[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Better brakes?

To: <spridgets@autox.team.net>
Subject: Re: Better brakes?
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 15:40:07 -0400
References: <200206121859.g5CIx4Y47158@mail5.mx.voyager.net>
I don't know about brakes needing to be hot enough to work well but I don't
disagree with it.

However, I can more easily see lost braking effectiveness with drilled
rotors (unless they're getting hot enough to fade) because there is less
surface area touching the pad.

If the average surface area of a pad is 1-1/2" x 2-1/2" (total guess) that's
a total of 3.75 sq in. If you have only a single 5/16" dia hole in that area
you have reduced the contact area by .0977 sq in, or more than 2%. If you
have 2 holes in that area it's 5%.

Add that to the possible loss from the pads not being warm enough and what
have you got?

that's my 2% of a dollar.


1972 Midget
1998 Safari
1999 9-3
1964 (me)

----- Original Message -----
From <ckotting at core.com>
To: "Robert E. Shlafer" <PilotRob@webtv.net>; <dan.dwelley@ps.ge.com>;
Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2002 2:59 PM
Subject: Re: Better brakes?

> Drilled rotors aren't necessarily better than stock, either.  Brakes
> function best within a certain heat range.  Too cool and there isn't
> enough "drag" slow you well.  Too hot and the pads start to melt and
> gas off, leading to fade.
> The advantage of drilled rotors is greater heat dissipation and reduced
> fade.  However, under normal conditions with decent pads, you aren't
> going to get the brakes hot enough that fade will be a problem, and if
> the rotors stay too cool, you actually have reduced braking
> effectiveness.
> Cheapest (and often best) braking upgrade is a thorough going-over of
> the stock system, followed by careful selection of pads for the
> application.
> My $0.02...
> Chris K.

///  unsubscribe/change address requests to majordomo@autox.team.net  or try
///  http://www.team.net/mailman/listinfo
///  Archives at http://www.team.net/archive/spridgets

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>