Brake Setup?
- Thread starter Bulkierzero
- Start date
Van;1975826 said:
the only thing that concerns me is the coverage area of the caliper. there is alot of unused rotor there
Same thing with ARZ kit.. the thing is that it doesn't matter. there is already PLENTY of clamping force/brake torque; I can lock the wheels at any speed with ease (of course the same goes for the threshold and more).
you have to remember that bigger rotors are mainly for heat dissipation so long as you have a decent caliper and pad.
you have to remember that bigger rotors are mainly for heat dissipation so long as you have a decent caliper and pad.
Dylan JZ;1977269 said:
Ok no offense but locking up the wheels at any speed isnt a good thing for a good BBK setup. I can do that with my stock brakes.
How much do u know about brakes?
So you ask about "unused rotor" and then you illustrate the exact point I was attempting to make. In other words, the stock brakes already have enough torque to overpower the tires. So the main reasons for a bbk are heat dissipation for repeated stops and decreasing some effort by moving the torque arm out away from the center of the hub.
Is it good to lock the tires up, no that's not what I'm saying. However, locking 200 tread wear 255s with ease is something of a feat honestly. The car stops on a dime with that swept area and has plenty of room for good modulation.
I also don't have ABS currently, hence that example.
If you increased the pad swept area (decreased the area of unused rotor), you could lock the tires easier initially, but as we've both pointed out now that is not ideal (less modulation and pointless). It would also potentially increase heat leading to fade and degradation, which is the opposite of what you want. The caliper and pad are to be ideally cooled as quickly as possible within reason, thus it is all well that it does not have a larger friction surface provided it already does its job just fine.
A related item are folks that think they need a massive rotor too. You want the lightest/smallest rotor that can get the job done because that means less rotational mass. Throwing a 14"x 1.5" rotor on a car that never sees the track or a beating of the brakes is sort of well, a waste.
Is it good to lock the tires up, no that's not what I'm saying. However, locking 200 tread wear 255s with ease is something of a feat honestly. The car stops on a dime with that swept area and has plenty of room for good modulation.
I also don't have ABS currently, hence that example.
If you increased the pad swept area (decreased the area of unused rotor), you could lock the tires easier initially, but as we've both pointed out now that is not ideal (less modulation and pointless). It would also potentially increase heat leading to fade and degradation, which is the opposite of what you want. The caliper and pad are to be ideally cooled as quickly as possible within reason, thus it is all well that it does not have a larger friction surface provided it already does its job just fine.
A related item are folks that think they need a massive rotor too. You want the lightest/smallest rotor that can get the job done because that means less rotational mass. Throwing a 14"x 1.5" rotor on a car that never sees the track or a beating of the brakes is sort of well, a waste.
Last edited:
Thats not what im saying at all my stock brakes did that also with the TT wheels i had. I really dont want to make this a long argument but well designed BBK's with large coverage area get as close to the lock up point as possible easier control wise than that of those that cover less i.e. stock brakes. that is alot of usuable surface but anyways. If you told me you this setup stopped shorter than stock brakes or whatever i would agree. They may help with heat dispersement but that can mainly be controlled by pad choice.
Last edited:
There are a lot of things you seem to not understand about brakes, not that I'm an expert of any sort but whatever.
What you are referring to is "modulation," and yes they have a great linear travel in regards to that, but at the same time they are incredibly powerful if you are not careful. On stock brakes, I'd have to practically slam the pedal through the floor just to lock up 225 all seasons, and then they'd fade after 1-2 stops.
Again, the point is they do not require any more pad swept area than how they are designed; it is more than plenty to stop the car fast multiple times in a row.
Negative. More initial friction means less pedal modulation and more heat in this case.
Read this: http://nastyz28.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1293965&postcount=2
And this: (the first bit and the last bit): http://nastyz28.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1295186&postcount=4
What you are referring to is "modulation," and yes they have a great linear travel in regards to that, but at the same time they are incredibly powerful if you are not careful. On stock brakes, I'd have to practically slam the pedal through the floor just to lock up 225 all seasons, and then they'd fade after 1-2 stops.
Again, the point is they do not require any more pad swept area than how they are designed; it is more than plenty to stop the car fast multiple times in a row.
A70BoosTFienD;1977277 said:
Negative. More initial friction means less pedal modulation and more heat in this case.
Read this: http://nastyz28.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1293965&postcount=2
And this: (the first bit and the last bit): http://nastyz28.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1295186&postcount=4
Last edited:
Your going to lock the tires up faster with a bbk than with stock brakes. Better braking = quicker stopping which = over powering the tires much faster.
im not going to continue arguing with you all but i still disagree with you both. Some of your points are valid but some of them i disagree with but im not gonna fuel this fire