Ok Tyson, you asked for it.

Are you all of a sudden an expert just because you read Stoptech's white papers and spout off their pseudo-engineering BS?

I am not a true expert, but my knowledge is clearly superior to yours. Let’s see if you have the character to expose your own stupidity.

1. State ANY engineering BS in Stoptech’s statements. You will not because you can’t … because it is true.

2. State ANY engineering BS in the statements I made. Again, you will not because you can’t … because what I have said is true.

Normal conditions are 1 stop from 70 mph on a smooth road, this is what most people think when someone says “stopping power”. As I have very clearly indicated for those whose brains actually function, many of the factors I have been discussing DO have an effect under extreme driving conditions (canyon bashing on open public roads is extreme, and IMO, unsafe) and at the track. But not normal street driving within 30 mph of the speed limit.

So, let’s see you did on my questions.

a. What is the piston area front and rear compared to stock?
You don’t know. Hmm.

b. What brake bias effects are introduced by changes in piston area?
Since you don’t know the area you don’t know this either. Hmm again.

c. How do these changes affect the performance of the ABS system that was tuned for stock brakes?
This is a very technical question that I know you had no chance in hell of answering … and gee … you didn’t. I will throw you a bone that again you probably will not understand. The ABS system is tuned for a certain volume of brake fluid and that volume is assumed to apply a certain pressure (and therefore deceleration torque) that is pulse frequency and width modulated. If you change this area, as I am quire sure the 8 piston brakes do, you are changing the ability of the ABS system to function.

Let’s dig a little deeper for those who can understand and might learn something form our little “spat”. If you change the area, and especially the ratio front to rear of the brake pistons, you are changing the bias which could (and usually does) REDUCE the braking capability of your car as usually, the bias is shifted even further to the front from an already overly conservatively front brake bias from the factory. So, when you throw on these BIG expensive brakes, you are often hurting your braking capability, and hurting braking feel. What happens is that the rear tires are doing even less of their share of the braking capability.

Now, often the big brakes will still perform better than stock by overcoming their poor braking set-up through superior thermal management, but not nearly as well as they should have were they properly sized.

So, you challenge my knowledge of brakes and offer NO insightful answers. Pretty lame Tyson, pretty lame.

Now, on to yet another ridiculous question that further exposes your technical incompetence.

So tell us, Tim, are these R-compound tires also a limiting factor for Brembo race brakes and by how much?

Any brakes that can lock up the tires are not brake torque limited. There is no tire in the world that the stock Porsche brakes can’t lock up (and much poorer brakes could lock up also). Therefore, it is simple and plainly seen that your question is .. oh shall we say … misguided? The answer is ANY tire is the limiting factor for even stock brakes.

I agree with you Ben, unless you are setting up spotters and can effectively close an open public road, I think canyon bashing is dangerous and irresponsible. I don’t know if Tyson uses spotters and radios or not.

Boyracer, thanks. As you, and most others can see, My highly modified brakes on my Lambo do not perform as well as my highly modified brakes on my tt, but they are close – AND I HAVE THE DATA TO PROVE IT. But, that is NOT what this argument is about. This argument is about stopping from 60 – even 100 mph, once. And in this case, my lambo, my stock tt, my modified tt, and any decent sports car will pull similar decelerating g’s as … once again, the braking force is TIRE limited, not brake or other factor limited in this example.

 

I do not want to get into this arguement, however I do have a few questions. I have the GT3R brakes and without alot of machining they won't fit on a 996tt. For one they do not come with an emergency brake and they use full floater hubs. Second, my calipers are six piston front and four in the rear. They are exactly the same ones used on the Porsche cars competing at Le Mans. I am a little confused here. Third, I have found that it is very hard to compare brakes on two different cars because in many cases you are comparing more than brakes. The suspension will also make a big difference. Finally, the stopping power is also dictated by the pad. Street pads will out perform race pads in one stop contests. The reason is they are designed to perform under cooler temperatures. The same pads will fair badly under constant hard usage where the temperatures increase.

Am I off base and confused?

 

Chad: It's difficult to say if the GT3R brakes are well matched but I think they should be as the cars are similar, just the GT3 is lighter. It is my understanding that the ABS systems are different and I would want the GT3R ABS system with it if possible. Wait a second, for you … anything is possible.

The 6 piston 4 piston arrangement if very typical in the racing world, and the same as I have on my Countach and my ‘04tt. If sized properly, they should work fine. I agree that doing detailed braking comparisons even on the same car is difficult, much less on different cars. You are also correct on street pads being better on short braking tests.

 

Chad Sorry, my mistake, the GT3R is a dual master cylinder situation without ABS. It should be great because you can adjust the bias. Thanks to Sol at Perfect Power.

 

you should look into that protective film maybe

 

You know what, Tim. I never, ever made personal attacks on you and I'm so ****ing sick of your snide attitude and arrogance. I tried to remain polite and objective but you are a such a ****ing *****. I'm shocked you live in Chicago, as most people out there aren't *******s.

First, you unilaterally claim Stoptech's arguments to be true. Obviously, as the engineering of their brake systems differ from Brembo, AP, etc., obviously there must be different approaches?

Name ONE Le Mans team, F1 Team, or even NASCAR team that uses Stoptech. Obviously those guys must all be stupid.

Oh wait, you are probably one of the ONLY idiots that actually swapped your stock Brembo sourced brake to the Stoptech ones.

Your definition of 'normal conditions' is also flawed. Normal can mean 1 stop from 60 mph or 100mph, this is why many car magazines test both. Have you ever been so-called canyon bashing? Have you even driven a canyon road under 'normal' conditions, it's still hard on your brakes going downhill, isn't it? Is downhill driving not a normal driving condition? By definition, is everyone who lives in a mountain or hilltop an "extreme" driver? And how do you know how dangerous it is or isn't considering you are stuck in the Midwest, where a mountain is defined as some little bunny hill in Wisconsin?

The fact that you would define braking as ONE stop at 70mph indicates what a moron you are. No wonder you are stupid enough to buy a Mercedes E55. Perfect car for you.

Are you really that much of a ***** to only care about 70-0? So I guess going from 150 to 30 doesn't matter. Nor does 180 to 60. Come on now, you know you drive faster than that!!! Even in the ****ed up roads of Chicago or the boring flatlands of Illinois and Indiana.

You ask, "what is the piston area front and rear compared to stock?" You attack me for not knowing, but do YOU know? Or do you have to call Sol at Perfect Power again?

Your quote: "What brake bias effects are introduced by changes in piston area?" I answered this question, did you? Do you know what brake bias effects are introduced on the Brembo GTR system, considering it is a matched 8 piston/4piston front and rear setup? Do you have data on the bias?

You ask: "How do these changes affect the performance of the ABS system that was tuned for stock brakes?"

I read the same white paper on this issue on the Stoptech website as you Tim. So are you trying to assert your so-called superior knowledge by simply regirgitating what you read? The ABS is an electronic system by nature, so in order to kick in, it constantly relies on the speed information provided to it by wheel sensors to calculate the rate of deceleration before isolation mode occurs, right? Then the P-V relationship becomes important. But please, give us some examples where the Brembo GTR system has negatively impacted up a car's braking ability.

Isn't it also true that most competent drivers use threshold braking, thereby reducing their reliance on ABS? So this point becomes moot? And if the initial bite enables to car to slow quicker without having to lock up the brakes and have ABS kick in, isn't that a good thing?

Also, isn't the ABS also adaptive to an extent like the other components in a Bosch electronic system? Do you have data to prove that the Brembo system exceeds the adaptive capabilities of the ABS algorithm?

The guy who wrote the Stoptech white paper from which you hold true as the Holy Bible, James Walker, Jr., races Saturns for a living. Give me a break. Last time I checked Saturn doesn't use Bosch ABS or motronic systems, nor are Saturn brakes anywhere on the same planet as those of the Porsche. So perhaps the P-V relationship isn't so drastically different after all?

Yes, going from 10" to 14-15" rotors is a big step. Going from 14.2" to 15" is not such a drastic step now, is it? Going from 1 or 2 small pistons to 8 big ones is big, but going from 6 to 8 isn't so drastic, is it?

If the GTRs were so bad, why do Porsche endurance teams use this system, even as an upgrade over the standard GT3-RSR brakes?

I think ultimately we are arguing about two different things. There is no doubt the stock brakes can stop very quickly once, twice, three times. Who really gives a flying **** about stopping from 70 ONCE? Why are even we discussing that?

The issue is that the big brakes do not drastically affect the 70-0 braking, and I can assure you that from 180 or 150 or even 100 to zero, they work better than stock (at least the steel rotors) and that's what counts. Even an E36 M3 or a Cayenne Turbo can slightly outbrake a CGT in distance from 60-0, so what?

My problem with your statement is that you are trying to define "Normal" for people whose cars are anything but. So, speak for yourself, not others.

Want to start another argument? Your Motons are not as good as JRZs.

 

My My Tyson.

Let's look at the scorecard.

Question 1. No answer. How amazing.

Question 2. No answer. Again, I'm shocked, shocked I say.

Questions a, b, c. No answers still forthcoming.

But what did you do instead, try to change the argument and personally attack. What does that say about you?

I made it abundently clear that this discussion was based upon normal street driving or commonplace brake testing situations. I also made it crystal clear that the situation is very different when you consider extreme driving or track use (thermal management concerns become critical).

Now, the fact that you bring up some intelligent issues like the adaptive window of the ABS algorithm and others says you do have a brain, but I think not addressing your errors and resorting to unsupported personal attacks reveals a weakness in character.

 

why? the discussion the rest of us were having was about driving supercars (hence the "Carrera GT test drive" subject of this thread) in the way they were designed to be driven which most assuredly isn't "normal street driving". so if you choose to talk about one 70-0 stop and define that as "normal street driving", we have to confine our discussions of supercar braking to this? again tim, i don't mean to be a dick, but i don't care about 60-0 or 70-0 because this is absolutely not the sort of "normal street driving" stuff i buy my sports cars for. i can see how testing brakes so absolutely far from their designed limits would result in something other than my "staggering" experience with them from well into the triple digits (and "canyon bashing").

 

 

Tyson....you wouldn't have the UPS tracking number on this package, would you?? If you get one...I want a ride buddy.

 

Haha that was priceless. Keep posting funny pictures and let the uncles do the fighting

 

CGT vs. Masarati....hmmm.

 

This is great. Nobody cares about 0-60 anymore. It's all about 60-0 from now on. We'll all be beeping 3 times at each other then slam on the brakes as fast/hard as we can.

 

LOL!

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by ColorChange
[B]Ben:
“- much larger contact patches than the 996TT”

You are wrong yet again. The size of the contact patch DOES NOT change with wider tires (lets assume same brand). The shape of the contact patch does, but the area of the contact patch does not. So, assuming the same tires on the cars, at the same pressures, the contact patch on the turbo would be larger! (because it weighs more).

Tim,
This statement certainly doesn't make much sense. Imagine the contact patch that a 175mm wide tire makes on the raod (or a 100mm spare tire since you state that width makes no difference) compared to the stock 295mm width rear tire of the TT. There is no way that the contact patch would be the same. Also, if this were true (contact patch has nothing to do with tire width), why do larger width front tires reduce understeer? Obviously there is more tire contacting the road giving more grip.

Paul