data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/7a71f/7a71fe46d1b1e74e70ff56f6b35e83130d797bb0" alt="Old"
04-06-2006, 02:14 PM
|
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/896c0/896c061be9d22056434be5f5b9254379f07efee9" alt="clayfoushee's Avatar" |
CC Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Annapolis,
MD
Cobra Make, Engine: Unique, 427SO, it runs
Posts: 2,636
|
|
Not Ranked
I know this is an old thread, but I ran across an interesting post on another website regarding some newly published SAE research on drilled vs. non-drilled rotors.
Just starting receiving SAE papers and got one where some GM engineers test drilled vs. non-drilled rotors for performance. The did not test stopping distances or a slotted rotor. They tested for fade, cooling, and wet braking performance. They referenced the conflicting information you get from brake manufacturers and the internet forums. They did not state the cars but from the descriptions one is a vette with drilled and non-drilled rotors and the other one is a 911. They did simulated street, race track, and dynometer testing. Some of the conclusions will surprise you. Bottom line: Drilled brake rotors do slow a car down better and it is exponential as speed increases. Drilled rotors have less fade. They could not confirm if this is due to out-gassing but it is due to mechanical friction and scrubbing of the pads; and cooling which is also better. They did state that pad and rotor life is twice as short compared to non-drilled rotors. They were not better in the wet.
__________________
Clay
|