No, I don't doubt that they can crack, but I don't think it's a problem that's inherent to the product. I would tend to say that it's more an indication of them consistently being punished too hard. As for the out-gassing, well, when I bought the Porterfield pads for the car, my discussion with the salesman focused on the point that ALL braking, no matter the pad, will lead to the build-up of gasses. It's just not a problem under normal driving. As you get on the brakes more, it will happen more - simple fact. You are absolutely right when you say that a better pad will help alleviate the problem, and that the wrong pad can exacerbate it too, but even for our needs (such as carving the canyons when we drive through the Jemez mountains) the drilled-rotors have helped a lot. There's a section of road up there when you're coming into Los Alamos, where I've seen people's brakes SMOLDERING as they descend - ours never even "brake" a sweat (pun intended!) On my old Integra that had four-wheel drilled rotors, I had them fading to the point one time that I had no brakes and never found a single crack (almost hit a deer in those same mountains.) I also don't live by the belief that you should beat the shit out of your car on a daily basis, so, while our cars have seen some aggressive driving, they've never, ever been horse-beat, which is probably why I don't have those problems!
You can't generalize your statements based upon one or two negative experiences! Brian ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ricky Crow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Brian-SubCultureNM" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, January 31, 2003 12:31 PM Subject: Re: CRX: Re: Physics lesson, and a stop to all this bickering about tires and sizes and hydroplaning. > Never seen them crack before? > > Obviously you've never driven your car very hard. Would you like to see > pictures of the set that is in my garagae right now that I pulled off of > my friend's Type-R? (A car that has NEVER been driven on a track, and yet > it still happened!) I'll take pictures when I get home and post them > online. > > It's not a rumor... it's a fact. Cross-drilled rotors suck. > > Like I said before -- if your pads are outgassing enough to be causing pad > fade (I mentioned nothing about fluid fade, because that's an entirely > different thing altogether), YOU ARE USING THE WRONG TYPE OF PAD FOR YOUR > APPLICATION! In that case, you need pads that have a higher operation > temperature range. > > Ricky > > > > On Fri, 31 Jan 2003, Brian-SubCultureNM wrote: > > > Holy crap! Between barking and baking, I've started a whole new discussion! > > > > Brian > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Brian-SubCultureNM" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Friday, January 31, 2003 10:38 AM > > Subject: Re: CRX: Re: Physics lesson, and a stop to all this bickering about > > tires and sizes and hydroplaning. > > > > > > > On a car as small as the CRX, heat dissipation is as important as surface > > > area, after-all, baking is nothing more than converting kinetic energy > > into > > > waste heat energy, right? Therefore, efficiently expelling that heat will > > > lead to increased barking performance. Measure the surface area lost by > > > cross-drilling the rotor and you'll see that you've lost barely 5% of the > > > total surface area. Also, under hard braking, gasses will build between > > the > > > rotor and pad, which is one of the main causes of fade (that, and boiling > > > your fluid.) Drilled rotors help to evacuate these gasses. I don't know if > > > you've ever tried-out the AEM Big Brake upgrades, but they're designed to > > > use a larger rotor with stock calipers. We installed many sets of them on > > > cars at the shop where I worked and even with stock calipers and rotors > > > (which, by your argument, should not result in increased braking > > > performance) the cars stopped on a dime when braking hard! Those big > > rotors > > > dissipate heat more efficiently. > > > > > > As far as stress cracks, that's a rumor that all drilled-rotor oponents > > like > > > to bring-up, yet, on all the cars I've ever had drilled rotors on, I've > > > never experienced a single crack - and I get on the brakes, believe me! > > > > > > And I'm a Chemical Engineer with lots and lots of physics, thermodynamics, > > > and fluid-transport classes under my belt! > > > > > > Brian > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Ricky Crow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > To: "Brian-SubCultureNM" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Sent: Friday, January 31, 2003 10:32 AM > > > Subject: Re: CRX: Re: Physics lesson, and a stop to all this bickering > > about > > > tires and sizes and hydroplaning. > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 31 Jan 2003, Brian-SubCultureNM wrote: > > > > > > > > > Anyway, I agree completely with what you have to say. It's also quite > > > > > evident that larger wheels/tires will take longer to stop (higher > > > inertia), > > > > > > > > Yes > > > > > > > > > which is why I run drilled rotors with a good carbon/kevlar pad > > > (probably > > > > > overkill on the street), braided-stainless brake lines, and the Ford > > > Super > > > > > > > > More flawed reasoning... Man, your engineering background must be in > > > > electrical engineering, because it really doesn't help you much when it > > > > comes to mechanics and physics, does it? > > > > > > > > Unless you live in an area where you get massive flash-floods, > > > > cross-drilled rotors are ONLY good for developing stress cracks when > > > > driven hard. > > > > > > > > Cross-drilled rotors have less surface area, therefore less ability to > > > > make contact with the pad, therefore less braking coefficient of > > friction. > > > > > > > > Cross-drilled rotors have less mass, therefore, less ability to absorb > > and > > > > dissipate heat through the vents in the center of the rotor > > > > > > > > Cross-drilled rotors are only good for evacuating water. Many people > > have > > > > the flawed thinking that the holes are there for outgassing the pads. > > Let > > > > me tell you -- if your pads are outgassing that badly (to the point > > where > > > > you are seeing pad fade), you are using the wrong type of pads for your > > > > application. > > > > > > > > Talk to the engineers at Porsche. They put cross-drilled rotors on > > their > > > > cars, but it's not for heat dissipation. It's for water evacuation. > > > > > > > > Talk to any motorcycle rider that races bikes, they'll tell you the same > > > > thing. > > > > > > > > > Blue brake fluid. Ask any grass-roots race enthusiast and they'll tell > > > you > > > > > to save your money on the expensive fluids and use the stuff from > > Ford! > > > > > > > > Yes... Something we do agree on. > > > > It's cheap and has a high boiling point. > > > > > > > > I use Ford brake fluid, as well. > > > > > > > > Ricky > > > > > > > > > > > > > See ya, > > > > > > > > > > BRian > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > > From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > To: "Ricky Crow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Brian-SubCultureNM" > > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > Cc: "Jeremy Bass" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > Sent: Friday, January 31, 2003 8:52 AM > > > > > Subject: RE: CRX: Re: Physics lesson, and a stop to all this bickering > > > about > > > > > tires and sizes and hydroplaning. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Just for fun here -- it is not the size of the wheel that matters. > > > > > > > > > > For performance, there are two factors involved -- first, there is the > > > > > weight of the wheel/tire combination. Then, there is the location of > > > the > > > > > mass in relationship to the diameter. > > > > > > > > > > Let's say that you have a wheel/tire combination that weighs 25 > > pounds. > > > > > Now, running a 175/70-13 vs. 205/30-18 (within 0.2 inch in diameter) > > you > > > can > > > > > see that on the 18 the entire tire portion is located beyond 9 inches > > > from > > > > > the center of the wheel. Where with the 13 it is located beyond 6.5 > > > inches > > > > > from the center of the wheel. Therefore the 18 inch wheel has a > > greater > > > > > rotational force to overcome. > > > > > > > > > > This, in essence, means that everything else being equal, a car with > > 13" > > > > > wheels will accelerate faster than one with 18" wheels. It is a > > simple > > > > > matter of physics. > > > > > > > > > > IF this is what you are referring to as performance. > > > > > > > > > > Personal experience. My '89 DX (we must keep CRX content, right?) > > > > > accelerates faster with 195/60-14's than it does with 175/70-14's > > > because > > > > > the tire/wheel combination is probably 8 pounds heavier per corner. > > > Greater > > > > > rotational mass. > > > > > > > > > > TTFN! > > > > > > > > > > David > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: Ricky Crow [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > > > Sent: Friday, January 31, 2003 9:44 AM > > > > > To: Brian-SubCultureNM > > > > > Cc: Jeremy Bass; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > Subject: Re: CRX: Re: Physics lesson, and a stop to all this bickering > > > > > about tires and sizes and hydroplaning. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You're the one that brought some pickup truck into the equation. This > > > is > > > > > a CRX List, and he was stating numbers about a stock CRX. All CRXs > > have > > > > > the close to the same weight distribution, for the most part. > > Therefore > > > > > his numbers apply to the vast majority of CRX's out there. Your CRX's > > > > > suspension can't be much different than what my CRX is (I have one CRX > > > on > > > > > each end of the spectrum, from almost-stock to heavily-modified with > > > > > various suspension braces, sway bars, roll-cage, etc). > > > > > > > > > > And yes, he was oversimplifying, because you didn't seem to > > understand. > > > > > Bottom line is, no street tire will help you from hydroplaning over > > > > > 50-55mph, no matter how good the tread pattern is. If you were really > > > an > > > > > engineer like you say you are, you'd realize that bigger wheels have a > > > > > diminishing return on performance increase (and gets to the point > > where > > > it > > > > > actually is a detriment to performance). > > > > > > > > > > Ricky > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 31 Jan 2003, Brian-SubCultureNM wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Hey Ricky, > > > > > > > > > > > > You ever heard of a discussion? That's all this is, my man. If you > > > can't > > > > > > take it, then you have no business being in a public forum where > > > > > discussions > > > > > > take place. You obviously can't handle anyone disagreeing with you, > > my > > > > > > friend (which is the statement you issue towards me, as if it's an > > > > > insult.) > > > > > > I don't care - I like the discussions; they're thought-provoking and > > > get > > > > > my > > > > > > blood boiling sometimes. Besides, when someone's thinking is flawed, > > > > > there's > > > > > > no harm in pointing-out the error, especially if it's done in a > > > > > constructive > > > > > > way. The fact is, his thinking did not take some critical factors > > into > > > > > > play - he assumed that all vehicles handle and drive alike. His > > > formulas > > > > > > were also over-simplified. Sometimes my Engineering education rears > > > its > > > > > ugly > > > > > > head, that's all. > > > > > > > > > > > > Anyway, like the previous threads, you have nothing positive nor > > > anything > > > > > > constructive to add, so your point is irrelevant. Notice, I still > > > haven't > > > > > > become negative, even in the face of your insults. > > > > > > > > > > > > Take care, > > > > > > > > > > > > Brian > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > > > From: "Ricky Crow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > To: "Brian-SubCultureNM" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > Cc: "Jeremy Bass" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > Sent: Friday, January 31, 2003 7:53 AM > > > > > > Subject: Re: CRX: Re: Physics lesson, and a stop to all this > > bickering > > > > > about > > > > > > tires and sizes and hydroplaning. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Exactly why I stopped discussing this with you -- you will argue > > > with > > > > > > > anybody that doesn't agree with you, no matter what they say or > > how > > > they > > > > > > > prove what they're talking about (hence the reason why I didn't > > > bother > > > > > to > > > > > > > give you any 'scientific' evidence, because you'd have tried to > > > discount > > > > > > > it as well). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sadly, your thought process is way too typical these days. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ricky > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 31 Jan 2003, Brian-SubCultureNM wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You've made some decent points, but haven't taken all the > > > variables > > > > > into > > > > > > consideration. Your formulas assume a perfectly flat tire, one with > > no > > > > > tread > > > > > > pattern at all (tread pattern will, of course, take precious > > > square-inches > > > > > > away from your total contact patch.) However, a well designed tread > > > > > pattern > > > > > > will evacuate water from underneath its contact patch, thus > > nullifying > > > a > > > > > > large portion of your assumptions. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anyway, I'm not an advocate for driving as you would on dry > > > pavement > > > > > > when it's wet. Of course, here in NM, rarely do we have to worry > > about > > > > > > anything more than a few rain drops on the pavement. Also, as far as > > > the > > > > > > truck is concerned, 1) it has an air-bag suspension which allows for > > a > > > lot > > > > > > of slop in its handling - in other words, it doesn not maintain > > > constant > > > > > > down-force on any surface; 2) it's body-dropped and has had a large > > > > > portion > > > > > > of its bed structure removed, so the weight over the drive wheels is > > > > > > probably no heavier than a CRX; 3) as mentioned, it is front-heavy > > > RWD, > > > > > > which lends itself to more handling problems (and less predictable > > > > > handling > > > > > > problems with the 'bags) than a FWD CRX. Therefore, when you take > > all > > > this > > > > > > into consideration, it should handle even worse on wet pavement than > > > the > > > > > > CRX. It didn't, and the tire tread and compound has a lot to do with > > > that. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Finally, congratulations on your door handles (seriously.) I > > would > > > be > > > > > > curious as to how long you've had them done and whether-or-not > > you've > > > > > > started to experience shrinking of the JB Weld. If you haven't, you > > > will. > > > > > > Believe me, having a lot of experience with custom body mods, > > there's > > > > > rarely > > > > > > a time that they are 100% trouble-free. THis isn't a critique of > > your > > > > > work, > > > > > > it's just a fact. We've had to have one door and the tailgate handle > > > on > > > > > our > > > > > > truck re-done because of cracking. It happens to the best of them! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Brian > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > > > > > From: Jeremy Bass > > > > > > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > Sent: Friday, January 31, 2003 3:54 AM > > > > > > > > Subject: CRX: Physics lesson, and a stop to all this bickering > > > about > > > > > > tires and sizes and hydroplaning. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > An end to all of this hydroplaning crapola... Welcome to > > > Jeremy's > > > > > > weird world of physics... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Exibit A: > > > > > > > > Frontal Resistance... The more surface area you present in > > the > > > > > > direction of the movement, the more resistance you create and the > > more > > > > > force > > > > > > you need to overcome that resistance. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The surface area is the contact patch of the tires. The > > > direction > > > > > of > > > > > > the movement is the tires penetrating the water. The resistance is > > how > > > > > hard > > > > > > it is for the contact patch of the tires to penetrate that water. > > > More > > > > > > force would mean more weight pushing down on the tire or traveling > > at > > > a > > > > > > lower speed so that the tire has less water to penetrate. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In other words... If you were in a 1990 Honda CRX si, and hit > > a > > > > > > puddle with a depth of .40 in. or greater of water at 50mph with > > stock > > > > > > 185/60/14 tires you would be less likely to hydroplane than if you > > > were to > > > > > > hit water with 205/40/16s. I use .40 inches of water because it > > rids > > > me > > > > > of > > > > > > variables such as tire tread pattern and road surface, because your > > > tire > > > > > is > > > > > > as good as slick in water that deep. If your tread is deeper than > > .40 > > > > > inches > > > > > > on your crx you need to buy tires that are not for off-road use.... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now, a stock 1990 Honda CRX si with 185/60/14 tires at 28psi > > > weighs > > > > > > 2174lbs, and has a weight distribution of 62% front and 38% rear. > > > > > Therefore, > > > > > > the front tires are putting 1396.2 lbs to the pavement which is a > > > scant > > > > > > 698.1 lbs each. So, in exactly .40 in. of water and a contact patch > > > of > > > > > 32.8 > > > > > > sq. inches, it would take water pressurized to anything above 21.28 > > > psi to > > > > > > lift the car from the surface of the road. ( I think that is around > > > > > 51mph??, > > > > > > but that doesn't matter right now ) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SO, if the tire variables increase the contact patch of the > > > tire, it > > > > > > lowers the water psi needed to lift the vehicle, and increases the > > > > > > likelyhood of hydroplaning. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > THEREFORE THESE STATEMENTS ARE FACTS: > > > > > > > > Tire outside diameter DIRECTLY affects hydroplaning. > > (minimaly) > > > (18 > > > > > > inch rims must use larger than stock OD) > > > > > > > > The width of the tire DIRECTLY affects hydroplaning. > > > > > > > > Tire pressure DIRECTLY affects hydroplaning. > > > > > > > > The weight of the car DIRECTLY affects hydroplaning. > > > > > > > > Speed... Duh. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you ladies and gentlemen.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (I'm sure my english is not perfect, nor spelling. But the > > > numbers > > > > > can > > > > > > be checked with a fine tooth comb.) oh, and your canyon carving > > truck > > > > > with > > > > > > the big fat tires weighs way more than our lil rexes so your example > > > is > > > > > null > > > > > > because you have more "FORCE"... nanny nanny boo boo.... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, may we please quit bickering??! : ) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
