Quote:
Originally Posted by jamal
The issue I saw was using the overall diameter of the rotor. Effective diameter would be where the center of the pistons are. Short of measuring that, you could probably get very close by taking the pad height and then subtracting half plus a mm or two from the OD of the rotor.
I suppose using OD is somewhat close, in reality pushes the bias forward, because the ED on the rear, with smaller pistons and shorter pads, is actually closer to the outside of the rotor compared to the front. It would also be less accurate comparing a bbk with big rotors and smaller pistons.
An old legacy guy has a brake math spreadsheet with the effective diameters of a lot of stock brakes. I have been meaning to make some modifications to it with some aftermarket stuff and more cars.
http://www.main.experiencetherave.co.../brakemath.xls |
ah yes, i noted this in the article, i use OD and the same pad size for all as it's all the information i've got to go off of. it's hard enough to get piston sizes let alone for this stuff. since the same error as committed across the board though i consider it fair to compare kit A to kit B though. i'm not sure more accurate numbers would affect those overall conclusions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lynxis
|
i certainly don't recall what i used as source now, but i had very different sport kit front numbers in my article - 1.49606x2 - which actually kept bias quite stock looking. however with the above numbers (i use 328mm = 12.9134 rather than 12.8 for rotor) - i'm ending up with 0.733, and the most forward of all their front only kit options then.