Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

I think it has more to do with getting an even force across the entire pad. 'Stilhetto effect' doesn't really apply because the piston pressure is applied to the pad which is then applied to the rotor via the surface area of the pad, not the pistons. That was worded really poorly.... what I'm trying to say is any pressure applied to the pad from the pistons is spread over the surface of the pad acting on the rotor. Even pressure means even heat dispersion and less prone to frying brake pads.

Yep... thats it... :)

  • Replies 116
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Yeah, but 6 bigger pistons is going to have more surface area, which in turn would produce a more even spread of pressure. Im not knocking the idea of 8 tiny pistons, I just find it a bit strange. Like 6 pistons means less expencive rebuilds etc. 4 pistons less again.

Alcon made 16 piston calieprs that ran on 2l Super Tourers. Its more to do with the piston size, the differential size between leading and trailign pistons etc that all helps ensure even pad pressure and temps. It help stops glazing hot spots etc etc.

hows is the handling of the car affected by the new brake setup? I would say with having much bigger disc's and huge 8 piston calipers that there is going to be a lot more unsprung mass as well as gyroscopic force.

Honestly if i had to guage it it would be 5/10 on the f**k all meter.

Rotational inertia has distance^2, there for having weight that is firther out is far worse. Looking at the disc sure its a bit firther out, and a bit heavier, but look at the tyre and rim, its huge compared to the disc in diameter and quite hefty.

so for arguments sake if you have 5 kg at 20 cm radius its 0.2 kg m^2

then we take 5 kg at 40 cm radius its 0.8 kg m^2, you can see a 4 times increase.

Honestly if i had to guage it it would be 5/10 on the f**k all meter.

Rotational inertia has distance^2, there for having weight that is firther out is far worse. Looking at the disc sure its a bit firther out, and a bit heavier, but look at the tyre and rim, its huge compared to the disc in diameter and quite hefty.

so for arguments sake if you have 5 kg at 20 cm radius its 0.2 kg m^2

then we take 5 kg at 40 cm radius its 0.8 kg m^2, you can see a 4 times increase.

Rotational inertia (Properly called the second moment of area - I) is measured in mm^4. As in Torque = I * alpha where alpha is angular acceleration measured in radians per second squared. This is the rotational equivalent of Newtons famous Force = mass * acceleration.

The only reference I have ever seen to the direct effect on steering was in reference to the Indy cars where some drivers noticed a change in steering effort due to a change in gyroscopic effect when they changed the material the rotor was made out of. This was at rather ridiculous speeds, however.

What a heavier rotor/caliper does do is add to the unsprung weight of the car which affects the ability of the suspension to keep the tyre on the road. This is something to be avoided if possible.

Does anyone have the weight of a standard 4 pot caliper and rotor, as i will weigh my 356mm G4 set to get a comparision.

I have some pics of the second set of pads as i think Roy noted he would like to see the wear of these but cant post any pic for some reason.

I also noted last night the the leading pistons in the G4 caliper is quite a bit larger than the 6 trailing ones.

If anyone can tell me how to post pics now i will bang them up for all to see

  • 5 weeks later...

Just wanted to mention in here that we are running the G4 brakes without any problems, including Targa Tasmania last month - their performance has been excellent.

There was an offset problem with the early kits which meant that the caliper was rubbing on the lower control arm ball joint, but anyone affected has been sent new brackets and hats which fixed the problem.

I've had no issues with the brackets or bolts at all.

Mine are on atm....but I think the overall volume of the pistons will be similar to stock - which is one benefit of the calipers - you don't need to change the master cylinder.

As discussed above the biggest benefit of more pistons is spreading the force more evenly across the pad and to change leading/trailing pressures.

Yeah, but 6 bigger pistons is going to have more surface area, which in turn would produce a more even spread of pressure. Im not knocking the idea of 8 tiny pistons, I just find it a bit strange. Like 6 pistons means less expencive rebuilds etc. 4 pistons less again.

An 'even spread of pressure' would also depend on the rigidity of the calipers, the more the calipers flex the more uneven such pressure will be. No matter how many pistons the caliper has.

Those G4 calipers have a very open and long bridge which is unsupported, unlike eg Stoptech calipers. My bet is that those G4's flex quite a bit.

Okay...

So whats the final answer on these brakes?

This thread seems to lean more towards dont get them, as they are a waste.

The other G4 thread says nothing but praises about them however.

I need to know for sure as I was going to order these a few days ago for my high power GTR33.

Get them or pass and pay the extra for a name brand pair? As I said above, this is for a high powered GTR33.

-Sayajin

from a bystanders veiw

they seem like a good calliper and rotor senario.

but their was the issue of:

-bracket bolts-(fixed with the help of a spring washer and nut.have you thought towards a loctite and split pin setup?)

-aftermarket pads-fixed by machining the top edge a 1mm or 2.

My R33

G4 brakes (356mm disk, G4 'street' pads): 130 degrees

Standard rear brakes (Nissan OEM pad) 280 degrees

Another R33

F40 Brembo brakes (340mm disk, Ferrodo 2500 or 3000 pads): 300 degrees

Standard rear brakes (pad unknown): 150 degrees

R34 GT-T

CSC brakes (343mm disk, Ferrodo 2500 or 3000 pads): 150 degrees

Standard rear brakes (pad unknown) 80 degrees

they obviously are up to the task.

Either way ducting,the best fluid and regular upkeep/brake and its assemblies seem to be the norm.

in conclusion:-

when they are compared to the other brakes,the temps are good.and given that they have had track and targa testing i can only see the plus's outweighing the negatives.price is also good.

if i were in your position i would lean towards them.just do the right thing and use the knowledge and experience that others have given you.

Craig.

well...people who haven't used them or who spent 3 times as much to buy a "name" brand recommend against them.

People who have used them think they are excellent.

Ben had a strange problem with the brackets that no-one else has reported so it could just be a one off.

Fact is there are a lot of people in the world who don't beleive cheap can ever = good. Feel free to spend far more than you have to :)

i have them, and i have used them as their sole purpose as brakes for a track car. Car is good enough to run with porsche GT3, ferrari 599, 430 360, aston DB9, BMW M3 csl with AP brakes etc but cant catch them bloody Z06 corvettes they are seriously fast.

I have them so far no issues i am worried about. 3 sets of pads used with good wear pattern, been off and on many times and still bolt up perfectly. You will need to duct air to them as all brakes require if you are going to push the car to 100% of it performance

As far as i am concerned i would buy them again.

Edited by tacker
well...people who haven't used them or who spent 3 times as much to buy a "name" brand recommend against them.

People who have used them think they are excellent.

Ben had a strange problem with the brackets that no-one else has reported so it could just be a one off.

Fact is there are a lot of people in the world who don't beleive cheap can ever = good. Feel free to spend far more than you have to :)

yeah.im sure that the name brand ones are better than the generic aftermarket equivelent.but not every1 has the cash to fork out.thats where these are good.

aside from the obvious problems.as i am sure every good brake manufacturer endless,harrop and the rest etc has had teething problems with.these are pretty good at an entry level point of veiw.

good write up. worth noting is using a bolt/nut would mean going down a size so it fits? or just a longer bolt with a nut aswell?

and it seems the fact the pedal is harder means theres less fluid area (force) being put to the pad compard to the standard one wich in turn will over heat the rears.

and the tru test is to get them red hot (literally) a few times and see if they crack :)

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • For once a good news  It needed to be adjusted by that one nut and it is ok  At least something was easy But thank you very much for help. But a small issue is now(gearbox) that when the car is stationary you can hear "clinking" from gearbox so some of the bearing is 100% not that happy... It goes away once you push clutch so it is 100% gearbox. Just if you know...what that bearing could be? It sounding like "spun bearing" but it is louder.
    • Yeah, that's fine**. But the numbers you came up with are just wrong. Try it for yourself. Put in any voltage from the possible range and see what result you get. You get nonsense. ** When I say "fine", I mean, it's still shit. The very simple linear formula (slope & intercept) is shit for a sensor with a non-linear response. This is the curve, from your data above. Look at the CURVE! It's only really linear between about 30 and 90 °C. And if you used only that range to define a curve, it would be great. But you would go more and more wrong as you went to higher temps. And that is why the slope & intercept found when you use 50 and 150 as the end points is so bad halfway between those points. The real curve is a long way below the linear curve which just zips straight between the end points, like this one. You could probably use the same slope and a lower intercept, to move that straight line down, and spread the error out. But you would 5-10°C off in a lot of places. You'd need to say what temperature range you really wanted to be most right - say, 100 to 130, and plop the line closest to teh real curve in that region, which would make it quite wrong down at the lower temperatures. Let me just say that HPTuners are not being realistic in only allowing for a simple linear curve. 
    • I feel I should re-iterate. The above picture is the only option available in the software and the blurb from HP Tuners I quoted earlier is the only way to add data to it and that's the description they offer as to how to figure it out. The only fields available is the blank box after (Input/ ) and the box right before = Output. Those are the only numbers that can be entered.
    • No, your formula is arse backwards. Mine is totally different to yours, and is the one I said was bang on at 50 and 150. I'll put your data into Excel (actually it already is, chart it and fit a linear fit to it, aiming to make it evenly wrong across the whole span. But not now. Other things to do first.
    • God damnit. The only option I actually have in the software is the one that is screenshotted. I am glad that I at least got it right... for those two points. Would it actually change anything if I chose/used 80C and 120C as the two points instead? My brain wants to imagine the formula put into HPtuners would be the same equation, otherwise none of this makes sense to me, unless: 1) The formula you put into VCM Scanner/HPTuners is always linear 2) The two points/input pairs are only arbitrary to choose (as the documentation implies) IF the actual scaling of the sensor is linear. then 3) If the scaling is not linear, the two points you choose matter a great deal, because the formula will draw a line between those two points only.
×
×
  • Create New...