the SAINTs/XTs, CODE RSCs to be more powerful.....don't exclusively rely on the review of customers who purchased these as their new one-and-only brake.

 

I have ran hope brakes for years and would always recommend them.

 

I got my first set of Hope brakes in 2015 after dealing with sticky Sram Guide brakes. The serviceability and quality of Hope brakes was my reason for purchase. Hope sells all the individual parts necessary for service if needed. I purchased a second set in 2019 to replace set of 2 piston XT brakes. I preferred the modulation of the Hope over the harsh initial bite of the XT's.
Both sets have worked without issue over the years.

Pro
functionality, relatability modulation (even on fat bike at low tempeartures)
Serviceability and ease of bleeding (no special tools needed)
Appearance, different anodized colors

Con
Not rated as the most powerful but more than adequate for my needs
Not the lightest setup with tech 4 lever assembly
Dot 5 fluid? some people hate it but seems to work better in cold
Price? when i purchased was more than other products

 

Dot 5 fluid? some people hate it but seems to work better in cold
Price? when i purchased was more than other products

Just a note, DOT 3, 4 and 5.1 that Hope uses (all 3 are compatible) is radically different than DOT 5. They are not cross-compatible.

The reason for the 3, 4 and 5.1 is that inevitably air and moisture work their way into your brakes from the environment, no system is truly sealed. If the fluid absorbs the water with a slight change in fluid boiling point, it's a lot less of an issue than if you have suspended water in there, which will boil at the relatively low temp of 100C, so most auto applications use this and assume periodic brake flushes, rather than possibly having water in the system and it boiling to a gas and expanding.

Whether that's really important? Mineral oil isn't necessarily non-toxic, the Magura stuff is fatal if swallowed, it's manufacturer-specific and not standardized like DOT fluid. The shimano brakes also really really suck in the cold...the kind of cold I ride in. Last ride was -15F and the beauty of the Hopes is they work just like it's +70F. The shimanos are on/off at that temp with no lever travel, no modulation, very difficult to use in any tech terrain, and then I've had them blow out at those temps too.

 

I had Mono 4's years ago and though they looked beautiful they lacked power. Fast forward to last season I picked up a set of Tech 3 E4's and the reviews were actually spot on - heavy lever feel and lacking power. Tech 4's have supposedly addressed these exact issues by increasing the lever length and lightening the pull.

 

Hope T3 is definitely down on power compared to contemporaries. I changed from Shimano 2-piston XT to T3 V4 and the lack of power was noticeable, as in the ability to haul my self down quickly and make quick changes. That was a downgrade. I changed to 220 rotor up front to compensate, 200 rear. That helped a lot and bought me even more heat dissipation/capacity. At that point they were marginally acceptable, able to ride steep slabs and stuff, but still lacking power sometimes. Mainly I changed because I was tired of shimano's wandering bite point during extended steep stuff and in the colder weather.

I also have T3 X2s and T3 E4s. This power issue is common between them all.

I upgraded to T4 levers on the first bike and that makes a HUGE difference. That bike is now running 223/203 (instead of the 220) with a 2.3 thick rotor up front. NOW the brakes have the bite they are supposed to have. It's not that I'm looking for shimano servo-action where they bite down crazy hard at first, but as you progress through the lever on T3s, there's really nothing much more, they just don't slow down as much.

I have the E4s on a winter fatbike that doesn't need as much braking power due to the snow surface. Even still it requires a 203mm rotor. I'll still consider upgrading that front lever to T4 if I want to ride it more in the summer on the same stuff I ride my enduro bike on though. The bike with X2s definitely doesn't need it, it's a hardtail fatbike and I just run a bigger front rotor to compensate.

IMO, skip the E4s though, just go straight to the V4s. There's no real reason to do the intermediary thing. Even the T4 V4s aren't going to make you think these brakes are too grabby like shimano servo-wave action, they are just now comparable to their contemporaries.

 

I have been using Hopes of various types for years. Have had/still have Tech 3 sets on a couple bikes and just bought a Tech 4 E4 set for a heavy 150mm bike. I have only ridden twice with the Tech 4s, but they are clearly stronger than the Tech 3 E4s on the same bike with same size rotors (200/180). Modulation is still a strong suit. I scooted the levers in a touch which also meant going back to standalone shifter and dropper mounts to keep them in the right spot. I am happy with the upgrade.

 

Weren't they just released like less than 48 hours ago?

 

I haven't tried Hope brakes before. I've always used Shimano and SRAM. I tried Magura a couple years ago and I have to say they were excellent!

 

The Tech 4 levers are a game changer for Hope. Finally brings them into line with the most powerful brakes on the market. They say it's a 30% overall increase in power. Coming from over 2 years experience on the Tech 3 V4s I would say that's accurate, if not slightly conservative. It's certainly more than I need in most cases where I used to feel I was pushing the limits of the Tech 3s in certain situations.

Hope "feel" = very linear power delivery and a wide window of modulation without feeling like the bite point is somewhere inside your handlebars (hello cheap SRAM brakes). If you're used to Shimanos you might find they don't bite as hard or as early as you want, but depending on how you ride it all makes sense when out on the trails. If you're the kind of rider who likes to slam the anchors on at the last minute and send buckets of roost flying into the abyss they're not gonna do that job as easily or as well as Saints or whatever. If you brake more like a racer, or you need fine control on super steep stuff to stop your wheels locking up then Hopes are great.

You can dial in whatever amount of free stroke you want (or none at all) using the bite point and reach adjusters on the levers. I like the BPC closed (no free stroke) and the levers as far out as I can comfortably run them, which gives me a bite point around mid way through the stroke. I would say that for 90% of my riding I don't get close to needing full power out of them, but when I do oh man they would stop a truck. Want to lock both wheels out at any speed? No problem, hermano. They'll still do that (I've tried).

As Jayem says, you might as well skip straight to the V4s. I guess it depends on what you're used to and how much you weigh. I've seen one review which claimed that with the new "race" pads they were too powerful. I don't think anyone could have levelled that at the old Tech 3s. Just be sure to use Hope's own mount adaptors because they are big calipers and won't fit on a standard flat mount adaptor.

 

My experiences with E4s have mostly been covered already here. Initially had the T3 levers, then upgraded to T4 which have considerably more power, lighter action and look much nicer too.
Hope's have always been widely misconstrued as having little power, but that's because people are idiots and think that just because all the power isn't delivered at once, they must be sh*t. It's called modulation, and Hopes have lots of it. Want more power? Ok, cool, just pull the lever a bit more. Whether you like that or not is down to you, I personally think it's great and gives you loads of control.

They're also a piece of pi*s to fix, service and generally look after than other brakes. I will concede that they can sometimes be a little finicky to setup and bleed, but again if you're not an idiot and can line something up properly, and read instructions, you have no problem. Their customer service is second to none, too.

 

My experiences with E4s have mostly been covered already here. Initially had the T3 levers, then upgraded to T4 which have considerably more power, lighter action and look much nicer too.
Hope's have always been widely misconstrued as having little power, but that's because people are idiots and think that just because all the power isn't delivered at once, they must be sh*t. It's called modulation, and Hopes have lots of it. Want more power? Ok, cool, just pull the lever a bit more. Whether you like that or not is down to you, I personally think it's great and gives you loads of control.

They're also a piece of pi*s to fix, service and generally look after than other brakes. I will concede that they can sometimes be a little finicky to setup and bleed, but again if you're not an idiot and can line something up properly, and read instructions, you have no problem. Their customer service is second to none, too.

Naw, tech 3's are just weak. They are easily a full rotor size down on power compared to their competitors. Tech 4's exist because 3's couldn't match their competitors outright power.

 

My all time favorite been Code RSC with Centerline X rotors and MTX Red Label pads for some time now.
I had them on all of my past 5 bikes including an XC Hardtail Ibis DV9.
I’m getting a new Transition Spur built and after reading so many highly positive reviews and realizing that they’re even lighter than the Code RSC I really want to give them a try.
I only have experience with all latest versions of SRAM and Shimano brakes. And I just personally don’t like the Shimano for multiple reasons but mainly due to complete lack of modulation.
I don’t care much for the bling factor of the Hopes, I usually don’t get my bikes flashy anyway. But the fact that in most reviews where they compared them to Code RSC they said that’s ether equivalent or even better than Code RSC made me very curious about them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Still have Mono Mini on one of my bike , I'll pickup a set of T4 soon enough.

Here too , never felt lack of power with T3 , have to say that I'm only 170lbs , XC-HT no big downhill stuff...

Can't wait for them to sell levers only for the other bikes !

 

Can't wait for them to sell levers only for the other bikes !

They do if you ask your local dealer

 

I've seen some good reviews about these new Hope Tech 4 E4 brakes.
Every MTB website posting a review about these brakes pretty much sets them as the new benchmark.
So I'm curious to read some actual rider's feedback.
View attachment 2014982
View attachment 2014985
View attachment 2014983
View attachment 2014984

Hope brakes have always been the benchmark for others to achieve. I have a pair of Minis that are 22 years old and will out perform many of the newer brakes that are out today.

 

Thanks for the laugh. My T3 V4's were the weakest brakes I've ridden. 2-piston XT's included. Trickstuff pads couldn't help those sorry things a bit and I wasted a year riding them cause they were so pretty. It took one run at Windrock, and almost dying with severe arm pump trying to manage bike speed, that I sold 'em off and went back to the Saints. The T4's 30% improvement should get them into mid-pack. Nice job Hope!

 

I would also only use Hope brake adapters and floating rotors, just and fyi after using others that didn't work correctly.

 

I would use TRP rotors...and I do!


There's no compelling reason to use Hope's pinned rotors.

 

I went from zee's (old ones with aggressive servo cam) to v4's because I wanted to get away from the horrible modulation and wandering bite. I was pretty shocked at how much weaker v4's were. Easily a full rotor size down compared to zee's. Modulation was a bit too broad for my taste too. The initial bite was so soft I didn't find it very practical. Full pull power was adequate for me to ride with confidence but I found I had to initiate braking early and almost ride the rear at mid stroke just to have quick enough access to full pull power to have confidence. When I didn't ride the rear close to or at mid stroke I had some sketchy late braking situations. A lot of that was me just getting used to going from very powerful on off brakes to very linear weaker brakes. Had I uped the rotors I would have been a lot happier I'm sure but I also felt the lever pull was fatiguing my hands too much as well. Tech 4 has addressed all my complaints. They might be my perfect brake? I'm currently running Shigura's that are more Shimano than magura. I'm not a huge fan though they are super strong and get the job done just fine. Finesse isn't a word I would use to describe them. Finesse is something I would like.

 

Take a look at the only empirical brake test I have seen to date. If I am wrong please link me another that actually uses a repeatable setup such as this. Anecdotal evidence is garbage compared to bench testing of brakes. From this you can see the Tech 3 levers were putting out 73.1nm (e4) and 74.8nm(v4). Highest measured from SRAM was Guide ultimate at 71.7nm and Code RSC was a close second at 70.6nm. Shimano highest was Saint at 83nm, Zee was 75.2nm. Trickstuff and Magura are in a category of their own for pure caliper power. So next time someone says Tech 3 are underpowered please show them they are incorrect. If the tech 4 has 30% more power we are roughly at 96nm which puts them into Magura power levels. Mentioned in this test as well is brake pad choice, changing sram pads for Trickstuff pads gave the Sram roughly 20 percent more braking torque. If this test was able to use all the same brake pad compound I would be very curious to see those results as it would eliminate that as a variable and we would see caliper power compared. https://enduro-mtb.com/en/best-mtb-disc-brake-can-buy/

As someone involved in engineering I place much more value on empirical, repeatable tests over anecdotal evidence. Anecdotal evidence is not used in the scientific community as its not measurable or repeatable and basically boils down to word of mouth. So if you feel like your Hope Tech 3 were not as powerful as any of the SRAMs in that test then good for you but the data says your personal observations are incorrect. As a community we should demand this type of testing to be done by pinkbike, vital, enduromag etc every single year. Brake manufacturers will not like this as they may have an "emperor has no clothes" situation where their brakes are provably weak. Agree or disagree with my opinions all you want but until you have conducted your own test protocol and want to post your methods, data etc you have no leg to stand on.

All this being said I have tried the new Tech 4 levers and did not like the feel of the bite point and the lever felt more SRAM-like to me than I prefer. The older tech 3 levers had a very distinct end point to them where I could not pull further. The tech 4 hits that end but then either flexes or compresses past that point making it feel mushier. The power when doing this is high and have no issues with the ability to stop I just don't like the feeling of having them hit the end then keep squishing. Tried bleeding them 3 more times to get allll the tiny little bubbles out and still dont like them so swapped back to my Tech 3s and sold the Tech 4 levers

 

Take a look at the only empirical brake test I have seen to date. If I am wrong please link me another that actually uses a repeatable setup such as this. Anecdotal evidence is garbage compared to bench testing of brakes. From this you can see the Tech 3 levers were putting out 73.1nm (e4) and 74.8nm(v4). Highest measured from SRAM was Guide ultimate at 71.7nm and Code RSC was a close second at 70.6nm. Shimano highest was Saint at 83nm, Zee was 75.2nm. Trickstuff and Magura are in a category of their own for pure caliper power. So next time someone says Tech 3 are underpowered please show them they are incorrect.

I guess the issue is if the brake delivers it's max torque after the lever hits my other fingers...
I've just gone from Saint to some form of Codes and the lever throw is about 25mm Vs 20mm. I rode some reasonable trails but had no issues adjusting. It's probably my first time on SRAM brakes in a decade. I still prefer the wall the lever hits with Shimano and I've never lucked out with the wandering bite point with SLX, Deore and Saint either.

 

Pretty sure that test was widely regarded as inaccurate, didn't it claim the E4 stopped considerably faster than the V4? Ballpark figures though, it does show that people can't claim "they're not powerful", as you rightly say.

In regards to the flexy feel after the bite point, keep trying with the bleeding. My front brake feels very firm now, and while the rear will always feel softer, I've got it much firmer after being much more careful with replacing the reservoir cap properly, and most crucially balancing the pistons properly.

 

It is critical with any brake to bleed it properly. I ordered a custom set of E4's from Hope with the hoses cut to my predetermined length. The bleed was not good. Hope's are amazing when you get them bled and set up properly. I think the vast majority of brake complaints on mtbr are related to poor bleeds and setup, and people that are too clueless to know it. That is why the brake thread is not very useful in general. You hear such differing opinions on the power of brakes with no mention of whether or not the rider is a competent mechanic. The same goes for the drivetrain forum.

 

Can you show me where that test has been discussed and disputed? Not trying to dispute you just need more evidence then "pretty sure that test was inaccurate". I am pretty sure anyone other than Magura and Trickstuff would love to throw the results of this test out the window. Again right now as far as I know that is the one and only test I have seen conducted and results shown to the public. That being said we are missing all the raw data. Which exact pads were tested with each brake? There is a chance that with the e4 they tested the standard pads(red) and with the V4 they tested the sintered (goldish) so that may have thrown those numbers off but without the rest of the data we really dont know. I am 99 percent sure that SRAM, Shimano, Hope, Hayes have all this data on their own brakes already but we have never seen any of them publish any of this data first party. We as consumers need to demand more of this type of testing from manufacturers and reviewers. Brake manufacturers have a vested interest in not showing this data as it might show their brake is not as good as company "X" brake.

I am also into PC gaming and if there were no benchmarks done by 3rd parties we would be left to trusting the manufactures on their claims of speed and power. Its ridiculous to me that we have no true measurements to go off when looking at these products. Another example is helmet safety tests. We have 3rd parties that test lots of helmets with no financial incentive from any companies. I trust that data much more than Bontrager claiming their wavecel technology is the best stuff around when in 3rd party tests their cheaper MiPs helmets outperform wavecel.

I am just a big nerd wanting more nerd stuff. Just give me DATA

 

That being said we are missing all the raw data. Which exact pads were tested with each brake?

Exactly. That's why I thought it had been regarded as not terribly accurate. Also you don't need empirical data to tell you that for the same size master cylinder, a larger slave piston will deliver more power, and - all other factors being equal - stop quicker. The E4/V4 numbers show that not to be the case, so something isn't right with their method.

 

Just upgraded to Tech 4 E4 from Tech V2 / M4. Guessing its normal but noticed when finishing the build that the brakes make a loud bang when you pull the brakes and rock the bike, presume its the pads moving around in the calliper. They feel great though, love that they got rid of the flip/flop lever.

 

Could it be the rotor slipping because the pads aren’t bedded in yet? It would be more of a loud crack than a bang? Eyeball the rotors when you do it. Should see a tiny bit of movement.

 

Just got a set of the new V4's. Absolutely loving them so far. Rear was a bit of a pain to bleed, but mainly because I'm not use to Hope's method. Love the modulation these provide over the XT 4 pots they replaced, which were like an on/off switch.

 

It's a special feature of XT brakes that the on/off feel goes away after the pistons start leaking and contaminating the pads.

 

I put on my set of Hope Tech 4 E4 brakes on Transition Spur so far a bit over 150 miles and I absolutely loving them!
On my previous 4 bikes I had the SRAM Code RSC which I still consider as one of the best brakes out there, the Tech 4 E4 are just a bit better.
Within the first steep descent I could tell that the Hope provide stronger bite on the rotor. Definitely more modulation.
For the first few rides with the Hope Tech 4 E4 I had 180/180 Hope rotors as well, but the kept on singing so I swapped the pads to the MTX Racing which improved the final bite even more and even slightly more modulation. But the rotor kept on singing. So I swapped the rotors to a brand new set of SRAM CenterLine X 180/180 that was laying in my garage and it’s just perfect.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

I have a set of Tech 4 E4s coming in red/black with red floating rotors. Oh I can’t wait.