[QUOTE=commasense]
Agreed that NASCAR is stuck in a time warp as far as engine technology is concerned, but if anyone needed water cooled brakes, and could afford (in terms of weight) to add it, it would be 3,000-pound stock cars, not 1,500-pound open-wheel cars like F1 and Indy Cars.
[/QUOTE]
I’m not so sure about that. AFAIK, 90% of NASCAR events are on ovals, which don’t require the same sort of braking that conventional racing (read: F1 and other non-oval formulas) tracks do. Cornering speeds are higher because ovals are heavily banked.
A stock car might brake from 210 to 150mph; an F1 car has to brake from 200 to 50mph.
[QUOTE=Really Not All That Bright]
I’m not so sure about that. AFAIK, 90% of NASCAR events are on ovals, which don’t require the same sort of braking that conventional racing (read: F1 and other non-oval formulas) tracks do. Cornering speeds are higher because ovals are heavily banked.
A stock car might brake from 210 to 150mph; an F1 car has to brake from 200 to 50mph.
[/QUOTE]
Again, I agree that NASCAR cars usually don’t need as much braking as those other types of car. My point was that weight is at such a premium in the lighter cars that the engineers would never consider carrying around a bucket of water and the associated hardware needed to spray it on the rotors.
Stock cars, production car racers, and other heavier types might have attempted it, if it provided a competitive edge. The fact that none of them have (except the racing semis) pretty much proves, IMHO, that the notion of water-cooled brakes is a non-starter.
[QUOTE=commasense]
Stock cars, production car racers, and other heavier types might have attempted it, if it provided a competitive edge. The fact that none of them have (except the racing semis) pretty much proves, IMHO, that the notion of water-cooled brakes is a non-starter.
[/QUOTE]
It might have been preemptively (or almost immediately) banned. Happens a lot in F1.
[QUOTE=commasense]
Again, I agree that NASCAR cars usually don’t need as much braking as those other types of car. My point was that weight is at such a premium in the lighter cars that the engineers would never consider carrying around a bucket of water and the associated hardware needed to spray it on the rotors.
Stock cars, production car racers, and other heavier types might have attempted it, if it provided a competitive edge. The fact that none of them have (except the racing semis) pretty much proves, IMHO, that the notion of water-cooled brakes is a non-starter.
[/QUOTE]
As I said before, I saw it in drag racing. It makes sense to spend $5 on a used windshield washer pump/reservoir and add enough fluid to it for each pass. It’s a very cost effective mod. The alternative is hardened cross drilled disks with ceramic pads. Why throw money at a heat problem when you can throw water at it.
[QUOTE=Magiver]
As I said before, I saw it in drag racing. It makes sense to spend $5 on a used windshield washer pump/reservoir and add enough fluid to it for each pass. It’s a very cost effective mod. The alternative is hardened cross drilled disks with ceramic pads. Why throw money at a heat problem when you can throw water at it.
[/QUOTE]
Well, I admit I know almost nothing about drag racing, and I think we’ve hijacked this thread long enough.
[QUOTE=Rick]
The cheap one are listed as being organic, which I believe to be code for contains asbestos. If so I would not use those on any car I work on. Your lungs may vary.
[/QUOTE]
IIRC, asbestos was banned as a component around 1990. Organics now typically refer to kevlar. I’ll agree with the advice not to use them simply because of the very short life (25k miles) compared to metallic or ceramic.