ISFpowered

Speaking strictly on the ISF I’ve had both Racing brakes and girodisc two piece rotors as well. I’d take the girodisc over the RB two piece rotors. The RB two piece rotors are 5mm smaller in overall diameter making the front brake pad over hang the rotor and a decent amount of material that doesn’t even contact the rotor and starts breaking off as you use the brakes. I was unaware until I started to notice chunks of brake pads on the inside and noticed the outer edge of the pad wasn’t even touching the rotor. Our stock size rotor is 360mm while the RB is 355mm. The girodisc rotors are a true 360mm and don’t have that issue which is why I went with those and sold the RB rotors. Girodisc is also lighter and do retain the parking brake function so no worries there.

Jwconeil

Figs / Lance - had this been changed or updated on the RB rotors?

lobuxracer

iTrader: (2)

I'm not having this issue with RB rotors and HC+800 pads. There's a definite lip on the rotor's outer edge.

steeven001

I don't have 2 piece rotors but have been looking at getting front ones.

RB Rotors directly from the RB site say they are 355x30 (the picture they have is generic so ignore that)
https://racingbrake.com/2164

RB rotors from Figs site don't say the size or RB part number but the ring replacement says 360x32 which has a RB part number that comes up on the RB site as the same size.
https://www.shopfigs.com/v3/FR_RING_2PRB_ISF

RR Racing Girodisc 2 piece rotors say 360x30 on their site
https://www.rr-racing.com/IS-F-Compe...isffbk0001.htm

Jwconeil

I emailed Figs for clarification. I’m sure they will chime in.

FIGS

iTrader: (11)

We have had several rings we have used with varying thickness and OD. The current rings are 355 to get a full pad wipe vs the OE which has the outer 2.5mm of a lip that forms after wear. Since our rotors use the open slot depth as the wear indicator, the outer lip that forms a rust ring was not attractive.

No performance difference between the 360 and 355, the 355 is just more common and easier to keep in stock since it shares the same size as a Corvette application.

We have not seen pad overhang as you mention ISFPOWERED, depending on the pad manufacturer they might try and add extra friction material to take advantage of the lip area, but not the pads that RB makes or the Gloc pads that we test with.

Thanks, Mike

Rossi

iTrader: (5)

I believe my front ones are 360x32, some lip but all great.

Wouldn’t going with 32mm thickness replacement ring be more cost effective as there is 50% more life in those.
(minimum thickness being 28mm)

FIGS

iTrader: (11)

the 30 vs 32 does not change the life as the outer rotor face thickness does not change, it just narrows the ventilation channel. Since the rotors are more effective at dissipating heat and the ventilation is more efficient the narrow rotors favor lighter weight, which I probably need to update specs on the site to. In the days when supply was more abundant, we could still offer a 32mm variant for full track duty, but I have not checked recently if we can do that anymore. The supply chain has been stressed and RB had to eliminate, or not restock, sizes that were not popular or not moving in sufficient volume. We are subject to what we can get and these are not near as popular as other models they sell.

Jwconeil

Lighter is better, especially if that weight is shed in the ring.

FIGS

iTrader: (11)

It's a balance of total weight and thermal capacity. Even aftermarket OE replacement rotors are sometimes lighter because they take the weight out of the face thickness on the rotor. That will reduce its total thermal capacity which can break down its integrity when expanded and heat-cycled. Lighter can also mean a less dense alloy in general, so again, lighter is not always better, it will depend on the environment it's operating in and the thermodynamics of the system.

Mike

lobuxracer

iTrader: (2)

Maybe we should revisit plasma sprayed aluminum discs if light weight is the goal. Might be a lot cheaper than carbon..or maybe a real throwback, and use beryllium. Oh, wait, Be is fatally toxic and why it was banned from racing a long time ago.

Seriously, if you're that worried about weight, buy carbon rotors. Very few people actually run these for any length of time because they're so expensive for a consumable, but they're stupid light for sure.

Jwconeil

I meant assuming performance is equal. I was shorted winded above.

Im pretty serious about weight, and see lots of benefits to going lighter. What I mean is... If the current model is lighter, listing that is imperative because some people choose Girodisc over RB because of the weight. Looking at the specs online, the weights are actually pretty close, with a slight edge to Giro. Might as well take advantage and market the lighter rings.

Carbon rotors are just flat out expensive. Too much so for me. I’d sooner pull the doors off and start going to jeep meets.

FIGS

iTrader: (11)

I have updated our listing and offering back to a 360x32mm ring, so there is no doubt on the fitment and the increased thermal capacity. Also updated the weight, which I think you will find is more competitive. I think I might have updated the listing at some point with the 380mm rotor version by mistake.
Thanks, Mike

Jwconeil

Are the rear weights still accurate? Not much of a weight difference between these and Giro now. Thanks for the data.

FIGS

iTrader: (11)

yes, those have not changed and still consistent with the MOTO IQ article linked in our listing.
Mike