Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

It's not close to the fluid channels. It's close to the hole where the bolt goes through the caliper to hold the caliper together.

I'm pretty sure the area is actually not load bearing, but it's still a major PITA and not great that it has to be ground away at all.

I would never grind anyway anything brake related (but that's just me).

Nissan designed it with all that material for a reason, now you're grinding it off.

I would be getting GKTech to refund all your money and replace your brake caliper, misleading & false advertising.

It's not close to the fluid channels. It's close to the hole where the bolt goes through the caliper to hold the caliper together.

I'm pretty sure the area is actually not load bearing, but it's still a major PITA and not great that it has to be ground away at all.

My bad. I didn't look closely enough at the pics.

It is load bearing though. Compressive force from the bolts holding it all together is only able to work where there is material. Sure, there is little material on that side to start with.....but now there is none.

Disc in lathe is the only smart answer if the brackets can't be designed to work properly without needing a huge bodge on the caliper.

Ok...before I did it, I was of the same opinion, no way in hell am I grinding my calipers. Automatic reaction that I think everyone has when they hear those words. While it is a pita to do it, having done it now I would find it extremely unlikely nissan designed the caliper to such fine tolerances that the minute amount that comes off is enough to make or break them. I could be wrong, sure, but it does seem unlikely.

I can that I have had none of this trouble with the 280-324 bracket.

that's interesting, could you confirm how the pad sits on the disc, as in, any overhang? Whilst exchanging emails with gktech their position was cos of the diameter change from 296>324 disc, it wouldn't fit into the caliper and still have the pad fit completely on the disc, it would have overhang in the middle of the outer edge, hence the need to remove a little at the ends of the caliper and allow the pad to sit on the edge of the disc rather than hanging over it.

That's a line they've fed you. The shape of the 280mm calipers and the 296mm calipers is essentially the same. And IF there was a difference in shape, it would be the smaller caliper that would have a hard time fitting onto the 324mm rotor, not the 296mm caliper.

The 280->324 adapters are classic dogbones. There is enough radial movement needed that the holes can be fit in quite easily. But the 296->324 change is so small that they've had to try to slip them off to one side, which causes the problem with making it all fit. This is why the 280->324 ones have been available since forever and the 296->324 ones have been "in development" for so bloody long. Because there's not way to make them work nicely.

can you stop talking about stuff you don't have first-hand experience with please? I'm always open to people's ideas and opinions but your self-righteousness really gets old. FFS, the caliper fitted onto the disc, your post above has nothing to do with what I asked the guy above with his brake pad fitment. When I overlaid the 324mm disc with the 296mm disc, the change in profile pretty much perfectly matched the area that needed to be taken out of the caliper....all part of checking for myself what needed to be done and if it was a good idea to go ahead with or not.

Yup, the pad hangs over the edge of the rotor by just a tad. A couple of mm at most. Hasn't made any difference. The rears make the noise not the fronts atm.

I wouldn't buy a product that requires modification of the calliper material. Dust covers, sure, not integral components, but I wouldn't be taking metal from the caliper itself.

  • 2 weeks later...

Makes me feel better for buying the UAS ones. Absolutely no grinding required, not even close. Just had a slight offset issue (fixed with 1.5mm spacer) and slight pad overhang that was 100% fixed by changing to DB1199 pads.

I guess they wanted to minimize the pad overhang issue by positioning the caliper closer to the rotor, but in doing so resulted in grinding required (which I wouldn't do). Would have been better if they worked with local pad supplier to provide DB1199 pads.

Edited by simpletool
  • 3 months later...

I have a question for the guys who have fitted these brackets. Included in the kit are 4 alloy shims/spacers - approx 3.5mm thick. What are these for, and where do they go?

Have only test fitted at this stage, and haven't ground the calipers. It looks like the caliper could move towards the outside of the car slightly to centre it on the rotor, but only 1-2 mm, not 3.5mm.

Funnily enough I mentioned to GKtech they should probably ship them with small spacers to centre the caliper. Their reply was that it wasn't needed due to the "proper" engineering.

Edited by simpletool
  • 4 weeks later...

Finished fitting our brackets today, thought I'd share a few things:

We started on the caliper grinding with Dremel type grinding stones & a file - this was an absolute waste of time.

Ended up going to Bunnings and buying a carbide burr with a 6mm shaft, and used it in an air powered die grinder. This was fantastic, until it started to clog with aluminium as we were almost finished the first caliper. Cleaned it out a few times with a wire wheel on a grinder, but it got more & more clogged with melted ali & stopped cutting at all.

I then remembered that I had some cutting burrs among the router bits I inherited from my dad, and found a more open cutter than the Bunnings one. We ground out the second caliper with this, also using some lubricant - this more open cutter didn't clog at all & made quick work of the caliper. The cutting edges on the Bunnings tool were just too fine.

We ground the calipers to give about 1mm of clearance to the rotor, then took about 1.2mm off the diameter of the rotors in a lathe (helps when the neighbor is a retired fitter & turner). Bolted it all on today and have heaps of clearance between rotor & caliper, and pad doesn't look like it overlaps the rotor.

My thoughts on removing material from the calipers - when in use the force acting in the area where the bolt hole was ground through is outwards - ie the 2 halves of the caliper are being forced away from each other. It wouldn't matter how much material was in the are of the bolt hole - there would be no affect on the strength in the direction of force. I was happy to remove a small amount of material, and I am confident that it will have no affect on the caliper.

Haven't driven it yet - the car is still on stands for other work. I was surprised how out of round the rotors were - they are brand new & putting them on the lathe really made it obvious.

I will post back if we have any issues when we get it on the track again.

Edited by GeeDod
  • 2 months later...

So, a couple of months down the track, thought I would post an update on the brakes.

We've done 2 supersprint events at Mallala, each with 2 drivers, so the equivalent of 4 track-days. We are both still alive, and the brakes are great. The extra rotor area seems to help a lot with reducing heat issues, and the extra "leverage" means the brakes work really well.

Would I fit these spacers if I had my time over again - shit yes. Would I remove a small amount of material from the calipers - yes. YMMV - make your own decision on what's best for you.

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

    • 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.
    • Nah, that is hella wrong. If I do a simple linear between 150°C (0.407v) and 50°C (2.98v) I get the formula Temperature = -38.8651*voltage + 165.8181 It is perfectly correct at 50 and 150, but it is as much as 20° out in the region of 110°C, because the actual data is significantly non-linear there. It is no more than 4° out down at the lowest temperatures, but is is seriously shit almost everywhere. I cannot believe that the instruction is to do a 2 point linear fit. I would say the method I used previously would have to be better.
×
×
  • Create New...