Vorshlag 2011 Mustang 5.0 GT - track/autocross/street Project

Status
Not open for further replies.

kcbrown

forum member
Joined
Jul 24, 2013
Posts
655
Reaction score
5
All good points KC.

You probably liked the golf ball excuse, especially.
icon10.gif



I'm going to back out of this particular tangent at this point though. I don't wanna muck up this thread.
Same here, on this subject.

On the subject of water in the braking system, though, is it reasonable to assume that it comes in through the reservoir? It's the only place in the system I know of that isn't truly sealed off...

From the reading I've done, it seems that some implementations of the braking system included a moving seal in the cap that would move up and down with the fluid level. When the system got hot, it would move up a bit, and when it cooled down, it would move back down. This acted as a boundary between the reservoir and the outside air, and voila! No water accumulation due to condensation in the reservoir (except from the initial bit of air that was in it).

Anyone know why such a system isn't in use these days? Too expensive on mass production vehicles for the relatively minimal gain?
 

Ike

forum member
Joined
Jan 21, 2014
Posts
97
Reaction score
0
On WILWOOD bbk: 14+ 6pot and rear 4pot

I had them on my 06 gt

They were great for the first set of pads, which lasted a couple weeks of spirited driving in the hills. I would hit the brakes and could see massive amounts of sparks flying past the window. Shedding material is a great way to control thermals, and those pads did it nicely.

The next set of pads i got were the track-iest street pads Wilwood could reccomend, and they ate through my rotors in two days. My rotors had 0.125 inch waves ground into them after a three hour track session and I didn't even notice until someone pointed them out.

But as good as the Wilwood were wasting pads and rotors while stopping well, I just found it unacceptable mix of material optimization. Granted I didn't have any air cooling, and the car was stock weight, with direzza ZII 255/18 square at full tilt on a fast track with two straights.... I'd like to point out though from an engineering perspective that I wasn't surprised by any of this and its simply a heavy car, plus the way I drive is casually sideways and it's hard on consumables.

Now I am looking forward to the brembo 14 kit being installed as I type this and it being a little more "normal" mix of wear and friction, potentially because it will have better venting as I understand it does, and better pad options, and potentially more mass, which is okay too.

If that doesn't work I will go for the carbon ceramic wilwoods and I'm surprised Terry doesn't try them ;D

Also from an engineering perspective, I am surprised at how technical and correct an s197 forum can be, and I never would have guessed... I've owned almost two dozen sports cars and been to a lot of forums, and somehow of all sorts of different sports cars the s197 owners seem to know what they are talking about.

On hats:
Hats also generally have some offset from the hub-face plane, an inch or so to allow thermal expansion and keep from cracking, like the ribs on an intake for movement, as the hat expands it gets hot, and having that offset and cone-ish shaped hat means it can expand without stretching the metal as much... also it brings the rotor back toward the spindle around the bearings and that is nice for having smaller brackets to hold the caliper which saves half a pound or so :)

More on golf balls:
dimples make a much bigger difference when the ball spins. I won't get into why, however the theory behind induced turbulence really boils down to: its better to have lots of little vorticies you can control, than one big vortex, because of boundary layer dynamics, from which area rule stems; the aero of a car isn't just its shape alone, but also the shape of the air it deflects, its's why tear drops are shaped differently for different speeds, tear drops of the same "diameter" are going to be more "round" at slow speeds and more "pointy" at high speeds, even though they have the same frontal area... a simple example is how with the lancer evo shark fin row across the roof, they can minimize boundary layer turbulence. Vorticies feed eachother and can turn into one big mess of drag, so by breaking them up with those little fins, which are optimized for a certain speed btw, probably 70mph-ish, they can eliminate the big vortex, which is like a big tornado on the back sucking you backwards. It eliminates energy that compressed in the air over the roof from adding to said big vortex and instead allows it to come gently down back into the original airstream. Now I need to go to bed before I attempt to explain canards.

Canards have two effects, one is inducing vorticies as described above, to control drag, and the other is that said vorticies prevent air from going under the car, which would defeat whatever vacuum you can make under the car with tunnel hulls or whatever. Also in a (shallow) turn less air will go under the car and that can help quite a lot. Aero optimization involves a lot of theory and practically what is effectively guessing and testing... there is no "tensile-strength" for abstract shapes.
 
Last edited:

Norm Peterson

corner barstool sitter
Joined
Feb 5, 2011
Posts
3,615
Reaction score
317
Location
RIP - You will be missed
Nope. Air flow and air resistance are directly related to each other.

Golf balls have dimples because their shape inevitably forces boundary layer separation. The dimples cause some turbulence at the boundary layer, but they also yield later separation of the boundary layer from the surface. The net effect is an increase in air flow, a reduction of air resistance.
Maybe a better comparison for air moving inside a brake cooling duct would be manifold runners and head ports, rough-cast vs CNC vs touched up with a grinder vs polished.


Norm
 

Houstonnw

forum member
Joined
Sep 14, 2007
Posts
25
Reaction score
0
It doesn't absorb water. And that can be a problem. If water gets in the system, which happens when the hot brakes cool off, then the water pools in the low point in the system, the caliper. When it gets hot again, the water turns to steam and abracadabra! you have a soft pedal.

Are you confusing Castrol SRF with DOT 5?

SRF has a dry boiling point of 310C and a wet boiling point of 270C. It is the wet boiling point that makes it so attractive to me. I have faded Carbotech XP10 front pads on my '07 Mustang but never had a soft pedal. The CMC Camaro was different in that I usually had to tap the brakes between corners, but that was obviously pad knock back.

Edit to add: I missed some later posts but I have never heard of SRF letting water pool in the calipers. I have never heard of a CMC or even AI racer having problems and bleeding after each race. Is this real tech or an urban myth?
 
Last edited:

Sky Render

Stig's Retarded Cousin
S197 Team Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2011
Posts
9,463
Reaction score
357
Location
NW of Baltimore, MD
Thanks for the discussion on fluid dynamics, folks. You reminded me why I majored in ELECTRICAL engineering. :thud:

Sent from my toilet using Tapatalk
 

Dubstep Shep

WUB WUB VROOM VROOM
Joined
Jun 22, 2013
Posts
3,382
Reaction score
0
Location
Houston, TX
Thanks for the discussion on fluid dynamics, folks. You reminded me why I majored in ELECTRICAL engineering. :thud:

Sent from my toilet using Tapatalk


No kidding hahahaha. Fortunately mechanicals don't have to deal with it much except with how it relates to heat transfer. Aerospace on the other hand gets screwed with that stuff...
 

kcbrown

forum member
Joined
Jul 24, 2013
Posts
655
Reaction score
5
Thanks for the discussion on fluid dynamics, folks. You reminded me why I majored in ELECTRICAL engineering. :thud:

Well, now, let's be fair. EEs had some "fun" as well.

*cough* Electromagnetics and field theory *cough*

:naughty1:
 

Dubstep Shep

WUB WUB VROOM VROOM
Joined
Jun 22, 2013
Posts
3,382
Reaction score
0
Location
Houston, TX
I'm good with anything hardware related. As soon as EEs start talking about software though I'm out
 

csamsh

forum member
Joined
Apr 9, 2012
Posts
1,598
Reaction score
2
Location
OKC
Well, now, let's be fair. EEs had some "fun" as well.

*cough* Electromagnetics and field theory *cough*

:naughty1:

I still have physics E&M nightmares. Worst grade in college right there.
 

Pentalab

forum member
Joined
Mar 5, 2013
Posts
5,216
Reaction score
1,104
Hahaha no kidding KC. Like you mentioned, turbulent flow results in a loss of lift, which makes sense. The air isn't holding onto the wing as well and you lose all the lift generated by it.

From my understanding, turbulent flow produces less skin drag but flows slower, if that makes sense.

Check out the mythbusters episode where they put golf ball like dimples on a car. They actually improved their gas mileage.

http://www.discovery.com/tv-shows/mythbusters/videos/dimpled-car-minimyth.htm Gas mileage improved from 26 mpg to 29.65 mpg....and that's at 65 mph.....and the dimpled car consisted of 900 lbs of clay.

They also tried it with 900 lbs of clay on the car...with no dimples....and mileage was 26 mpg. 26 mpg with NO 900 lbs of clay, oem. The dimpled car had the dimples stuffed into a box...and thrown into the back seat..so it had no weight advantage vs the clay car and no dimples. In the original full episode, they suggested that nascar is missing the boat on this one.

The mileage didn't drop off with 900 lbs of weight added, but you can sure see the suspension loaded when you freeze it at 2:04.

The dimples resulted in a 13.8% fuel mileage improvement @ 65 mph. It would have been interesting to see the test re-run...but at 130 mph, where the impact pressure would have been quadruple. The effect would have been more pronounced.
 
Last edited:

Pentalab

forum member
Joined
Mar 5, 2013
Posts
5,216
Reaction score
1,104
Terry, I know that 18" wheels won't clear 15" rotor's..... but 15" rotor's would be an option for folks with 19" wheels. The front 14" BBK's with 6 piston rotor's was just a suggestion, since FRPP and Roush, etc, all offer them....albeit the price is double the 4 piston BBK's.

Steeda offers a 13" rear rotor conversion kit..that uses the oem 1 piston rear caliper, some of the reviews on it were not too good. The GT-500 13.8" rear rotor conversion uses the same 1 piston oem rear caliper. It appears that both use a similar offset extension bracket to move the oem 1 piston caliper further out. I forget who makes the 14" rear rotor / 4 piston rear caliper setup, but saw a pix of it last year.

If 4" silicone brake hoses are used, you still have a bottleneck with the 3" fitting on the Boss 302 lower grille...and ditto with the 3" fitting on the 14" dust shields. If you morphed from 4" down to 3" at each end of the 4" hose, it would still flow more air, but I don't think very much more.
 

SoundGuyDave

This Space For Rent
Joined
Apr 9, 2007
Posts
1,978
Reaction score
28
Terry, I know that 18" wheels won't clear 15" rotor's..... but 15" rotor's would be an option for folks with 19" wheels.

No shit, really?

The front 14" BBK's with 6 piston rotor's was just a suggestion, since FRPP and Roush, etc, all offer them....albeit the price is double the 4 piston BBK's.
And they offer strut-tower braces, subframe connectors, rocker panel "ladder bars," carbon-fiber window switch trim, and 20" wheels. Better get the checkbook out.

Steeda offers a 13" rear rotor conversion kit..that uses the oem 1 piston rear caliper, some of the reviews on it were not too good. The GT-500 13.8" rear rotor conversion uses the same 1 piston oem rear caliper. It appears that both use a similar offset extension bracket to move the oem 1 piston caliper further out. I forget who makes the 14" rear rotor / 4 piston rear caliper setup, but saw a pix of it last year.
And exactly what problem is that designed to "fix"?

If 4" silicone brake hoses are used, you still have a bottleneck with the 3" fitting on the Boss 302 lower grille...and ditto with the 3" fitting on the 14" dust shields. If you morphed from 4" down to 3" at each end of the 4" hose, it would still flow more air, but I don't think very much more.
Or, you could just fab a 4" inlet and spindle duct...

Pentalab, you do know that Terry knows all this stuff, right? If you stop posting for a minute, and actually poked around his website (vorshlag.com), you'd see that they have MORE than adequate fab skills to graft 4" ducting into the front fascia, and in fact have been doing that on various projects (Brianne Corn's PPIR car for example) for quite a while. They can do more than just take a part out of a box and bolt it in place.

A few other factors for your consideration:
Besides adding mass (larger heat sump), a 15" rotor kit also adds a LOT of unsprung rotating weight, AND greatly alters the torque bias between front and rear. Designing a proper brake package is NOT a matter of ticking the box on the webstore page with the biggest/most, it's balancing the thermal capacity with unsprung and rotating mass, while simultaneously keeping mechanical and hydraulic bias balanced.

More pistons in a caliper do NOT make the car brake better, or slow it down more quickly. The stock 2-piston floating caliper setup with 13" rotors is capable of putting the car into the ABS limit, and once that limit has been hit, throwing more clamping pressure at it is superfluous. Yes there are other factors involved, such as heat-sinking the fluid, or pad surface area for longevity, but there are also other solutions, like ducting air to the calipers if heat is an issue. IN MOST CASES, when you see a 6-piston setup on a street car, it's there for bragging rights at Cars 'N Coffee, not for any actual performance benefit. A properly cooled 14" 4-piston setup is more than sufficient in terms of heat-sink capability to survive hours of continuous road-course duty under competition conditions (racing means NO cool-off laps mid session!), and provides an arguable and measurable performance edge over a 15" 6-piston setup. Think rotating mass to accelerate and decelerate, and you'll see what I mean.

Rear brakes: Once people find the "TCS OFF" button on track, rear brakes stop being a problem. They don't get hot enough to worry about, and even with the stock 12" rears, there is enough brake torque to balance the fronts in 13" or 14". If the rear brakes were such an issue, don't you think the $100,000+ Boss302/R would have something more back there? It doesn't, and competes successfully right out of the box. From a pure performance standpoint, the 14" rear conversion kit is there for one reason, and one reason only: to fill those ridiculously huge 19" wheels with brake rotor. In the end, it's an appearance mod, so that you don't have an acre of empty wheel barrel in back, with this tiny little peanut brake setup. Looking at 4-piston rears with a solid axle, that's again for bragging rights. If it's a radial-mounted fixed caliper, you'll have knock-back for DAYS as the axle play lets the rotor slide in and out. The only way that will work is with some kludged-together floating caliper mount, and again, you're adding mass to no purpose.

Seriously, guy, you only half-understand a lot of the concepts that you're pontificating about, frequently promulgate blatantly WRONG information, and make pretty ludicrous or bloody obvious suggestions on a fairly regular basis. Terry's advice is spot-on: Read more, post less (tm). And, in particular, post only when you have something SOLID, CORRECT, PROVABLE, and DEFENSIBLE to offer. Of course, questions are fair game.
 

Pentalab

forum member
Joined
Mar 5, 2013
Posts
5,216
Reaction score
1,104
The GT-500 13.8" rear rotor's are only 2.66 lbs heavier than the oem 11.8" rotor's...yet are a full 2" bigger diam. ( 16.06 lbs vs 13.40lbs).

Do you know how heavy the 15" front rotor's are ? How much heavier are they vs the typ 14" rotor. As far as brake bias goes, the 1" bigger 15" rotor should be negated by the 2" bigger 13.8" rear rotor.

I know Terry has a superb fab shop. I have just a simple metal work shop, with the usual drill press's, grinder's, hydraulic punch's, metal cutting vert / horz bandsaw's etc. I have no welding equipment. To convert from 3" to 4" brake hoses (and do it right) is beyond my skill set.... and probably most folks.

OK, here's a legit question. If 2 rotor's have the same 14" diam, but one weighs considerably less, which has the greater thermal capacity ? They would both have the same surface area exposed to the air.

Here's another one. If the rear rotor is increased from 11.8" to 13.8"...and the same caliper is used, I would think the 13.8" rotor would generate more friction / heat, due to it's greater circumference speed ? If that's the case, the additional generated heat would be offset to an extent by the bigger diam rotor....provided it has more mass. See where I'm going with this? If greater mass/weight amounts to a greater heat sinking effect, there must be a tradeoff somewhere. Bigger diam rotor's typ have more unsprung rotating weight. But a bigger diam rotor has more surface area exposed to the air.

Which is more optimum... a 14" rotor or a 15" rotor (and in this hypothetical case..they both weigh the same) ??

"Even with the added front braking power, front brake ducting, track worthy brake pads, and the best fluid money can buy we were still seeing alarmingly high rear brake temperatures and accelerated rear brake pad wear in our 2011 Mustang GT street/track car. We wanted to add some surface area to the rear brakes to help them shed heat, and a larger diameter rotor would easily fit within the 18" and 19" wheels these cars come with."

If that's the case, it appears that the oem 11.8" rear rotor's and the 1 piston caliper's are not optimized. If it's a heat issue, the rear dust shields could be removed, or rear brake ducts used. Or 13.8" rear rotor's used. Just maybe Ford didn't get it right on their $100k boss 302/R.
 

csamsh

forum member
Joined
Apr 9, 2012
Posts
1,598
Reaction score
2
Location
OKC
Tag! My turn!

The GT500 rotor weighs nearly 33#.

Brake bias is not really impacted at all by rotor diameter. Something like pad compound, or....how your master cylinder(s) is/are setup...will impact that a whole lot more.

Converting from 3 to 4" ducts is probably not too hard...I'm actually going to do it myself.

The two 14" rotors with different weights question...well that depends on materials of construction, the shape, surface area/volume ratio, and other variables that are not presented in this thought experiment.

On the 11.8 to 13.8 thing, you're trying to say the caliper sweeps more area per time, which is correct, and should decrease temperature, as there is a lower "dwell time" of the caliper on a certain point on a rotor per unit time or revolution.

14 vs 15 Unfortunately, without exotic materials or expensive design, this question is moot, and has also already been addressed in this thread. This is also a question that has too many unconstrained variables.

On the optimaztion of the rear rotor- there are a few things to account for. There was a massive thread over on C-C about this exact question last summer, which devolved into people putting "math equations" up. Anyway- If you're a PWC team, or Roush Racing, or Rehagen or somebody, you can duct the shit out of the rears, and you can change literally everything back there between each race, so...it doesn't really matter that it's a 12" rotor. If you're Terry or a club racer, your budget is not a pro-race team budget, and, in Terry's case, he races what he sells. That red car is a parts test-bed and advertising platform more than anything else- to run a setup on it that is not saleable is not his goal (I'll look past the reverse-ducted hood...). Therefore, the bigger rotor will add some lifespan. That's about all the benefit you'll get- the fronts, in one session will still overheat faster, but there's less of a chance that the rears will overheat first, and will eliminate the need for ducting for track-day poseurs like me.
 

Ike

forum member
Joined
Jan 21, 2014
Posts
97
Reaction score
0
http://www.discovery.com/tv-shows/mythbusters/videos/dimpled-car-minimyth.htm Gas mileage improved from 26 mpg to 29.65 mpg....and that's at 65 mph.....and the dimpled car consisted of 900 lbs of clay.

They also tried it with 900 lbs of clay on the car...with no dimples....and mileage was 26 mpg. 26 mpg with NO 900 lbs of clay, oem. The dimpled car had the dimples stuffed into a box...and thrown into the back seat..so it had no weight advantage vs the clay car and no dimples. In the original full episode, they suggested that nascar is missing the boat on this one.

The mileage didn't drop off with 900 lbs of weight added, but you can sure see the suspension loaded when you freeze it at 2:04.

The dimples resulted in a 13.8% fuel mileage improvement @ 65 mph. It would have been interesting to see the test re-run...but at 130 mph, where the impact pressure would have been quadruple. The effect would have been more pronounced.

I don't remember if they addressed this issue in that episode, but its important to note that by far the LEAST aerodynamic part of a car is the lower front of the front tires not covered by car and under-body turbulence...
...so adding 900lbs of weight would lower the car and result in significantly reduced drag.

Remember Bugatti claimed to need some absurd amount more power, I think another thousand horsepower, to make their Veyron go from 230-252 until they went with active suspension to lower it at speed.
 
Last edited:

Ike

forum member
Joined
Jan 21, 2014
Posts
97
Reaction score
0
No shit, really?

And they offer strut-tower braces, subframe connectors, rocker panel "ladder bars," carbon-fiber window switch trim, and 20" wheels. Better get the checkbook out.

And exactly what problem is that designed to "fix"?

Or, you could just fab a 4" inlet and spindle duct...

Pentalab, you do know that Terry knows all this stuff, right? If you stop posting for a minute, and actually poked around his website (vorshlag.com), you'd see that they have MORE than adequate fab skills to graft 4" ducting into the front fascia, and in fact have been doing that on various projects (Brianne Corn's PPIR car for example) for quite a while. They can do more than just take a part out of a box and bolt it in place.

A few other factors for your consideration:
Besides adding mass (larger heat sump), a 15" rotor kit also adds a LOT of unsprung rotating weight, AND greatly alters the torque bias between front and rear. Designing a proper brake package is NOT a matter of ticking the box on the webstore page with the biggest/most, it's balancing the thermal capacity with unsprung and rotating mass, while simultaneously keeping mechanical and hydraulic bias balanced.

More pistons in a caliper do NOT make the car brake better, or slow it down more quickly. The stock 2-piston floating caliper setup with 13" rotors is capable of putting the car into the ABS limit, and once that limit has been hit, throwing more clamping pressure at it is superfluous. Yes there are other factors involved, such as heat-sinking the fluid, or pad surface area for longevity, but there are also other solutions, like ducting air to the calipers if heat is an issue. IN MOST CASES, when you see a 6-piston setup on a street car, it's there for bragging rights at Cars 'N Coffee, not for any actual performance benefit. A properly cooled 14" 4-piston setup is more than sufficient in terms of heat-sink capability to survive hours of continuous road-course duty under competition conditions (racing means NO cool-off laps mid session!), and provides an arguable and measurable performance edge over a 15" 6-piston setup. Think rotating mass to accelerate and decelerate, and you'll see what I mean.

Rear brakes: Once people find the "TCS OFF" button on track, rear brakes stop being a problem. They don't get hot enough to worry about, and even with the stock 12" rears, there is enough brake torque to balance the fronts in 13" or 14". If the rear brakes were such an issue, don't you think the $100,000+ Boss302/R would have something more back there? It doesn't, and competes successfully right out of the box. From a pure performance standpoint, the 14" rear conversion kit is there for one reason, and one reason only: to fill those ridiculously huge 19" wheels with brake rotor. In the end, it's an appearance mod, so that you don't have an acre of empty wheel barrel in back, with this tiny little peanut brake setup. Looking at 4-piston rears with a solid axle, that's again for bragging rights. If it's a radial-mounted fixed caliper, you'll have knock-back for DAYS as the axle play lets the rotor slide in and out. The only way that will work is with some kludged-together floating caliper mount, and again, you're adding mass to no purpose.

Seriously, guy, you only half-understand a lot of the concepts that you're pontificating about, frequently promulgate blatantly WRONG information, and make pretty ludicrous or bloody obvious suggestions on a fairly regular basis. Terry's advice is spot-on: Read more, post less (tm). And, in particular, post only when you have something SOLID, CORRECT, PROVABLE, and DEFENSIBLE to offer. Of course, questions are fair game.
AHHHH CAPS LOCK

Well I agree with what you're saying to Pentalab and my choice for one was with 14" brembos for the lighter weight, even after totally toasting the wilwoods which were upgraded front AND rear. I presume the brembos will be better at dissipating heat for reasons detailed in my long post a dozen posts ago or so, and my performance driving choices are averaging 40-50mph, so no downforce or ducting has been seriously considered as of yet.

On multi-pot calipers... I could go on for days about this. They do have some advantages that are not direct... however its important to get out of the way the fact that most folks think what they need is more "gripping power" when even crappy little stock brakes will ususally lock a racing slick at least once and what they need is heat dissipation, so yeah, big brakes are all about the rotor mass..... multi pot calipers can keep pads from developing hot spots, or vibrating, but a more engineering-level description or reason might be that they eliminate the need to have big backing plates and allow the caliper to be lighter by wrapping some of the mass around the rotor.... what I mean is that the caliper is like a big C-clamp and by making it wider, it can be thinner... I can't describe this with words I give up.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Support us!

Support Us - Become A Supporting Member Today!

Click Here For Details

Sponsor Links

Banner image
Back
Top