One right here!

So you think the stomping on the brakes from 100 mph story doesn't apply either? You know you can put the car at threshold braking nearly instantaneously with ABS brakes. You feel the bigger rotor decreases your stopping distance even though you are going to trigger the ABS in milliseconds regardless of rotor size?

How brakes and rotors work

 

I disagree too, because you are wrong. If the tires are at the edge of adhesion, please explain to us how having a bigger brake rotor is going to make you stop faster.

If you want evidence, you can look up in about a hundred Motor Trend mags in their Performance Trends section and compare the braking distances from 60mph-0mph between stock and modified cars. The modified car with bigger rubber and bigger brakes NEVER stop more than a few feet shorter and often the stops are LONGER. This is because, frequently, only the front brakes are upgraded and this upsets the braking distribution of the car.

 

From Grassroots Motorsports; 1991


Those Poor Rotors

Let's look ot some common rotor "modification" and "performance" upgrades that you may have been exposed to. We'll try to separate the marketing from the engineering: Bigger rotors will make your friends think you are cool, bigger rotors look sexy, but bigger rotors do not stop the car. What a bigger rotor will do is lower the overall operating temperature of the brakes--which is a GREAT idea IF your temperatures are causing problems with other ports of the braking system.

Take, for exomple, a Formula 500 racer, a small 800-pound, single-seat formula car. While the brakes are certainly much smaller than those found on a 3000-pound GT1 Camaro, that does not necessarily mean that they need to be made larger. In fact, installing o GT1 brake package onto our formula car would probably do more harm than good. That's a lot of steel hanging on the wheel that needs to accelerate each time the gas pedal is pushed. So the motto of this story is bigger is better until your temperatures are under control. After that point, you are doing more harm than good, unless you really like the look. (And hey, some of us do.)

Crossdrilling your rotors might look neat, but what is it really doing for you? Well, unless your car is using brake pads from the '40s and 50s, not a whole lot. Rotors were first drilled because early brake pad materials gave off gasses when heated to racing temperatures, a process known as "gassing out." These gasses then formed a thin layer between the brake pad face and the rotor, acting as a lubricant and effectively lowering the coefficient of friction. The holes were implemented to give the gasses somewhere to go. It was an effective solution, but today's friction materials do not exhibit the some gassing out phenomenon as the early pads.

For this reason, the holes have carried over more as a design feature than a performance feature. Contrary to popular belief, they don't lower temperatures. (In fact, by removing weight from the rotor, they can actually cause temperatures to increase a little.) These holes create stress risers that allow the rotor to crack sooner, and make a mess of brake pads--sort of like a cheese grater rubbing against them at every stop. Want more evidence? Look at NASCAR or F1. You would think that if drilling holes in the rotor was the hot ticket, these teams would be doing it.

The one glaring exception here is in the rare situation where the rotors are so oversized that they need to be drilled like Swiss cheese. (Look at any performance motorcycle or lighter formula car, for an example.) While the issues of stress risers and brake pad wear are still present, drilling is used to reduce the mass of the parts in spite of these concerns. Remember that nothing comes for free. If these teams switched to non-drilled rotors, they would see lower operating temperatures and longer brake pad life, at the expense of higher weight. It's all about tradeoffs.

Slotting rotors, on the other hand, might be a consideration if your sanctioning body allows for it. Cutting thin slots across the face of the rotor can actually help to clean the face of the brake pads over time, helping to reduce the glazing often found during high-speed use which can lower the coefficient of friction. While there may still be a small concern over creating stress risers in the face of the rotor, if the slots are shallow and cut properly, the trade-off appears to be worth the risk. (Have you looked at a NASCAR rotor lately?).


In Summary

You can take this one to the bank. Regardless of your huge rotor diameter, brake pedal ratio, magic brake pad material, or number of pistons in your calipers, your maximum deceleration is limited every time by the tire to road interface. That is the point of this whole article. Your brakes do not stop your car. Your tires stop the car.


For further reading please see the entire article, rotors are only a single part of the braking system interface. Everything about brakes

 

 

ok --- so if the clamping force of the rotor was less than that required to lock up the tires, then would you agree that the larger rotors would benefit?

On to another fun and exciting topic - has anyone ever heard that the leading edge of the brake pad contributes to up to 15% of the braking? Don't recall where I read this, but found it interesting. I think slotted and drilled rotors can achieve similar braking characteristics but by having the holes and slots apply the bite through the entire brake pad surface. This outweighs the small loss in surface area on the rotor (in regards to frictional surface area not heat dissapation) Anyone care to enlighten me further.

Another thing I picked up on once upon a time was the rumor that Porsche had cross-drilled rotors was because Ferrari had cross-drilled rotors and was merely a marketing show. Many disagreed saying that the Germans would not fall pray to the Italians hype and would only cross drill rotors if there was a functional benefit (like germans have always done).

One thing for sure... my Supra TT had the most confidence inspiring brakes of any car I've ever driven. The fact that it was a 3600lb car and could stop shorter than our 2700lb car with only 20mm of additional tire width is amazing. If what Damon, et al says is the definitive word on braking, thats some pretty valuable 20mm of rubber (approx 4/5 of an inch).

That should provide enough fodder to keep this thread going for a bit.

 

Highly Depends. The only reason to have a bigger rotor is to control the thermal exchange in the system. If the rotor is bigger than you need you are carrying around unsprung weight (the worst kind!) you don't need. Less clamping force just means you don't have to squeeze the brake pedal as tightly to get the same speed reduction. Maybe for the handicapped that would be an advantage.

The leading edge of the pad does run hotter, and if it's running hotter it's doing more of the braking. As for the actual percentage I don't know. Most true racing applications now use multiple piston calipers with the leading pistons slightly smaller. This puts less force on the leading edge of the pad and more on the rear in an attempt to keep the temperature the same across the entire pad.

You confused me. It's already established that if you can lock the tire instantly the brakes are working at peak performance and anything that removes mass from the rotor will make the rotor overheat (and therefore heat fade) more quickly. Ever notice how dirty racecar wheels are? That's spent brake pad material. The slots are there to sweep that garbage out from between the pad and the rotor to ensure the pad stays in maximum contact with the rotor. All things being equal you'd rather not lose that mass, but the slot is preferable to allowing pad friction to degrade. The slot does not add performance, it merely helps fight the degrading of it.

I think drilled rotors look cool. They do not stop the car in a shorter distance. It's all marketing and the idea that people THINK drilled rotors are better. I know of no F1, CART, NASCAR, TransAm car etc with holes drilled through the face of its rotors.

Brake balance between front and rear plays too. Since the weight transfers to the front under braking the rears don't get to contribute a whole lot, but you want them to do as much as possible before locking. It's a fine line; maybe the Supra is setup better. Also with modern ABS equipped cars the ABS software is everything as well. In racing we pretty much have a consensus that the Z06 ABS is better than the driver and so the drivers purposely stomp it and activate the ABS; it's a great system. On my FD with its 3 channel ABS I get shorter distances by maintaining my threshold and NOT triggering the ABS. Overall it's not a huge difference but on the track we are fighting for feet and inches. On the street I would never be without ABS. Even if the total stopping distance is slightly more I like the idea that while I am drinking my Slurpee I can stomp the pedal without thinking and not go out of control. The Supra has bigger tires and perhaps better ABS software, but in the scheme of things it's always easier to stop a lighter car than a heavier one.

This isn't me that says, I have just studied and learned for myself. Nothing here I posted is original work on my part other than the stopping from 100 mph example. I don't trust people who say "well, that's just how it is". I tend to research the fundamentals and PROVE it's right. Along with the real knowledge and understanding you can solve problems on your own without relying on someone else who may be wrong. I don't get mad at being wrong at times at all, but I want to know WHY I am wrong. The answer has to be proven in its explanation.

Here's another seeming contradiction. We all know wider tires have more grip than narrower ones all things remaining equal. But physics proves that sliding friction is not dependent on the area of contact between the surfaces, only on the pressure between them. If you were to slide a book across a table on it front and then slide it across the table on its spine, you'd find it takes exactly the same amount of effort either way. On its face the book is in greater contact with the table, but the weight is distributed across a greater area and so presses down less hard. On it's spine the book has much less contact with the table, but it's weight is now distributed across a smaller area so its contact pressure is greater. The amount of pressure exterted between the book and table is the same no matter which way you slide it, therefore the friction is the same even though you'd think the face of the book would be harder to pull across due to its greater contact with the table.

If tires obeyed the same laws than for a given vehicle weight 5" wide tires would give the same grip as 10" wide tires. Tire friction is tremendously more intricate than it seems however and so tires remain very much an art as well as a science.

 

shear properties or something like that.

ok - you win. Still doesn't make sense why the supra stops faster. it doesn't even have the 50/50 weight distribution that rx-7's have.

has anyone created multi-caliper brake systems per rotor (2 calipers per rotor)? Seems like with ABS the pulsations could alternate much more quickly than with just one caliper.

 

At one time I believe the SAE did experiments where the calipers completely encircled both sides of the rotor and clamped it along its entire circumference on both sides. Again we already know that a "simple" four piston caliper is entirely capable of locking the tire, so why add all the weight and complexity? Unless tires were 4 feet wide the system had no real advantages. I have seen some 2 caliper brake systems in racing, but they basically turned out to be experiments that were abandoned. The limiting factor always ends up being rotor cooling, not pad area.

The ABS pules rate is strictly a function of how quickly the ABS can change the fluid pressure. You could make the argument that is would be more difficult to do this with additional calipers because the fluid volume would be greater. Seems to me pulse rate is limited by software and solenoid technology.

Actually 50-50 only counts in steady state. Since weight transfers forward under braking your 50-50 car at rest is no longer 50-50 while braking. A rearward weight bias would actually allow all four tires to contribute more evenly under braking because as the weight transfers forward the tires become more equally loaded. A rear weight bias under acceleration also gives more grip to the rear, but at the expense of front grip. That's why Top Fuel dragsters put everything on top of the rear axle; they don't have to steer. A rear weight bias on a racecar is poor because when you get on the gas to exit the corner you loose front grip. With that in mind you'd have to wait longer before accelerating the car off the apex. All that said I have no idea what a Supra's weight distribution is.

 

supra = heavier up front 53%, not much but still some.

 

There have been many F1 cars with dual calipers. I was eyeing the vintage F1 cars at Long Beach this year and saw that many had two calipers per wheel on the front. They didn't have ABS, though. I think they used lots of forced air cooling and wanted more pad area inside the relatively small wheels. That is total speculation, though -- I am sure someone will chime in with better info if it was for some other specific reason.

-Max

 

How "vintage"? The ones I have seen in the past were inside very small wheels. I think the old friction materials just were not up to the task as they are now.

 

Late 70s?

-Max

 

So what about crossdrilled rotors in the rain?

Crossdrilled rotors were originally used to vent gas, but it seems like they would be good for venting liquid as well. Seems like you would get a performance improvement in wet conditions. There's a benefit that seems pretty much obvious.

As for cooling, all the explanations I've every seen of this whole "cross drilled rotors aren't worth it" thing are much too simplistic. Sure our rotors act as heat sinks and the more metal they have, the more heat they can absorb, but that heat has to go somewhere eventually. Stock rotors aren't solid! They have cooling vanes/fins/whatever.
Why? Because all that heat the rotors are absoring needs to go somewhere (air) eventually. Why isn't your CPU heatsink a solid block of aluminum? It would be able to hold more heat energy.
The idea isn't just to have more mass to STORE heat, the idea is also to dissipate heat as quickly as possible.



What I would like to see is proof the crosdrilled rotors do not cool more quickly than non-drilled rotors. I'm not saying crossdrilled rotors are necessarily better (in dry conditions), but that I have yet to see conclusive evidence that they aren't.

(I'm not talking about a one-time 60-0 stop, I'm talking about autocrossing, etc.)

 

What's pretty obvious to me is that water boils at 100 degrees C. Brakes operate at much higher temps. Water is not a problem, it will become steam in an instant and brake pads also make excellent squeegies Now, even if holes did provide better brake performance in the wet it doesn't matter. Why? Because if it is wet outside the tire has less grip and can't possibly put the supposed increase in performance to use anyway. Holes are a bad trade off, even in the wet. Now if my car were underwater like a submarine and there was a benefit to be had I would opt for ball shaped slots as they do not make such stress risers in the rotor.

Let's review. Large rotors only contribution to braking is mass. Holes remove mass AND surface area from the face of the rotor. Holes can't absorb heat and at the same time a drilled rotor will hold less heat than a solid faced rotor due to its less mass. As for the heat going somewhere, it dissipates into the air. That's another plus for not having holes; there is more surface area exposed to the airstream. The idea of a finned heat sink it to create more surface area to radiate heat into the air. Your finned CPU example has much more surface area due to its fins than a solid block of the same size would. The solid block has more mass but is less efficient at exchanging the thermal energy. The solid block can readily hold more heat due to it higher mass, but is does a poorer job of getting rid of the heat it collects. The cooling vanes inside the rotor use the same idea as a fin, but are actually designed to pump air from the hub area out towards the circumference of the rotor.



We know this. We are referring to the face of the discs as being solid.

Look at any NASCAR, CART, IRL, ALMS etc car where drilling the rotors is legal and count the number of cars using them. You'll get approximately zero I leave out F1 as they are not using iron rotors.

 

Right, and why did they start cross-drilling rotors in the first place? To vent gas.
Your making a lot of assumptions claiming that the water is going to boil away instantly, anyways. Water has quite a high heat of vaporization. Even when the rotors are hot, are you really claiming they will be hot enough to vaporize water within less than one revolution of a wheel on a car going 60 MPH?

80.11 inches around a tire.
63360 inches in a mile.

(60 miles / 1hr) * (1 hr/ 60 min ) * ( 1 min / 60 sec) =
.016667 miles per second

1056 inches per second

13.1819 revolutions per second

This gives a drop of water less than 76 milliseconds to evaporate. If it takes this long or longer, it will pass between the brake pad and the rotor lowering the amount of friction.
Seems like that's pretty much guaranteed to happen (to a certain degree).



You not really getting my point here. Drilling holes in the rotors INCREASES the surface area. And there IS air in those holes. Whether or not it's "exposed to the airstream" is not really a sufficient analysis.
If I stick a CPU heatsink on the side of my car such that only the tips of the fins are "exposed to the airstream", I daresay it's going to do a better job cooling a CPU than a flat piece of aluminum which is completely exposed.

Also, consider the airflow through the middle of the rotor that results from the cooling vanes. This may act to pull air through those holes, like a siphon-feed spraygun.



I'm not saying that you're necessarly wrong, but I am saying that your not throughly looking at the problem. What you're essentially doing is a bunch of hand-waving and then saying you're right. You're vastly oversimplifying the issue.

I would like to see some sort of proof that crossdrilled rotors do not cool more quickly, I've seen dozens of these "crossdrilled rotors aren't worth it" threads across various car sites, and no one ever does a real analysis of this issue.

Sure they're more prone to fatigue, and have less mass but no one ever takes a real look at the heat and fluid flow issues. I would like to see someone do this.



BTW, water does not boil at 100 deg. F

 

The entire drop doesn't have to evaporate as the pads will have wiped the majority of the water away before it can get under the friction material. Again, this point is entirely and completely moot. If the rotors are getting doused with that much water then the tires and road are also wet. The grip of the tire in the wet will degrade much more rapidly than the "grip" between the pads and a wet brake rotor. Also see my "stomping the brakes" example earlier in this thread. The same point still applies: as long as the brakes can be locked the stopping distance is still determined by tire grip.


No it does not! Let's suppose one face of the rotor is 1/4" thick. Let's assume you drill a 1/4" diameter hole through the face. This exposes the edges of the hole inside the rotor. The area of that edge exposed in this example is .0196 square inches (that's the surface area of a 1/4" diameter by 1/4" tall cylinder). You had to remove .098 square inches (area of a 1/4" circle x2 for the outer and inner face) of material in order to do it! You remove more material in drilling the hole than you expose once you drill it!

Me thinks you're getting creative trying to defend a point that is invalid.



You vastly misunderstand the issue. It has nothing to do with "me" or opinion. It has to do with fact.

Lots of guys at AP Racing, Brembo etc have done just that. Look at real racing cars. Those parts are not based on style, but strictly performance.

I already corrected my quote to "C". Sorry. Being a Mod has its priveleges.

 

Exactly. You're losing focus though ... the gases that were intended to be vented are those that were resultant of the brake pad material and outgassing after being glazed onto the rotor surface. Today's brake pad technology does not need drilled rotors anymore; due to the fact that the outgassing is no longer such a huge factor.


Ever try and wash your wheels right after an event or after a mountain-carving session? Notice how all the water just steams off instantaneously? Your rotors get a lot hotter than 100C ... getting water off your brake rotors is the least of your concerns while on course in the wet.


Yes, that's true. So does slotting rotors ... and so does dimpling rotors. Both of those doing the same without compromising the structural integrity of the rotor as badly as cross-drilling. The air in the holes is irrelevant.


It would be really nice if they did. Unfortunately, no, it doesn't work that way. The best way to get better cooling for your brake rotors are brake ducts that pull in fresh cool air ... ala from the nose of the car at speed. Look at any true wheel-to-wheel racer's setup ... everyone will have some sort of brake ducting that increases the volumetric flowrate of air across the brake rotor.


Heat transfer is directly correlated to the heat capacity and the velocity of the transferrent stream (be it air, water, whatever). Cross-drilled rotors effectively reduce heat capacity by removing mass. How much is gained through surface area increase? Who knows ... but is it enough to offset the mechanical fatigue of the metal caused by the reduced mass and reduced heat capacity? From the details of others' experiences, the answer appears to be no. Now, if you want to figure out a way to mount a thermocouple to an object that rotates anywhere between 500-2000 rpm .... well, let us know how it goes.

 

See my example above. Slotting or dimpling will increase surface area, but when you drill a hole THROUGH a thin sheet (such as a rotor face) you LOSE surface area. See the math in my post.

 

hmmmm lets see here, my feet are the brakes.
and my shoes are the tires.

the common ground im running on is concrete.

im running full speed with tap dance shoes and i try to stop but i slid all over the friggin place.

now im wearing some rubber running shoes and try to stop, wow man these things grip.

what do we realize here. i think its obvious.

and dont give me "well if your feet were bigger or smaller"

were talking about the 7 which is all in perspective. so dont say a baby with big feet or a 7 foot man with small feet. without the right material to grip the contact patch you cant stop effectivly.

DamonB vs M's

DamonB wins

 

Supra's have some pretty huge tires. If you test with equal sized tires the Rx7 Should stop shorter due to the weight, but its all about the ABS or skill of the driver.

 

Are you claiming a siphon-feed spraygun doesn't work? Are there specfic exceptions in airflow just for brake rotors? Was Bernoulli just some wacko?

You aren't posting facts here, you're posting opinions. You're claiming water evaporates instatly. That's not a fact, it's a qualitative opinion. The FACT is that water takes time to evaporate. Water requires heat to evaporate, and the heat flow requires time.

I hardly "vastly misunderstand the issue". I'm just not willing to dismiss factors out of hand with little or no proof.

I would actually like to know the real answer to the questions, "Do crossdrilled rotors cool faster?" and "Do crossdrilled rotors perform better in wet conditions?"

I already know about the structural issues with drilled rotors, I'm not arguing that everyone should go buy crossdrilled rotors. I'm just freakin' curious about a couple things, that hardly makes me clueless. God forbid I have some intellectual curiosity.

Why can't someone with a PHD in thermodynamics and fluid dynamics show up an give me a real response?

Hasn't anybody ever done a scientific experiment and posted the results online?


As for increaseing surface area, it should be obvious that whether or not the surface area is increased or decreased is dependant on the size of the hole and the thickness of the metal.

Surface area removed by drilling a hole:
pi * r ^ 2
(on each surface)

Surface area added by drilling a hole:
thickness * 2 * pi * r

This is interesting because my research so far has told me that Porsche uses smaller holes in their cross-drilled rotors than most aftermarket bling-bling rotors.

(Yes, I know that Porsche also forges in the holes, they aren't drilled.)

 

I'm claiming that it does not apply to the problem at hand. Please give the explanation of how a siphon spray gun and the drilling of holes through a rotor are relative examples of the same phenomena.

No.

No. Even if they did the point is entirely and completely moot. If the rotors are getting doused with that much water then the tires and road are also wet. The following bold italics added for emphasis: The grip of the tire in the wet will degrade much more rapidly than the "grip" between the pads and a wet brake rotor. This means that some how an improvement in rotor performance in the wet is useless as the tire has less grip in the wet. If you can come up with examples of the brakes being completely doused in water while the tire and road are dry, I'm all ears.

As long as the diameter of the hole drilled is smaller than the thickness of the material, surface area will increase. Can't think of any drilled rotors where that is true.


From Wilwood site:

"Q: Why are some rotors drilled or slotted?
A: Rotors are drilled to reduce rotating weight, an issue near and dear to racers searching for ways to minimize unsprung weight. Drilling diminishes a rotor's durability and cooling capacity.

Slots or grooves in rotor faces are partly a carryover from the days of asbestos pads. Asbestos and other organic pads were prone to "glazing" and the slots tended to help "scrape or de-glaze" them. Drilling and slotting rotors has become popular in street applications for their pure aesthetic value. Wilwood has a large selection of drilled and slotted rotors for a wide range of applications."

From Brembo site:

"At the speeds that stopping distance is generally measured from (60 to 70mph), the test is primarily testing the tire's grip on the pavement. As delivered from the manufacturer, nearly all vehicles are able to engage the ABS or lock the wheels at these speeds. Therefore, an increase in braking power will do nothing to stop the vehicle in a shorter distance. For this reason, we do not record stopping distances at this time. The Brembo systems will show their greatest advantages when braking from higher speeds, or when tasked with repeated heavy braking."

Also from Brembo:

"Why use larger discs?
Braking generates heat, and the more heat the disc can absorb and dissipate, the greater the fade resistance of the system."

From Waren Gilliand:

EDITORS NOTE: Warren Gilliland is a well-known brake engineer in the racing industry and has more than 32 years experience in custom designing brake systems and has patents and trademarks on the "Hurricane"ä rotor & "Tornado"ä calipers. At Hurst/Airheart in the late 60's, he designed the original quick-change calipers that are now very popular on racecars and high performance off road vehicles. Among others, he designed the brake system on the Disneyland Autopia Cars and parade floats, as well as collaborating in the design of the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) high speed trains in San Francisco. In the mid to late 80's, he was the National Sales Manager for JFZ Engineered Products. Between a tech hotline and a series of tech seminars at the chassis builders across the United States, he became the main source for improving the brake systems on a variety of different race vehicles from midgets to Nascar Winston Cup cars. He now heads a company known as "THE BRAKE MAN, Inc", supplying primarily the racing and industrial industry with high quality brake components, including pads, brake fluid, fittings, pressure gages and temperature paints

"If you cross drill one of these vented rotors, you are creating a stress riser that will encourage the rotor to crack right through the hole. Many of the rotors available in the aftermarket are nothing more than inexpensive offshore manufactured stock replacement rotors, cross drilled to appeal to the performance market. They are not performance rotors and will have a corresponding high failure rate.

Recently, primarily due to the high failure rate, more and more of the aftermarket rotor suppliers are now slotting the rotors as opposed to cross drilling them. Slotted rotors are less likely to fail, but really do not offer any performance improvements over your factory rotors.

As far as the rotors, there are a variety of different manufacturers, designs, diameters, widths, number of veins and mounting arrangements. As far as practical application is concerned, the number of veins is a big key in determining the ability to dissipate heat. Weight is still a big factor. A lighter cast iron rotor will have thinner friction-faces and fewer veins. It will not dissipate heat as well. Your decision should be based upon the toughest track you will visit during the season. Your brake system must have the ability to remove the heat. Only the rotor can do that job."

From Wilwood via the Longacre site:

"It is the brake rotor's job to absorb then dissipate the heat caused by applying the brakes and to keep that heat out of the brake pads. The brake rotor must have the proper vane configuration and placement with enough mass, surface area and wall thickness to effectively manage that heat and keep the pads from overheating. In some cases, a larger or heavier rotor may be necessary."

From Baer:

"What are the benefits to Crossdrilling, Slotting, and Zinc-Washing my rotors?
In years past, crossdrilling and/or Slotting the rotor for racing purposes was beneficial by providing a way to expel the gasses created when the bonding agents employed to manufacture the pads began to break down at extreme temperatures. This condition is often referred to as “green pad fade” or “outgassing”. When it does occur, the driver still has a good firm brake pedal, but simply little or no friction. Since this normally happens only at temperatures witnessed in racing, this can be very exciting!

However, with today’s race pad technology, ‘outgassing’ is no longer much of a concern. When shopping for races pads, or even ultra-high performance road pads, look for the phrases, “dynamic surface treatment”, “race ready”, and/or, “pre-burnished”. When these or similar statements are made by the pad manufacturer, the pad in question will likely have little or no problem with ‘outgassing’. Ironically more pedestrian pads used on most streetcars will still exhibit ‘outgassing’, but only when used at temperatures normally only encountered on the racetrack.

Although crossdrilling and/or slotting will provide a welcome path to expend any gasses when and if they develop, it is primarily a visual enhancement behind today’s often wide-open wheel designs.

Slotted surfaces are what Baer recommends for track only use. Slotted only rotors are offered as an option for any of Baer’s offerings."

From Grassroots Motorsports:
Crossdrilling your rotors might look neat, but what is it really doing for you? Well, unless your car is using brake pads from the '40s and 50s, not a whole lot. Rotors were first drilled because early brake pad materials gave off gasses when heated to racing temperatures, a process known as "gassing out." These gasses then formed a thin layer between the brake pad face and the rotor, acting as a lubricant and effectively lowering the coefficient of friction. The holes were implemented to give the gasses somewhere to go. It was an effective solution, but today's friction materials do not exhibit the some gassing out phenomenon as the early pads.
For this reason, the holes have carried over more as a design feature than a performance feature. Contrary to popular belief, they don't lower temperatures. (In fact, by removing weight from the rotor, they can actually cause temperatures to increase a little.) These holes create stress risers that allow the rotor to crack sooner, and make a mess of brake pads--sort of like a cheese grater rubbing against them at every stop. Want more evidence? Look at NASCAR or F1. You would think that if drilling holes in the rotor was the hot ticket, these teams would be doing it...
Slotting rotors, on the other hand, might be a consideration if your sanctioning body allows for it. Cutting thin slots across the face of the rotor can actually help to clean the face of the brake pads over time, helping to reduce the glazing often found during high-speed use which can lower the coefficient of friction. While there may still be a small concern over creating stress risers in the face of the rotor, if the slots are shallow and cut properly, the trade-off appears to be worth the risk. (Have you looked at a NASCAR rotor lately?)




I will post more later after more searching. I don't make this stuff up. As always don't believe everything you read, but qualify your sources. I don't tend to give much creed to "street performance" as that normally translates to "looks cool".

 

Nice job Damon

A local high performance shop is having a group buy on Cryo-Treated brake rotors. You can have your choice of plain/slotted/drilled.

I'm not familiar with Cyro-Treatment's. The claim is that it lowers the operating temp. Check this out:http://www.cryoscience.com/drivetrains.htm

 

Haven't heard it explained like that, but cryo treatments basically make the material last longer in some uses. Metals are a crystaline structure and the cryo treatment aligns the crystals in a more orderly fashion which makes the fatigue resistance of the material much higher. Brake rotors are a prime candidate for this and I know many people who swear by them. I have not tried any yet but plan to.

 

Just a few questions:
1. My memory is great, just a little short. As I recall, the RX-7 (when new in 93) stopped in 100 ft. from 60 MPH in tests (magazine and TV car shows such as Motorweek). Has the Supra bettered this? Not sure where to look up old tests. I saw one Motorweek test of the turbo Carrara where it did a 100 ish foot stop but no other vehicle has come close.

2. Seems to me, most people who go to stainless lines and drilled/slotted rotors do it for looks. Oh, they tell themselves and others it's for performance, but the fact is they don't race. They don't need more performance. So it's really for looks, right? I know on my car the drilled rotors were for looks (prev. owner who did it emphasised the look when he sold the car to me). BTW, they are cracking (just a few 1/8" to 3/16" cracks so far - and seem to have stopped growing).

3. I haven't seen any treatment other than zinc plating (off the rotor surface of course) to stop rusting. Is there something new out there?