Jump to content

Tech Spam thread - because 1/4" BSP gets 5 hand spans to the jiggawatt


Roman

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

59 minutes ago, peteretep said:

ok next one, M10x1 male into a 1/8bspt hole. jam it in or tap it first? Got 2 temp sensors to fit into a 1/bspt thread, so was thinking of using a 1/8 nipple, then a 1/8 Tee to fit one sensor, then fit the other m10x1 into the other port

could be very wrong, but...….

when I was doing dual air gauges for jap truck compliance, there was an outfit in CHCH that was supplying Jap metric to BSP/NPT for the conversion,   Transpecs ???????? 

am away in boonies ATM, but try your local brakes company.. i'd be surprises if BNT don't have access to them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Asking for a work colleague (actually), does anyone know if the later 3.9 injected rover v8 will bolt in to a rover p6 with the 3.5? I understand the 3.9 is just a bored out 3.5 so should bolt in? Obviously a bit of fun and games making it work with all the extra bits and bobs

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Beaver said:

Asking for a work colleague (actually), does anyone know if the later 3.9 injected rover v8 will bolt in to a rover p6 with the 3.5? I understand the 3.9 is just a bored out 3.5 so should bolt in? Obviously a bit of fun and games making it work with all the extra bits and bobs

@The Dude or @rich1179 may know

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Beaver said:

Asking for a work colleague (actually), does anyone know if the later 3.9 injected rover v8 will bolt in to a rover p6 with the 3.5? I understand the 3.9 is just a bored out 3.5 so should bolt in? Obviously a bit of fun and games making it work with all the extra bits and bobs

@UTERUS  might know better but as I understand it, it's basically the same engine right through the ages.  Should not be an issue. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brake theory query.

One of those "pop into head" ideas. Current discs are ~200mm diameter (hilarious). Looking at potential ~270mm rotors for an upgrade (ignoring caliper upgrade for this theory). Will the braking performance be improved purely by way of the brakes now clamping the rotor further from the center of the hub? The upgraded calipers are sized to match factory booster and that sort of thing. Lots of articles basically say that bigger brakes don't necessarily offer better braking performance. Except for the reduced fade with constant braking down a hill etc. I'm just thinking that if you're clamping the disc further out, it will brake easier, as in will be able to slow it quicker as it's applying more force by way of clamping location. But I have literally no idea beyond that theory. So engineers / mechanics, school me up on the forces involved, and whether or not i'm barking up the wrong tree with this idea.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bling said:

Brake theory query.

One of those "pop into head" ideas. Current discs are ~200mm diameter (hilarious). Looking at potential ~270mm rotors for an upgrade (ignoring caliper upgrade for this theory). Will the braking performance be improved purely by way of the brakes now clamping the rotor further from the center of the hub? The upgraded calipers are sized to match factory booster and that sort of thing. Lots of articles basically say that bigger brakes don't necessarily offer better braking performance. Except for the reduced fade with constant braking down a hill etc. I'm just thinking that if you're clamping the disc further out, it will brake easier, as in will be able to slow it quicker as it's applying more force by way of clamping location. But I have literally no idea beyond that theory. So engineers / mechanics, school me up on the forces involved, and whether or not i'm barking up the wrong tree with this idea.

 

Would make sense as your essentially using a bigger lever by placing the caliper further from the center of the disc.. 

 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So if it's acting in that way, how does it improve the braking? Purely from the leverage point of view, does it mean it will in fact stop quicker now, as the force provided by the pads on the rotor has increased, due to the leverage. I mean I get that it's not having to work as hard to get the same braking performance. So does that mean that with the same force applied by the brakes, they will pull up faster? This all may seem dumb, but i'm just trying to get my head around the whole situation.

Obviously if i'm spending money on bigger brakes, I want it to be a worthwhile upgrade. So i'm figuring, less brake fade, and more force applied to the rotors via greater leverage = decreased stopping distance. Yeah / nah? End result will be four piston vs single piston, and fast street pads, on much larger, now vented rotors. I'm just looking at the theory behind it, to see what improvements purely just increased rotor size provide. Just an interesting topic I thought, that i'd like to comprehend rather than just throwing money at things and not fully understanding how each part affects performance. Tyres will be up to the task, so interest is purely from the brake side of things.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah valid point on the locking up. Looking at rotors between 262mm and 276mm. Correct on the brake fade. I get it currently on current car, but that could be partly fixed if I replaced the whole lot with new OE parts. It doesn't get driven hard, so not going to splash out to find out. The above rotor sizes are aimed at 14" and 15" wheels. I won't be putting 14" wheels on the car, so would be looking at the 276mm rotors. Weight is a good point, I will try find docs online for rotor weights. Query was more about the theory of bigger rotors alone making a difference to the braking performance. Most articles online don't even mention the extra 'leverage' provided by larger rotors. They just say, nah won't actually decrease braking distance. Generalised. Keen to know if that is correct or they are just lazy.

edit: 276 vs 262 = 700g difference, approx.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So would that mean that for a car to come to a stop, it requires X force, acting on Y distance of rotor? So the larger the rotor, the less rotations required to stop the vehicle, thus shorter stopping distance. All other factors remaining constant. That does make sense, but I hadn't thought about it in that way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...