New Vision Brakes

[Msfitoy]

fine...have it your way...another CSS know it all...last post...bye...

[Maven]

Below minimum specs? I think that's speculating without having the dimensions.

Speculating? yes i guess technically by definition it could be considered speculation, but I think a very highly educated guess is slightly better description. LNF rotors are 26.0mm new and have a discard dimension of 24.0mm (or .078" difference) There is easliy 2mm cut out of each side of that rotor, and like I said before, my speculation is that its something much more like 4mm per side. Ill also go out on a limb and say that you brake pedal is going to be noticeably lower than stock, something that wont inspire much confidence or improve most peoples performance when driving aggressively.

[Maven]

Instead of you calling us CSS knowitalls and taking your ball and leaving why dont you prove me wrong?

[Omiotek]

see ya....another person who refuses to listen to what the real deal is. just because a company says its good doesnt always mean its good.

[Omiotek]

Instead of you calling us CSS knowitalls and taking your ball and leaving why dont you prove me wrong?

prove us all wrong as a matter of fact since you know more then we do...this is just like that bs rossshady posted with ebc pads....small cars its not all to bad lol as you have a lot less to drive....dude drives a mini(idk if you have these on the mini or not)...again small car so im sure these would work a little bitter. but dont compare apples to oranges with a mini and cobalt. these are going to wear fast and with the amount cut off ill put mney the brake pedal is lower then where it would normally do...sorry but the ferrodos and coleman rotors or even a race pad with coleman rotors is going to be a safer and far more efficient setup for aggressive driving..

[Msfitoy]

Maven...I didn't say all of you are CSS know it all...I was responding to Steddy who at first seems open minded then responded with "Rofl you keep telling yourself that" comment...I never said I know it all nor did I ever say that this is is going to change the world...I said I was testing this new system...if this is not of interest, why do you guys have to demean my effort? Why do you guys keep insisting that I need to prove anything? I just bedded these brakes in...how in the hell am I suppose to tell you if they work better or not if you guys don't have the patience to wait? I'm just another car enthusiast experimenting with new ideas for over 30 years (yes, I admit I'm old)...for that I'm ridiculed?

[ChrisMCS04]

Ok, guys I don't upset very easily. And obviously you cannot wrap your heads around this design quite yet, but why all the hate? We are not selling these to the market and we are not saying that they are the best brakes ever. We are just showing something new to the industry.

Why would you not welcome with open arms a change to a 30+ year old technology. I mean for God's sake the whole smooth faced rotor era needs a HUGE facelift.

You all discredit us for machining them this way and say that we have ruined a perfectly good set of brakes, but one could view merely slotted and cross-drilled the same way. Especially cross drilled since those ARE highly likely to crack!

If you all are so smart with the braking systems of cars then why not put your money where your mouths are and come over to NW Ohio and see them work in person. Once you do then you can have the knowledge to condemn. Or you could actually start to understand the data on the site that was test proven by Greening Labs in Detroit! The test car was a Chevy Impala (police cruiser). Is that a heavy enough car? And at 16 hours strait...

I guess time will tell if we were right or if all of you knew better than to trust our technology...

I think we might just be right though...

[Omiotek]

im curious about track use. our solstice has a nice set of rotaras on there and the last track session we were exceeding the the temps the calipers were made to take. the session before the brakes were fading.

[Maven]

Maven...I didn't say all of you are CSS know it all...I was responding to Steddy who at first seems open minded then responded with "Rofl you keep telling yourself that" comment...I never said I know it all nor did I ever say that this is is going to change the world...I said I was testing this new system...if this is not of interest, why do you guys have to demean my effort? Why do you guys keep insisting that I need to prove anything? I just bedded these brakes in...how in the hell am I suppose to tell you if they work better or not if you guys don't have the patience to wait? I'm just another car enthusiast experimenting with new ideas for over 30 years (yes, I admit I'm old)...for that I'm ridiculed?

Ok, guys I don't upset very easily. And obviously you cannot wrap your heads around this design quite yet, but why all the hate? We are not selling these to the market and we are not saying that they are the best brakes ever. We are just showing something new to the industry.

Why would you not welcome with open arms a change to a 30+ year old technology. I mean for God's sake the whole smooth faced rotor era needs a HUGE facelift.

You all discredit us for machining them this way and say that we have ruined a perfectly good set of brakes, but one could view merely slotted and cross-drilled the same way. Especially cross drilled since those ARE highly likely to crack!

If you all are so smart with the braking systems of cars then why not put your money where your mouths are and come over to NW Ohio and see them work in person. Once you do then you can have the knowledge to condemn. Or you could actually start to understand the data on the site that was test proven by Greening Labs in Detroit! The test car was a Chevy Impala (police cruiser). Is that a heavy enough car? And at 16 hours strait...

I guess time will tell if we were right or if all of you knew better than to trust our technology...

I think we might just be right though...

Why would i have to come out there when my issues are clearly stated right here on the forum, maybe you should put your numbers where your mouth is and disprove my belief that those rotors are in fact machined significantly below minimum spec. Or perhaps address my beleif of the lower than stock pedal.
If you had ever seen my posts you would know that i do not advocate drilling rotors and i don't run slotted or drilled rotors for street duty.
Yes an impala is surely heavier than a cobalt, but its also got a larger brake pad, doesn't it? And your friction data doesn't disprove any of the statements I've made expressing my concerns with the design, does it?

[RooTBeeR]

i get it if these are just a proto type and that once they go into production they will be brand new rotors and pads made like this and not just parts from another company cut up, but if thats the final product then yeah that seems a bit unsafe my.02

[qwikredline]

Chris and Mftoy its good to be passionate about your product and the money you have invested. I have been around brake design and testing a long time, and I can say this: your technical data should support your case.
depth of grooves in the Brembo LNF rotor would be a good place to start, to answer Maven. I agree with his position and would suggest that assuming the data is there, you will fracture the rotor as the cheek is not thick enough to tolerate your design.

also, apart from cf, products, In brakes , for cooling and pad life/performance, mass is everything.

[Msfitoy]

Or perhaps address my beleif of the lower than stock pedal.

For that part of your question, no the pedal is not lower than normal...

Why are the numbers from the brake dyno worth anyone's consideration? The number are there for everyone's examination. Why isn't anyone addressing the data instead of my intent? I posted the initial thread at CSS as an enthusiast sharing my experimentation. I wasn't selling anything but all I seem to get is condemnation at that site and this one as well. It's not worth my time to prove anything. I've installed this set of brake on my own dime, posted pictures on my own time. If you do a google search of Msfitoy, you will find that I have a long history or experimentation with my Mini and other cars. Nevertheless, if something does goes wrong with this experiment, the only damage is to my wallet and I will give my honest feedback to my friend who has spent his own dime/time/investment to bring something new to this arena. I have no financial ties to his company. But at least we're working together to get something done. Poo pooing behind your keyboards is not much help.

Perhaps a lot of intent is not conveyed properly over the internet but my overall impression is of negative put down and not much constructive input except that this is impossible. I had hope you guys would be more enthusiastic for the guy who goes out on a limb instead of just calling him nuts and out of his mine. I've been in the automotive design business (GM/Ford) for over 26 years and I didn't work in a vacuum...I and my peers have seen a lot "Edsels" that never saw the light of day. Without those experiments, there wouldn't be such things as ludicrous as carbon composite brakes...but I'm sure everyone here will still think "so what...big deal Mr know it all"...no, I don't know it all...that's why I explore...

[YelloEye]

For that part of your question, no the pedal is not lower than normal...and why are the numbers from the brake dyno worth your consideration? The number are there for your examination. Why isn't anyone questioning the data?

Personally there's not much to speculate on the data, if its good its good. People just want to see the real world performance. On paper my car does 5.5 0-60 same as a Charger R/T, doesn't mean it'll happen.

[TTMR]

Why would you not welcome with open arms a change to a 30+ year old technology. I mean for God's sake the whole smooth faced rotor era needs a HUGE facelift.

Imma go out on a limb here...


1) Once proven to be an improvement I'll sip the kool aid. Until then I have to view it with the same level of caution as electric superchargers and Ebay resistor "chips," you choose to play with new car parts and them's your neighbors. You are in bad company and the burden of proof is on YOU. So you need to forgive your potential CUSTOMERS if they decide to be wary, they've been burned before.

2) Why? Yes I get your idea here but when you have changed the pad compound I'm gonna see that the HPS pads work well not that your braking system works well. Stock for stock is what we need to see. Then my next question, why the sharp grooves? I can tell you your rotors failure mode is a crack around the rotor at the bottom of one of the grooves. I won't speculate on how long it would take but it will eventually (all rotors fail.)

Trust me you've got some smart folks here, they get what you're trying to cook up here. You have increased the area available for the pad to "bite." The conventional way to do this is a bigger rotor and/or caliper. We want why it's better than those options.

[ChrisMCS04]

im curious about track use. our solstice has a nice set of rotaras on there and the last track session we were exceeding the the temps the calipers were made to take. the session before the brakes were fading.

Honestly, I think that we could help solve those issues with a set of our brakes. When I have pounded on mine and brought them in they have been much cooler, to the point of touching them without burning my hand after minutes of shutting the car off. PM me and we can discuss this further.

Why would i have to come out there when my issues are clearly stated right here on the forum, maybe you should put your numbers where your mouth is and disprove my belief that those rotors are in fact machined significantly below minimum spec. Or perhaps address my beleif of the lower than stock pedal.
If you had ever seen my posts you would know that i do not advocate drilling rotors and i don't run slotted or drilled rotors for street duty.
Yes an impala is surely heavier than a cobalt, but its also got a larger brake pad, doesn't it? And your friction data doesn't disprove any of the statements I've made expressing my concerns with the design, does it?

We are a small operation and are not about to drive all over the country to prove this to every person that doubts us. I have given an open invite to all who want to see it with their own eyes. I have put the numbers where my mouth is. They are present on our website. I will look up the CAD drawings for Sid's set and let you know how deep we have cut these so that you all will know if he is in any eminent danger. As Sid has answered, my pedal on the MINI is also not lower than stock. And my set IS a direct stock rotor, stock pad set up to test the direct difference. On the Impala, now you are arguing because it has a larger pad? Well, why wouldn't it? First, the MINI is too light and these won't work on a heavier car, now that they have been on a heavier car...the pad is too big???

i get it if these are just a proto type and that once they go into production they will be brand new rotors and pads made like this and not just parts from another company cut up, but if thats the final product then yeah that seems a bit unsafe my.02

Yes, these are just a prototype. When we take any of these sets into production they will be proprietary brand new rotors and pads made exactly how we want them. We will optimize the thicknesses so that you get all of our benefits, plus a nice long life.

Imma go out on a limb here...


1) Once proven to be an improvement I'll sip the kool aid. Until then I have to view it with the same level of caution as electric superchargers and Ebay resistor "chips," you choose to play with new car parts and them's your neighbors. You are in bad company and the burden of proof is on YOU. So you need to forgive your potential CUSTOMERS if they decide to be wary, they've been burned before.

2) Why? Yes I get your idea here but when you have changed the pad compound I'm gonna see that the HPS pads work well not that your braking system works well. Stock for stock is what we need to see. Then my next question, why the sharp grooves? I can tell you your rotors failure mode is a crack around the rotor at the bottom of one of the grooves. I won't speculate on how long it would take but it will eventually (all rotors fail.)

Trust me you've got some smart folks here, they get what you're trying to cook up here. You have increased the area available for the pad to "bite." The conventional way to do this is a bigger rotor and/or caliper. We want why it's better than those options.

I understand people being wary of something as new and controversial as this. I do not see the comparison to an electric supercharger or cheap electric resistor. This has been backed by real data from an independent lab. Yes, the burden is on us, but we have the proof. And in real life driving. Sid will be further proving these brakes over the coming year(s). I am not trying to burn bridges, only trying to stand up for our patented design and hard work. If the shoes were on the other foot would you appreciate being needlessly condemned from the get go before people even took the time to evaluate data and give a chance for some more miles on a set?

As for your second question. I should have stated more clearly earlier that my set on the MINI is a stock rotor and stock set of pads. Pure stock comparison for the MINI. Sid wanted to further the benefit with a nicer set of pads since we have two sets of direct stock comparison. I am sorry that I did not state this earlier.

Now for the advantages of doing this our way:

1.) You do not need to change to a BBK. You get to keep what ever caliper and mounting set up that is currently on your car, while receiving the benefits of a BBK. If you want to go bigger, that is fine too, you will only gain more and more braking power.
- We have a second "race" set for the MINI that is built on an Outlaw 4 piston caliper and 11.75"x1.25" Massive Rotors. This set will get more time once I wear out the current set. These have been tested for 8 hours in California, until the tester became scared of their power. We will evaluate them ourselves and see if we need to back off on their pad compound.

2.) You do not have to add the extra mass associated with BBK's.

3.) You also lower unsprung weight because of our grooves (at production this will fluctuate as we optimize the thickness). Lowering 5 lbs. per corner of unsprung weight has been equated to lower the entire car's mass by 100 lbs. (from what I have learned from many different individuals on race teams)

4.) If a company wants to they can reduce the size of the rotor and brake system by roughly 30% and retain the original performance. This allows a company to use less material = lowering costs. It also will result in further reduction in unsprung weight and in turn better gas mileage as a coincidence.

I hope that this helps explain it further. I also hope that I am not burning bridges, I am just trying to stand up for our company. If anyone feels offended by my statements I truly did not me to do so. I apologize if this has been the case.

Have a good rest of the weekend,

Chris

[Omiotek]

sorry man im sticking with my 2 piece coleman rotors and ferrodo pads for street and a track pad for track use. the solstice runs a 4 piston rotara up front. we are upgrading to a 6 piston. until these are extensively track tested i wouldnt even consider running these. hawk pads are a downgrade over the ferrodo pads anyways.

[Maven]

Okay, Ill wait for you to check the CAD specs to see how much was machined off. (Why you dont know this off the cuff seems odd....) And then we can determine whether or not they are indeed machined below minimum spec or not.

I also would know to know the data related to pedal travel. I can only presume that you are going by the seat of your pants and dont know what the actual pedal travel is for a given pedal pressure or what in fact acceptable pedal travel is on a a stock Cobalt. I also find it interesting how two people who continually point us to data could possibly expect us to believe that machining material off the rotors and pads wouldnt lower pedal height......Its kind of basic braking hydraulics. If you have the same master cylinder, pedal ratio, brake pad area and caliper piston areas but you change the stack height of the pad/rotor combination you change the fluid volume required to operate the brake system throughout its full range of running clearances.
IE: if the pads and rotors have a factory width of 50mm to keep pedal travel when new at say 24mm and you go ahead and cut them down so the new VB stack height of the pads and rotors is only 44mm its not possible to keep the brake pedal height the same as the 50mm stacked OE pads/rotor combination would, and since the VB stack starts out shorter its goin to end shorter, making it possibly that you will simply run out of master cylinder volume to properly operate the brakes, or keep pedal height within acceptable specs.

Thoughts or data regarding this?

[qwikredline]

there is a published brake test procedure for brake performance to meet nhtsa standards. I suggest you follow that procedure with caliper/pad/rotor temps recorded and publish that data. it will help your cause i am sure

http://www.nhtsa.gov/cars/rules/impo...dex.html#SN105