More breaks

[QSHIPQ@aol.com]

Dave writes:
>the thing to remember is that, in retrospect, all brakes are/were poor,
because
>the design and performance has improved markedly over the years.  i know of
no
>audi or bmw whose brakes stand comparison against the competition today. 
>except perhaps the sport quattro and the 2nd m5...
Design hasn't changed over the years, performance has.  Not because of any
revolutionary design concepts, just bigger for a given chassis.  Nasc*r rotors
have been around for years, so have 4 and 6 piston calipers.  The design is
swept area, heat dissipation, and clamping force.  Let's not make this out to
be something new.  Putting great brakes on production cars might be.  The fact
few did it before the 90's has little to do with design OR performance
"revolutions".  A quick look at stock Motorcycle or car racing applications in
the 80's (all audi race cars included here) shows the concept hardly new.  Big
brakes = better braking.  

>questions to ask yourself:
>1) how many panic stops from 70mph am i planning to do?
>2) how many panic stops 70mph-0 will i do *in sequence*
>most of us answer question #1 with "none hopefully, but 1 when the need
>arises".  therfore the 70-0 numbers are key.  *not* the fade characteristics.

In YOUR humble opinion.  Brake fade IS a benchmark number.  Panic stops?  How
bout just good and consistent stops at all speeds?  Comparing 993tt brakes to
others that are initially "within 10feet" are posted on the Ultimate web site
( and a lister quoted it here).  That 10feet difference exponentially
increases as the number of brake applications increases.  Predictability of a
cars dynamics is key, brakes are no different than the torsen center.  Not
knowing when the pedal will go to the floor, or having to think about how many
times you put the G60's on bind mode, is not something most want to think
about.  This isn't "panic" braking either, not if you've been stuck in Chicago
rush hour.  OR to those posting brake upgrades right here on the list.

>most of us answer question #2 with "none".  unless you're being bl**dy stupid
>on the road, or you're on the track.  if you're on the track, then you need
to
>worry about both braking distance and fade characteristics.
>if you're on the track, upgrade your brakes.  they're never "good enough".
>and, i dare say, there are a number of "vendors" on the list....

Dave, again you show your bias towards your opinion on braking.  I admit,
based on my G60 experiences, and your definition, that I'M BLOODY STUPID (hey
thanks for that, on behalf of the others so handicapped).   Many of us have
btdt in normal street mode on G60's and have experienced fade, rotor wobble,
and massively varying braking distances just driving on the streeet, no panic,
not agressive.  The G60's have *all* the latest technology for the time, 3rd
generation venting, dual piston calipers, air scoops TO the rotors (91> 20vt).
Unfortunately, all that latest and greatest, comes up long on the tooth, and
braking distance.  Audi didn't ignore the *fade* characteristics with all the
latest G60 upgrades, that's what the 'improvements' were for.  The problem was
simpler than that:  Not enough brakes for the weight.  

New concept?  Revolutionary?  Panic?  Nope, simpler than that.

You don't have to point to any vendors here, and there are plenty.  Good
brakes are what we all deserve in our audis Dave, not just envying you in your
RS2, or all the new audi's brake 'facts'.  Many have BTDT on the HP mods, and
find that hp is only half the equation.  Very true, your discarding 'fade' to
those of us that have btdt, doesn't help the folks looking for better answers.
Appreciate your thoughts Dave, we certainly disagree on the importance of
fade.  How 'bout offering up some solutions on braking to those that disagree
with you.  There are a few.  Punting fade is hardly an answer.  If you don't
have any fine.  Then let's let those that do have some answers, share their
experiences.

Darn RS2 drivers...  :)

Scott Justusson