Stock brakes too weak?

[CSG Mike]

Originally Posted by qoncept

Alright guys. I'll go tell every physicist ever. And my block of wood.

"Nice theory, but brakes are somehow different."

Putting 100 octane in a car designed for 87 doesn't make that car any faster.

Have you ever seen how SMALL F1 brakes are?

[qoncept]

Originally Posted by CSG Mike

Putting 100 octane in a car designed for 87 doesn't make that car any faster.

Turning your thermostat to 50 doesn't cool the house down any faster.

Have you ever seen how SMALL F1 brakes are?

You must be drawing attention to the fact that I never said anything about the size of brakes. Go ahead. Ctrl-F.

[CSG Mike]

Originally Posted by qoncept

Turning your thermostat to 50 doesn't cool the house down any faster.


You must be drawing attention to the fact that I never said anything about the size of brakes. Go ahead. Ctrl-F.

You must be forgetting that the tires can only handle so much force before losing grip. Increasing the total amount of force available doesn't change the breaking point of tire grip.

Just how that engine designed for 87 octane doesn't magically make more power on higher octane fuel, and the AC system is limited by it's capacity to exchange heat (not what you set the thermostat to), braking force (power) is limited by the tires, not the braking system itself.

Leave the physics classroom, and come join us in some real-world testing at the track.

[Mikem53]

Like the rest of this car.. You need to work the brakes ... They are not grabby
And don't feel as power assisted as most other cars do..
They have a good linear feel and you can press hard without hitting the limits..
I haven't tried yet... but I'm sure they are lacking in stock form for track use..
I will find out tonight!

[Nazarite]

To all you claiming the stock brakes are great, better than most cars and SUVs out there, yada yada, in fully stock form I've actually been disappointed, especially compared to cars in its class. For example (as per MotorTrend testing):

2013 BRZ = 2,747 lb Stops 60-0 in 120 ft.
2011 Ford Mustang V-6 = 3464 Stops 60-0 in 104 ft
2010 Volkswagen GTI = 3204 lb Stops 60-0 in 113 ft
2013 Dodge Ram = 5,362 lb Stops 60-0 in 123 ft.

LOL at the thought of brake checking someone while driving a Dodge Ram. However, as most people have pointed out, tires, or pads, or both, make a world of distance.

I'm seriously impressed with the stopping distances SpeedFactory was able to achieve on an otherwise stock car by upgrading brake pads only. And not even the best brake pads imo.

With just HP+ pads (stock tires) they chopped the stopping distance 60-0 to just 101 ft, which is ballin, but by going full out and upgrading just about everything they cut the total distance to 82 ft, which is ZOMG AMAZING.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BARzYdLX5dA"]Scion FRS / Subaru BRZ - FT86 SpeedFactory Brake Test - 60-0mph - YouTube[/ame]

Regardless, pads are a relatively cheap upgrade, and imho more than worth it for the safety, let alone performance gains.

[qoncept]

Originally Posted by CSG Mike

You must be forgetting that the tires can only handle so much force before losing grip. Increasing the total amount of force available doesn't change the breaking point of tire grip.

As a matter of fact, I'm not. It's tricky so I can see why no one understands it. It took me a long time to get it, and I'm obviously not any good at explaining it. But you have static vs sliding friction at the brakes and then static vs rolling friction to consider at the tires.

Like I've said, stronger brakes will provide more force before locking up. The difference may be very slight, but they absolutely will.

Leave the physics classroom, and come join us in some real-world testing at the track.

I hope you won't discount the work of the great Charles-Augustin de Coulomb just because I live 5 hours from closest track.

Seriously, now. Please, explain this:

Originally Posted by Nazarite

I'm seriously impressed with the stopping distances SpeedFactory was able to achieve on an otherwise stock car by upgrading brake pads only. And not even the best brake pads imo.

Your claim seems to be that if a car can lock up the brakes, there is nothing you can do to decrease stopping distance. Which is to say that every car ever manufactured can never stop any faster than from the factory (with whatever tires are best).

[Nazarite]

Originally Posted by qoncept

Seriously, now. Please, explain this:


Your claim seems to be that if a car can lock up the brakes, there is nothing you can do to decrease stopping distance. Which is to say that every car ever manufactured can never stop any faster than from the factory (with whatever tires are best).

Hmm, I'm not sure where/how I was unclear, but my "claim" is simply showing findings in which it *appears there are substantial benefits to upgrading the brake pads, even if you never touch the stock tires.

When I say "I'm seriously impressed at said results from a simple brake pad swap," I mean most simply that I am impressed, seriously. I don't recall mentioning "that if a car can lock up the brakes, there is nothing you can do to decrease stopping distance," I pointed out quite the opposite. Hope that helps.

[qoncept]

Originally Posted by Nazarite

Hmm, I'm not sure where/how I was unclear, but my "claim" is simply showing findings in which it *appears there are substantial benefits to upgrading the brake pads, even if you never touch the stock tires.

When I say "I'm seriously impressed at said results from a simple brake pad swap," I mean most simply that I am impressed, seriously. I don't recall mentioning "that if a car can lock up the brakes, there is nothing you can do to decrease stopping distance," I pointed out quite the opposite. Hope that helps.

I didn't mean you. The real world results show you're right. But according to everyone else that's impossible because the stock brakes can already lock up the wheels which means the car can't possibly stop any faster. So, anyone else, please explain how this impossible thing happened.

[CSG Mike]

Originally Posted by Mikem53

Like the rest of this car.. You need to work the brakes ... They are not grabby
And don't feel as power assisted as most other cars do..
They have a good linear feel and you can press hard without hitting the limits..
I haven't tried yet... but I'm sure they are lacking in stock form for track use..
I will find out tonight!

They're absolutely not lacking on track, as long as you upgrade the pads and fluid.

The "lack" of power assisted feel is so that you have a more linear increase in braking force as you squeeze the pedal.

[CSG Mike]

Originally Posted by qoncept

Seriously, now. Please, explain this:


Your claim seems to be that if a car can lock up the brakes, there is nothing you can do to decrease stopping distance. Which is to say that every car ever manufactured can never stop any faster than from the factory (with whatever tires are best).

Easy. Apples to oranges comparison. Test on the same surface.

[qoncept]

Originally Posted by CSG Mike

Easy. Apples to oranges comparison. Test on the same surface.

You're saying they tested on 2 different surfaces?

[Mikem53]

Originally Posted by CSG Mike

They're absolutely not lacking on track, as long as you upgrade the pads and fluid.

The "lack" of power assisted feel is so that you have a more linear increase in braking force as you squeeze the pedal.

I said this already! I said in STOCK FORM they are not track ready..

I also said it has a linear feel BECAUSE its not grabby like most..

I don't mind being corrected when I'm in error.. But I said both these things.. Or are u just upping your post count?

[CSG Mike]

Originally Posted by qoncept

You're saying they tested on 2 different surfaces?

They're comparing their own figures on their chosen surface, vs the 118ft recorded by Motortrend on Motortrend's chosen surface.

Who knows what ambient conditions were like...


As far as their 82ft stopping distance on Z1 Star Specs (street tire) and pads, is comparable to say... a GT3?

2010 Porsche 911 GT3 60-0 MPH: 94 ft
Tires: Michelin Pilot Sport Cups
Tire Size, Front: 235/35ZR19 87Y
Tire Size, Rear: 305/30ZR19 102Y
Brakes, Front: 15.0-in vented, drilled, disc/6-piston, ABS
Brakes, Rear: 13.8-in vented, drilled, disc/4-piston, ABS

Or,

2008 Dodge Viper ACR 60-0 MPH: 97 ft
Tires: Michelin Pilot Sport Cup
Tire Size, Front: 295/35ZR18 94Y
Tire Size, Rear: 345/30ZR19 105Y
Brakes, Front: 14-in vented disc, 4-piston, ABS
Brakes, Rear: 14-in vented disc, 4-piston, ABS


All Motortrend figures by the way. Both cars are on semi-slicks, and are exceptionally light cars.

Lets add one more.

2011 Chevrolet Corvette Z06 Carbon Edition 60-0 MPH: 93 ft
Tires: Michelin Pilot Sport Cup
Tire Size, Front: 285/30ZR19 87Y
Tire Size, Rear: 335/25ZR20 94Y
Brakes, Front: 15.5-in vented, drilled, carbon-ceramic disc/6-piston, ABS
Brakes, Rear: 15.0-in vented, drilled carbon-ceramic disc/4-piston, ABS

If pads alone really reduced stopping distance by 15%, I'm pretty sure they'd be government mandated.

[qoncept]

Originally Posted by CSG Mike

They're comparing their own figures on their chosen surface, vs the 118ft recorded by Motortrend on Motortrend's chosen surface.

Who knows what ambient conditions were like...

Oh. Well that's hardly a test. But still, everything else I said. :P

FWIW I'm not going to upgrade my brakes beyond pads, lines and fluid and probably never will on a car. Even messing with the front/rear bias is beyond me so I'm just not going to touch them. Glad to move from a car with insufficient brakes (WRX) to this.