Front brakes?
10-18-2010, 09:54 PM
#33
The rotors are 25 lbs or so each. At the 4x rule of rotating mass that is like 100 lbs off the car per side. That alone is a potential .2 not including the calipers. We are talking on paper a potential 3 tenths.
Front brakes on a modern vehicle do 60ish% of the braking not 70-80 like a few people have said. With rear disks and modern proportioning it is much closer to 50/50 in many vehicles. Hence the reason rears have disks now and they often are vented just like front rotors.
Evey one is just freaking out and not looking at the logic. My truck is factory rated to 9000 lbs. Event at 70/30 that means the fronts are rated 6300 and the rears are rated for 2700. I pulled a trailer with no brakes and a 1990 Mustang GT on it and it stopped nearly like nothing was there. Obviously the brakes can stop MUCH more then the factory weight capacity. Point being the stopping force is easily there if I were to remove the fronts.
I understand everyones point of a few pounds of prevention(hitting the sand pit) is better then the .2-.3 to be gained.
My point is it could be done without any issue for track use only. People do it all the time at every track across the country on cars that weigh in the 3200ish range, and with brakes that certainly aren't nearly as powerful as the rears of a 2500 pick up. They don't make spindle wheels only for top-fuel dragsters and anything running a spindle wheel doesn't have front brakes. Many have shoots but they don't use them every run depending how fast they are.
Front brakes on a modern vehicle do 60ish% of the braking not 70-80 like a few people have said. With rear disks and modern proportioning it is much closer to 50/50 in many vehicles. Hence the reason rears have disks now and they often are vented just like front rotors.
Evey one is just freaking out and not looking at the logic. My truck is factory rated to 9000 lbs. Event at 70/30 that means the fronts are rated 6300 and the rears are rated for 2700. I pulled a trailer with no brakes and a 1990 Mustang GT on it and it stopped nearly like nothing was there. Obviously the brakes can stop MUCH more then the factory weight capacity. Point being the stopping force is easily there if I were to remove the fronts.
I understand everyones point of a few pounds of prevention(hitting the sand pit) is better then the .2-.3 to be gained.
My point is it could be done without any issue for track use only. People do it all the time at every track across the country on cars that weigh in the 3200ish range, and with brakes that certainly aren't nearly as powerful as the rears of a 2500 pick up. They don't make spindle wheels only for top-fuel dragsters and anything running a spindle wheel doesn't have front brakes. Many have shoots but they don't use them every run depending how fast they are.
10-18-2010, 10:04 PM
#37
TECH Enthusiast
The rotors are 25 lbs or so each. At the 4x rule of rotating mass that is like 100 lbs off the car per side. That alone is a potential .2 not including the calipers. We are talking on paper a potential 3 tenths.
Front brakes on a modern vehicle do 60ish% of the braking not 70-80 like a few people have said. With rear disks and modern proportioning it is much closer to 50/50 in many vehicles. Hence the reason rears have disks now and they often are vented just like front rotors.
Evey one is just freaking out and not looking at the logic. My truck is factory rated to 9000 lbs. Event at 70/30 that means the fronts are rated 6300 and the rears are rated for 2700. I pulled a trailer with no brakes and a 1990 Mustang GT on it and it stopped nearly like nothing was there. Obviously the brakes can stop MUCH more then the factory weight capacity. Point being the stopping force is easily there if I were to remove the fronts.
I understand everyones point of a few pounds of prevention(hitting the sand pit) is better then the .2-.3 to be gained.
My point is it could be done without any issue for track use only. People do it all the time at every track across the country on cars that weigh in the 3200ish range, and with brakes that certainly aren't nearly as powerful as the rears of a 2500 pick up. They don't make spindle wheels only for top-fuel dragsters and anything running a spindle wheel doesn't have front brakes. Many have shoots but they don't use them every run depending how fast they are.
Front brakes on a modern vehicle do 60ish% of the braking not 70-80 like a few people have said. With rear disks and modern proportioning it is much closer to 50/50 in many vehicles. Hence the reason rears have disks now and they often are vented just like front rotors.
Evey one is just freaking out and not looking at the logic. My truck is factory rated to 9000 lbs. Event at 70/30 that means the fronts are rated 6300 and the rears are rated for 2700. I pulled a trailer with no brakes and a 1990 Mustang GT on it and it stopped nearly like nothing was there. Obviously the brakes can stop MUCH more then the factory weight capacity. Point being the stopping force is easily there if I were to remove the fronts.
I understand everyones point of a few pounds of prevention(hitting the sand pit) is better then the .2-.3 to be gained.
My point is it could be done without any issue for track use only. People do it all the time at every track across the country on cars that weigh in the 3200ish range, and with brakes that certainly aren't nearly as powerful as the rears of a 2500 pick up. They don't make spindle wheels only for top-fuel dragsters and anything running a spindle wheel doesn't have front brakes. Many have shoots but they don't use them every run depending how fast they are.
lets say you do this, ALL your line pressure is going to go to the rears, that will lock them in a heart beat, that WILL get you kicked out the track.
.3 isnt worth the risk imo
10-18-2010, 10:05 PM
#39
Don't forget I am bagged so at the stripe I inflat the fronts and then I am going up hill and will slow much faster!! haha Sorry lame as hell but it is an old classic.