Brake caliper bracket..

[BLT2BTU]

Is there an aluminum bracket that fits?? The stock ones seem like a ridiculous waste of weight

 

[Dubstep Shep]

Care to be a little more specific?

I can only guess you mean the caliper mounting bracket on the rear axle, or no?

 

[UltraKla$$ic]

Take em off. That 2lbs of weight is certainly a hinderance and besides, brakes are overrated!!!! Don't need no stinkin brakes!!!!

 

[BLT2BTU]

Lol ya brakes are for the timid. To elaborate.... 06 gt. Caliper mounting brackets.... That the calipers bolt to. Specifically the front.

 

[dugstang]

Dang, you must have upgraded everything else on your car to care about caliper brackets weight

 

[BLT2BTU]

Yep! Well dang it I painted them and thought gees why aren't these aluminum.... So thought I'd ask

 

[Whiskey11]

Yep! Well dang it I painted them and thought gees why aren't these aluminum.... So thought I'd ask

Because aluminum's fatigue life is drastically shortened when you have repeated tension/compression WITH repeated heating and cooling. Ever wonder why fixed aluminum calipers are so massive? Probably has something to do with making the part nearly impossible to flex for better pad wear but for keeping the calipers from cracking when pushed hard. I can't imagine a floating caliper setup weighing less by using aluminum given the strength requirements necessary to seriously mitigate fatigue cycling.

 

[Dubstep Shep]

Dang, you must have upgraded everything else on your car to care about caliper brackets weight

I'll translate this from sarcasm to English for ya.

Don't worry about such an insignificant weight savings where there are FAR bigger fish to fry on these cars.

 

[BLT2BTU]

I hear about the stresses, and such... Despite the sarcasm... Many cars have lighter designs... So was curious if anyone else thought of this with all the other "crazy" ways of lightening these things up

 

[Dubstep Shep]

I hear about the stresses, and such... Despite the sarcasm... Many cars have lighter designs... So was curious if anyone else thought of this with all the other "crazy" ways of lightening these things up

Anything is possible with enough money. But unless you're needing to shave off single digit pounds or maybe less for hundreds of dollars, I suggest you look elsewhere. Like your interior. Or windows. Or anywhere lol.

 

[zeroescape]

Because aluminum's fatigue life is drastically shortened when you have repeated tension/compression WITH repeated heating and cooling. Ever wonder why fixed aluminum calipers are so massive? Probably has something to do with making the part nearly impossible to flex for better pad wear but for keeping the calipers from cracking when pushed hard. I can't imagine a floating caliper setup weighing less by using aluminum given the strength requirements necessary to seriously mitigate fatigue cycling.

^This. Unlike steel (ferrous materials), aluminium (non-ferrous materials) will fail after so many loading cycles even if kept within elastic deformation. Hard to say when without computer analysis, but i dont think its worth trying for a safety item such as brakes. Especially just to save marginal weight.

Just like someone else said, with enough time and money im sure you could engineer something lighter, stronger, and wont fail until a few million cycles, but there are better bangs for the buck.

 

[BLT2BTU]

Haha. Just wait!!! Someone will chime in with a fix!

 

[Dubstep Shep]

^This. Unlike steel (ferrous materials), aluminium (non-ferrous materials) will fail after so many loading cycles even if kept within elastic deformation. Hard to say when without computer analysis, but i dont think its worth trying for a safety item such as brakes. Especially just to save marginal weight.

Just like someone else said, with enough time and money im sure you could engineer something lighter, stronger, and wont fail until a few million cycles, but there are better bangs for the buck.

Just because steel or ferrous material is kept within the elastic deformation does not mean it is immune to fatigue failure. Steel is simply more resistant to fatigue than aluminum because of it's material properties.

 

[UltraKla$$ic]

HERE: http://www.s197forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=47097&page=2
908ssp will make you anything you want for the right money.

 

[luillo]

Because aluminum's fatigue life is drastically shortened when you have repeated tension/compression WITH repeated heating and cooling. Ever wonder why fixed aluminum calipers are so massive? Probably has something to do with making the part nearly impossible to flex for better pad wear but for keeping the calipers from cracking when pushed hard. I can't imagine a floating caliper setup weighing less by using aluminum given the strength requirements necessary to seriously mitigate fatigue cycling.

I hear about the stresses, and such... Despite the sarcasm... Many cars have lighter designs... So was curious if anyone else thought of this with all the other "crazy" ways of lightening these things up

Not only that but aluminum and steel will cause galvanic reaction and it will break, reason why.

 

[Shotokan1509]

Hit lightweight wheels, brake rotors and driveshaft first. Rotating mass is best place to lose by far

 

[Dubstep Shep]

Hit lightweight wheels, brake rotors and driveshaft first. Rotating mass is best place to lose by far

Not only that, but wheels and brake rotors are unsprung weight.

 

[zeroescape]

Just because steel or ferrous material is kept within the elastic deformation does not mean it is immune to fatigue failure. Steel is simply more resistant to fatigue than aluminum because of it's material properties.

Your right, but an engineer is not going to design a part that sees a factor of saftey under 2. At these levels the material will be under its endurance limit and essentially be infinite in terms of practical application.

A nonferrous material does not have the luxury of a endurance limit and will always have a finite life in terms of cycles.

 

[Dubstep Shep]

Your right, but an engineer is not going to design a part that sees a factor of saftey under 2. At these levels the material will be under its endurance limit and essentially be infinite in terms of practical application.

A nonferrous material does not have the luxury of a endurance limit and will always have a finite life in terms of cycles.

Lol, as an engineer for the biggest oilfield part supplier in the world, I can tell you that we do in fact use factors of safety well below 2. The lowest I've used is a 1.1, and that's a particular standard that's well established. Aerospace commonly used SFs below 1.5 in their applications to save weight.

 

[Pentalab]

Your right, but an engineer is not going to design a part that sees a factor of safety under 2. At these levels the material will be under its endurance limit and essentially be infinite in terms of practical application.

A nonferrous material does not have the luxury of a endurance limit and will always have a finite life in terms of cycles.

Steel is 2.76 times heavier vs AL.. for the same thickness. SS is non ferrous, it might make for a suitable material. Stuff like 120 ksi yield strength 4130 heat treated chromolly steel or 89 ksi DOM would probably work..and less of it required for the same strength. That's a 2 edged sword though. Typ, thinner+ stronger alloys will fatigue faster vs thicker+ weaker steel.