Tomasz@Startup

Ted:

I have no engineering background, and I do not want to "threaten or belittle " your products.

I was just restating what I learned about the different rotor / hat designs. I think you are splitting hairs here. Lets combine the hat to rotor mounting, anti rattle, floating technology into one. It is easy to say that I am wrong - it was not the washer that caused the failer, it was the bolt that goes through the washer...

I really do not want to talk about the failures. I am sure that that there are documented failures for every manufacturer there.

Instead, please tell us: which floating rotor system is better for street and track use, and why Audi RS4 uses the same system as Brembo. Pros and cons of each would be great. I described my assessment, but with "multiple degrees in physics and engineering" I am sure you can do better than just telling me that I must be wrong because I only got to see pictures on the internet.

Tomasz@Startup

You just happen not to plate, and StopTech offers it as an option.

Milpitas2.7T

of my threads.

Heck Stoptech and Brembo stepped out of their homes for a bit that's cool!

Ted@STaSIS

Which set up is better for track and street use? Not sure what you mean by "better". Both Stoptech and STaSIS seem to agree that using bellevilles for axial float is sufficient and proper. Compared to the Brembo Mclaren spring, there is a cost savings (at least at our scale of production). The Brembo setup gives them a proprietary part - a useful tool for intellectual property and marketing.

The STaSIS setup produces more force on the flange due to the belleville geometry - I can't comment on the Stoptech setup however, I don't have precise information on their springs.

As to why you see the Mclaren springs on OE applications, well that has everything to do with the fact that Audi has a contractual relationship with Brembo. The system on the RS4 shares the spring, but that's about it. The RS4 floats its hat on a T-bobbin, whereas your Brembo setup appears to be floating the rotor.

Fundamentally, I don't think either system is "better" - there are advantages for each manufacturer's application.

Cheers,

Ted

Andrew C.

yes, i'm recalling your issues. i still have the hats w/o Jet Nuts . . . :-\ fingers crossed . . .

'Nova more S4

If you'd like to send me a set, I'll run it all winter and send you it back. Betcha its rusty.

Tomasz@Startup

Thanks

BremboGuy

I think something was lost in translation.

Being able to "float" freely...and having sufficient "room for expansion" are two completely different things. And this is the major difference between Brembo's hardware and others on the market.

The McLaren hardware was specifically design to allow "free float", as well as minimize the noise between the moving pieces. The design of the attachment hardware (bushings and allen bolts), and mounting tabs of the rotor (ovalized for radial expansion) are what guarantees the proper "room for expansion".

Having "room for expansion" does not guarantee float. AND it is important to have proper amounts of <U>radial</U> &amp; <U>axial</U> float.

So far only the Brembo McLaren offers all of these benefits.

BremboGuy

<B>QUOTE: Ted@STaSIS</B>
<I>Unlike Brembo GT kits, our Alcon kits use the same exact rotors as in Alcon race applications.</I>


You are incorrect.

The discs used in the Brembo Gran Turismo big brake kits are the same as used in Brembo's professional racing divisions.

lemieux@curbside

there have been cases of craked rotor hats .. since you "didn't remember about rotor failure".
i wasn't sure if you saw these posts before.
that was prob bc of the design and chep materials used .. that's al..