Kurtz

iTrader: (1)

Uh, free fall has nothing to do with mass.

Galileo and others discussed that that almost 500 years ago.

http://www.juliantrubin.com/bigten/g...ingbodies.html

mass times acceleration describes force, not velocity.

The sprawl vs head dive thing has to do with air resistance, perform it in a vacuum and the shape of the falling thing is irrelevant.

I think you might need to brush up on your physics a bit.


Right.

Your distance never gets SHORTER from a brake upgrade, is simply stays the same under more abuse.

A brake upgrade can not make your stopping distance SHORTER, it can just keep it the same distance under track use. On the street it doesn't even do that because your brakes won't be fading under normal street use.

Nope, upgraded brakes never reduce braking distance over the OEM properly operating ones. Once you can lock the wheels or engage ABS, any additional braking force is wasted force.


They can maintain the same distance under abuse though. Which again, is only useful on the track, or during the chases scene from a Bourne movie.

If you want to actually reduce stopping distance you need better tires, because the tires are what actually stop the car.

ALLCHILL

Who said anything about velocity? The net force of free fall is massxacceleration. I used this example because this only applies in a vacuum situation. Just like applying only one equation for brake distance. Given the variables of the real world, wind resistance on the falling object must be factored. In our discussion, the type of brake system, pavement conditions, etc etc must also be factored (all scenarios). do you really only want to use your aforementioned brake distance formula? This is why engineers track test the final product. To see how it will react given the real world elements. ever wonder why road and track provides the temperature, humidity, elevation conditions and so on for their performance figures?


So upgrading from drum brakes to disk brakes with abs can not make your stopping distance shorter? for one example, check this article out that compares drum brakes and disk brakes (http://www.edmunds.com/car-technolog...m-vs-disc.html). you might learn something. notice the first paragraph:

"What began in the '60s as a serious attempt to provide adequate braking for performance cars has ended in an industry where brakes range from supremely adequate to downright phenomenal. The introduction of components like carbon fiber, sintered metal and lightweight steel, along with the adoption of ABS, have all contributed to reduced stopping distances and generally safer vehicles (though ABS continues to provide controversy)."

So what would you say to someone that wants to improve acceleration of their car? "forget engine mods because its the tires that actually move the car"? I'd like to see you email Ferrari and tell them that you dig the Pirelli P Zeros but should scrap the vented/drilled/carbon ceramic 6 piston brakes cuz that doesn't matter. Cc me.

ISF4life

iTrader: (30)

This thread getting more and more interesting lolz

Kurtz

iTrader: (1)

I realize you're trying to cover up the fact you misunderstood the free fall math... but you're only making it worse now.

Here is exactly what you said:

The formula you gave was massxgravity.

Which isn't actually anything I'm aware of. I corrected you by explaining the formula for force (which has nothing to do with "free falling" specifically, it's force in any situation) is mass x acceleration (which may or may not be equal to the force of acceleration due to gravity at any given time).

Then you mentioned sprawl vs. head dive requires a different equation yet it doesn't, AT ALL, require a different equation. Force is STILL exactly equal to mass times acceleration.

Vacuum or not impacts your velocity, but changing the number to insert into the formula doesn't change the formula.



Actually, no...

The brake system has no relevance to the stopping distance formula so long as it's capable of locking the wheel (or engaging ABS if doing an ABS test).

The pavement condition IS already part of the formula though... because it changes the Coefficient of friction between the tire and the road. So THAT matters. Putting bigger brakes on does not matter because the tire is incapable of using any extra force the bigger brakes can offer.



Not if the drum brakes already provide more force than the tires are capable of using, no they won't.

And if you'd bother to read the rest of it maybe you would learn something...

It explains why the 60s era drum technology wasn't great:


In other words- for one normal stop they stopped just fine

It was under abuse they began to fade.

Switching to disc brakes meant more resistance to fade, but they did not stop the car any shorter the first time.

They just maintained the same stopping distance for the 10th rapid high speed stop that you had on the first.

And it took abuse on the race track to really notice this.

Just exactly the same reason a brake upgrade on a 2IS is a total waste of money today. It won't do anything to shorten braking distance... it will only help with brake fade... which you won't see in normal driving in the first place.

Also of note- those 60s cars were on crappy bias-ply tires too... modern radial tires could hold a lot more force once those came around, so the 60s era systems that could provide all the single-stop force 60s era tires needed suddenly couldn't lock the wheels even once with a modern compound tire... while modern disc brakes easily can do so, hence upgrading those further remains useless for stopping any shorter.


No I wouldn't, because your example makes no sense.

More brakes doesn't help because the tire isn't capable of using any more force to stop.

More engine DOES help because the tire is capable of using more force for acceleration.

Once you had enough hp that you always just sat and spun the tires then yeah at THAT point you can say more engine mods are useless because the tires can't use it. Time for AWD or better tires. But OEM brake systems are ALREADY at that point for stopping power.

Your total lack of understanding of the basic physics involved might explain the confusion, but I'd again encourage you to read Pulp Friction which explains all the science and math behind why you're wrong in great detail:

http://www.scirocco.org/faq/brakes/p...n/pfpage1.html

They already know that, since they understand engineering.

They also understand marketing though and know that most exotic car buyers want something that looks cool to sit in their garage and so the weaker discs of a drilled setup are ok with them rather than simply slotted that would stand up better to real track use.

Know who else understands this?

Brembo:
http://www.brembo.com/ENG/HighPerformance-Brakes/FAQs/
Sound familiar?

Or how about stoptech?
http://www.stoptech.com/tech_info/wp...lections.shtml

Sound familiar?

Or how about the National Law Enforcement Testing Center that does brake tests for police equipment?
http://www.justnet.org/Lists/JUSTNET...kePads2000.pdf

Here they explain why they don't bother offering test results between different brake pads and systems for a single normal panic stop-

Sound familiar?

It's almost like they all know the same thing I do...

So long as the OEM brakes are capable of locking the wheels or engaging ABS (and virtually any production car made in at least the last few decades this is true for) then upgrading your brakes won't reduce your stopping distance.

Because the brakes don't stop the car. The tires do.

GSteg

iTrader: (15)

You're getting there, but you need to look closer as to why they're testing it in the conditions they are to see why the tires are much more important. Of course the braking distance formula is only theoretical, but it leaves out the brakes system for a good reason. Look at every wet/dry/snow tests you could get your hands on. The same car will have different braking distances even though nothing has changed, except the road conditions. The friction between the tire and the road changes and that ultimately affects your distance. When you change from all season to snow tires, you've effectively changed the coefficient of friction. Engineers test in various conditions because they cannot predict the exact braking distance with the theoretical formula. All these conditions have big effects between the tires and the road, not the brake pads and the rotors.

If you stop your car at 150mph multiple times, chances are your stock brakes may be cooking itself and your stopping distance WILL increase, but that is because your friction coefficient decreased. In most cars, the tires will be the limiting factor, not the braking system. Remove ABS and slam on the brake pedal. If you can lock up the tires (you probably will), then your friction between the pad and rotor exceeds the friction between the tire and the road. Adding bigger brakes isn't going to help.

Acceleration all has to do with friction. You will only be quicker if you can transfer the power to the ground. If you got yourself a stock Kia Rio and you can launch the car without wheel spin, adding stickier tires isn't going to make the car quicker. If you have mods on the car and the power is more than the tires can handle, then stickier tires will help. Remember, the maximum possible acceleration of a car is only dependent on the friction.

kene

iTrader: (2)

im sorry kurts, but what if the stock brake system is not taking full advantage of brakes unless locking them up... then what? I'm sorry but tires do play a big role, but trust and beluieve that bigger rotors make a difference on a NON TRACKED vehicle. And do you know how I know?....I've gone with paseo rotors onf a toyota tercel. and the difference was easily seen. And I bet it was more obvious due to the fact that toyota went with the bare essentials of a brake system that is still legally DOT safe.


So you mean to tell me that if your rotors were 5 inches in diameter and you ran Bridgestone S03 tire's it would stop as good as your stock gs setup?!


Sorry to break it to ya, but your nuts if you think that.

There are way m,ore factors in braking than just tires.....I bet that the equation you speak of kurtz is making a generalization hence excluding the brake rotor size, effective brake pad area, and clamping force of the calipers. If that was the case then BBK's being sold to the average consumer would be a complete waste of time...


I know there have been posts in the past on this board that stated the great results of going with a bigger rotor, over their stock sized ones.(and this is without changing the tires or any other element in the braking equation.)


try riding a bicycle with 1 foot diameter wheels down a hill and hit the brakes.
Do the same on a mountain bike (2.5'-3' diameter wheels) and come back and tell me there is no difference.

Kurtz

iTrader: (1)

Uh...what?

If you're not locking the wheels up (or engaging ABS) when trying to stop in the shortest distance then you should press the brake pedal harder. Certainly any 2IS, and pretty much any production car I've seen in the last several decades, can easily engage ABS or lock the wheels with the stock brakes.



Unless the stock ones are so undersized they can't properly lock the wheels/engage ABS to start with you're wrong. I've already provided half a dozen sources to prove that.

Well, they haven't made Tercells in over a decade now... but if you were unable to lock the wheels at all with the OEM brakes then of course you'd get an improvement from larger brakes. But again, that's not the case for the 2IS, or any car Lexus ever made (or any car made in the last couple decades I've ever driven).

Because if you CAN lock the wheels or engage ABS then larger brakes won't stop you any shorter.


Uh... again... what?

Your brakes need to be powerful enough to be able to engage ABS (or lock the wheels if the car lacks ABS). That's it.

Less power is insufficient.

More is 100% useless.

And since the 2IS (and all Lexus cars, and pretty much any modern car at all) has OEM brakes strong enough to engage ABS, bigger brakes don't help to stop you any shorter.


Once the wheels are locked, no, there really aren't.

tire to road friction is the only variable that matters in that case.


They are a complete waste of time for such people.

Brembo and Stoptech, two of the largest makers of BBKs, say exactly that on their web pages.

I even quoted them saying so in a previous post.

They are honest enough to be quite clear their BBKs will not reduce stopping distance in normal use.

Because they don't.


There are also plenty of posts on the internet describing encounters with bigfoot and UFOs too. Or to keep it to car forums, people who insist their short ram intake added 30 hp to their 2IS and make it obviously much faster.

But just like the folks who insist a BBK reduced their stopping distance, there's no evidence to support the claim.

On the other hand, there's the entire body of scientific knowledge that explicitly proves they're wrong.


Think about it- If BBKs did reduce stopping distance, wouldn't the biggest makers of the things be screaming that fact from the mountain tops?

Instead they explicitly say they do NOT do that, since they, unlike you, understand how brakes actually work.

GSteg

iTrader: (15)

What you're thinking of is repeated stops, not the actual stopping distance. Yes after the 10th stop, you might gain distance, but the first or second time, you can stop the same distance providing you can clamp the brakes hard enough to lock it up (and then modulate it).

Most people are not on the same page when talking about brakes. If you want to talk about the benefits of having higher capacity gained with larger rotors (which won't be realized on the streets), then that's a whole separate issue. What we're talking about here is the shortest possible stopping distance.

You will run into fading issue if your brakes are too small, then your friction coefficient will decrease to the point that it'll be less than the tires. That's when you have problems, but what 3500lb car do you have nowadays that come with 5" rotors?

kene

iTrader: (2)

the circumference of a wheel = the distance the wheel travels in one rotation.

the circumference of a circle(I.E. rotor) = 2 x pi x Radius

if the stock GS300 rotor is 11.64in. in diameter(5.32in. radius) and the IS-F BBK GS300 upgrade is 14.2in(7.1in. radius)
Then


1 rotation of GS300 stock rotor travels 11.64 x pi inches distance(36.56 inches).
1 rotation of the IS-F BBK rotor travels 14.2 x pi inches distance(44.61 inches).


the IS-F rotor travels a further distance with on revolution, so lets say the IS-F BBK is spinning at 2.25 rev/sec which translates to a distance covered of 100 inches in 1 second by the IS-F BBK.

for the stock rotor to cover the same 100 inches in 1 second it must be moving at a faster rotational speed of 2.74 rev/sec


So even though connected to the same axle to cover the same 100 inches in 1 second the comparison is as follows:

stock rotor speed__vs_______IS-F BBK speed
2.74 rev/sec______vs_______2.25 rev/sec


So with the same exact clamping force and brake pad area coverage the IS-F BBK will stop the rotor at a better de-acceleration rate than the stock rotor because it is rotating at a slower angular velocity(in the example I stayed away from radians/sec for the sake of confusion)
And this is with the same tire on both rotors with the same co-efficients of friction.


And to those waiting to say that this difference is "Oh so miniscule" just remember this is over the distance of 100 inches(8.3 ft). In the real world at 60mph whilst braking the distance traveled is much more.


And this is with my limited knowledge of the braking system (lowbuxracer).

And to others who are on the disbelief side... please disprove this mathematically.


EDIT Added:
That's a difference of 17.8% increase over stock @ 100 inches of travel. Now remember, over longer distances this benefit becomes more and more apparent.

70-0 mph braking in the GS300 2nd gen is 120.2ft
(https://www.clublexus.com/forums/gs-...g-numbers.html)

Lets say our GS300 travels the 120.2ft braking span in 1 second. So at 120.2ft braking span the IS-F BBK rotor will rotate:

(120.2 ft)*(12 inches) = 1442.4 inches

[IS-F BBK rotor = 44.61 inches covered with one rotation]

(1442.4 inches)/(44.61 inches) = 32.33 revolutions of the IS-F BBK rotor in the 1 second it takes for the 120.2ft braking distance
_________________________________________________________

The stock GS300 rotor setup in a 120.2ft braking span will rotate:

(120.2 ft)*(12 inches) = 1442.4 inches

[Stock GS300 rotor = 36.56 inches covered with one rotation]

(1442.4 inches)/(36.56 inches) = 39.45 revolutions of the stock GS300 rotor in the 1 second it takes for the 120.2ft braking distance

EDIT Added:
I just got off the phone with one of WYOTECH's braking instructor's and he said that better braking is achieved with BBK's. He also mentioned that the manufacturer original equipment braking system just fine at braking todays vehicles. And that he would only go BBK if you have modified the vehicle(I interpret he was saying if you fix your car up, and like to drive fast/aggressive).

WYOTECH
2161 Technology Place
Long Beach, CA 90810-3800
(562) 624-9530,



I tried calling Brembo North America but they are on a holiday until Jan 4,2011. Their new location went from Fountain Valley,CA off the 405 to Michigan. I'll check it out tomorrow.

I called Stoptech(out of Compton, CA), but their specialist/ engineer(that's what they called it) was not in, so the guy left him a message and I hope to hear from him soon.





Edit Added:

Yes stock tercel brakes can be locked up.

Kurtz

iTrader: (1)

I have no idea why you think 99% of what you just posted has anything to do with braking distance.

Once the wheels are locked the rotors are irrelevant to stopping the car.

That's the part you continue to totally fail to grasp.

You also don't seem to understand the rotor isn't just freely rotating... it's bolted to the wheel. The braking systems job isn't to "stop the rotor" it's to stop the wheel with the tire wrapped around it. Which hasn't changed diameter by changing your rotor.

The only thing that is causing the car to slow down is the friction of the tire (wrapped around that wheel) against the road. That's the ONLY thing.

If the brake is already applying more force than the tire is capable of using then more force is wasted force.

The torque generated at the pad/rotor interface is transferred through the whole assembly: rotor, hub, wheel and tire.

It is the interface between the tire and the road that reacts to this torque, generating a force between the tire and the road that will oppose the motion of the vehicle.

It is that force... between tire and road... that actually stops the car.

The maximum limit of that force is governed by the coefticient of friction between the tires and the road.

So, again, once the wheels are locked, added force does nothing to stop the car any shorter.

If your OEM brakes could lock your tercel wheels then bigger rotors wouldn't stop you any shorter. It would be physically impossible for them to do so.

If you want some math BTW, it's provided all throughout the Pulp Friction article I provided. The math on the rotors part of this is on page 4, and the summing of forces and braking distance is on page 4 and 5.

kene

iTrader: (2)

-I'm talking before brakes lock the wheels into a slide.
-Daily driving does not consist of locking the wheels.
-Yes the rotor is connected to the wheel, but what I am saying is that with a larger rotor the braking system is more effective.

-yes the friction of the tire is what stops the car, but you fail to realize....

You know what... lets say this. you have 2 GS300's. Both cars have the perfect tire(Coefficient of friction = 1 between tire and road). These tires stick to the ground like nothing we currently have in this world, and they will not skid.(So we don't have to worry about your tire argument because this one is perfect in every way)

The Gs300 on the left has stock brake rotors,

The Gs300 on the right has IS-F BBK 14.2" rotors.



Which one will stop earlier given the same brake caliper force is applied?
Are you saying they are going to stop the same distance, because larger rotors do not make a difference when compared to smaller rotors?

Remember we cannot cause tire skidding from locking up the brakes.

I will agree with you that tires are important in braking too, but as I said before they are not he only thing that has an effect on braking....


Better Yet you know what This will fix everything...









Kene's Valid Point
From start of the brake pedal being pushed, up until the brake point of force needed to cause the tires to lock up, BBK's will make a difference.

Kurtz Valid Point
Once the tires lock up, then BBK's cannot do anything for you because your tires have already broke free of the friction between them and the road. Hence why the tires are the important factor





Does this seem valid to you?
(If not then I agree to disagree, and I respect your views.)

Kurtz

iTrader: (1)

Then what you're discussing is irrelevant.

Before that point you can just press the brake pedal harder to stop in a shorter distance.

It'd be insane to buy a BBK so that you don't have to press the brake harder.

It does in a situation where you want to stop in the shortest distance possible, which is, ya know, what everyone except apparently you is discussing.

Except that once the wheel is locked any "more effective" doesn't help.

Such tires don't exist, so I'm not sure why you think they make a good example.


I'm saying that once the wheels are locked larger rotors don't do anything for you, and that the STOCK rotors can already lock the wheels. Hence larger rotors don't help.

That's over here in the real world where BOTH sets of brakes WILL lock the wheels up.

For your car in fantasy land as long as the tires have SO MUCH frictional ability they can not be locked up then infinitely larger brakes will work better.

But again- nothing like that exists so it's a really dumb example.

Except that yes, they are the only thing once they're locked up. Which is what happens with real tires in the real world.

The ONLY force acting against the motion of the car is the force of the tire against the road. Once the brakes have overwhelmed the tires friction (which even the stock ones do) then bigger brakes don't help.

I'm not sure how many times you're gonna fail to get that basic point.


They won't actually. Look up the math to calculate braking force. This is why no statistically significant difference in braking distance is recorded in testing of BBKs and why Brembo doesn't even bother to report this data. And why the national LE testing center doesn't either.


Actually, tires are the ONLY factor on the car. (the quality of the road surface matters too, but you can't mount that on your car)

Now go drive your car on a closed course someplace.

Get up to normal highway speed, say 60 mph.

Now slam your brake pedal to the floor.

ABS engages before you can even perceive it happening. ABS sensors measure in miliseconds. Your wheels are effectively "locked" for this example and a BBK will do you no good whatsoever.



BTW, call the dude at WYOTECH back... ask him to define "better braking"

specifically, ask him if it will shorten your stopping distance in normal street driving.

I suspect he'll either say no, or offer some non-specific answer like "Well, better braking is about more than just stopping distance"

A BBK can offer "better" braking on the track by offering greater fade resistance... an improvement which is irrelevant to a street driven car, and which doesn't shorten your initial stopping distance, it just maintains it longer. It can also make brakes "feel" better, though again without stopping you any shorter.

(but if he says yes, ask him why Brembo, Stoptech, and basic physics all said the exact opposite... but honestly I just looked up WYOTECH... it appears to be a school to teach you engine repair, welding, plumbing, HVAC repair, etc... I'm not sure I'd rely too heavily on their technical opinion of brake engineering versus, say, all the actual brake engineers I've already quoted as agreeing with me)

GSteg

iTrader: (15)

Once the friction of the tire to the ground exceeds the friction from the braking system, then the braking system will then by the weak link. From an every day standpoint, this will never be the case, especially within city limits. This is why tires are more beneficial because most likely no one is going to run slick tires, just run of the mill Falken and Nangkank stuff. You've proven that tires are more important by suggesting the coefficient of friction to be 1. This assumes a no-slip condition, but we all know this is far from the case in the real world.

kene

iTrader: (2)

To start off here is WYOTECH's website
http://www.wyotech.edu/
last I remember they were listed in the top 10 in the nation as far automotive tech colleges. relatively close to UTI, or I can say used to be 5 years ago.




- you would buy a BBK for a better "leverage arm" to better assist in the slowing down of the rotor & wheel. What is a causal effect is that it requires less work to do the same stopping force of the rotor.


-as for stopping in the shortest distance possible, without ABS the last thing you want to do is lock up the wheels and go into a slide. That is why ABS was created to avoid these situations, and also spin-outs due to unmatched friction on the right vs left side of the road.(some systems have a "yaw" control) If you go into an uncontrollable slide, you are at the mercy of your tires coefficient of friction.(this is where your argument comes into play..BTW I have agreed with since the beginning that tires are important. My beef is that you stat BBK's do nothing as for aiding stopping distance) Not your BBK rotors or your level of skill. When I slam on the brake I always aim to get just shy of locking up. I would never want to lock into a slide. you have no control over your vehicle.

-Once again, yes its true once the wheel is locked, BBK's do nothing for you.


-Yes we know such tires don't exist, but the example was given to prove that "pound for pound" [neglecting the fact of a skidding tire], BBK's(when engineered properly) are a better stopping option(can stop in shorter distances.. yup i said it) over stock brakes and rotors.

-My beef is with this statement from you pretty much

"I'm saying that once the wheels are locked larger rotors don't do anything for you, and that the STOCK rotors can already lock the wheels. Hence larger rotors don't help."

Its the idea of leverage..BBK's offer a better point of leverage vs the stock rotor size because they are stopping from a farther distance from the center of rotation. which means less clamp force is needed to stop them. which also means that the same lets say 100lbs clamp force at the tip of a 10 inch rotor, can be seen as nearly double effective on a 20 inch rotor. So to make the 10 inch rotor stop as effective as the 20 inch rotor in the scenario, you need 200lbs of clamping force(granted there are other factors as well) on it. This has nothing to do with the tires.

And not only that but if the reaction times under both 10" and 20" rotors are the same then theoretically you will hit that tire lock up point faster on the 20" vs the 10".


-Again, Yes when continuously locked up the tires are the only important factor aside from road conditions.

-My wheels are not "locked" when ABS kicks in. If that was so the tires would slide everytime ABS came on. ABS operates to avoid the locking of the wheels as best as possbile through pulses. pulse on - pulse off ...etc


-On this stop tech link(pg 4 of 8)
http://www.stoptech.com/tech_info/Th...%20Systems.pdf

While the rotor serves as the primary heat sink in the braking system, it is the functional
responsibility of the rotor to generate a retarding torque as a function of the brake pad
frictional force. This torque is related to the brake pad frictional force as follows:

Tr = Frict. Brake pad * Reff

where Tr = the torque generated by the rotor
where Reff = the effective radius (effective moment arm) of the rotor (measured
from the rotor center of rotation to the center of pressure of the caliper pistons)


Because the rotor is mechanically coupled to the hub and wheel assembly, and because
the tire is assumed to be rigidly attached to the wheel, the torque will be constant
throughout the entire rotating assembly as follows:

Tr = Tt = Tw
• where Tt = the torque found in the tire
• where Tw = the torque found in the wheel

Note that this relationship assumes 100% mechanical efficiency of all components at the
wheel end. In practical application, mechanical deflection and relative motion(slight twisting, or bending of parts under force) between the rotating components prevents this condition.


And BTW...seriously, not to be an ****, but the torque of the rotor is factored into the equation of the frictional force of the tire. It is within tire torque(Tt). That is torque of the rotor = torque of the wheel = torque of tire[Tt]....See below:

Frict. tire = Tt/Rt

• where Ftire = the force reacted between the tire and the ground (assuming friction
exists to support the force)
• where Rt = the effective rolling radius (moment arm) of the loaded tire









Here are also some videos I found.


Wilwood 16" Big Brake Kit! Stop-Test (before/after) RESULTS!
2002 tahoe(5,500lb -4door) + 2,000lbs additional weight(claimed by owner)
He was traveling at 53 mph vs 50 mph on his speedo cause of rims.
lol x 2.. I already know you are going to say that he did not show the spedometer in BBK portion so all we have is the visual comparioson between the 2(2:01 min and 4:00 min marks) you all be the judge.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRdvfxK_3Gk






2009 BMW M3 with ABS
Stock vs BBK
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H065PmU3Kss

kene

iTrader: (2)

I will state this again that tires do play an important role, but a proper BBK setup does makes a difference in stopping. (I the ABS off on my gs300, even if i did have it enabled, I still believe there would still be a difference.)

All my beliefs stem from the fact that a BBK does nothing for braking and is only marketing hype.