Talking to MSP1 the other day about 60-0 braking times, we both use to have classics and we have now bot got UK STi's, no mods. Now allhte mags put the 60-0 for the STi at about 3.1 secs. For the classic they quote about 2.8 secs. Now this don't make sense to us as I thought the brakes on my classic were ok, MSP1 thought they were crap. One thing we do agree about is that the STi feels great under braking and rolls off any speed rapidly, as we would all expect with 4 pot calipers up front.

So how on earth does a classic have a better 60-0 braking time that a UK STi? Any seemingly believable answers accepted.

Leigh

 

http://mysite.verizon.net/romano.michael/#_Difference_between_Feel

From here:

http://mysite.verizon.net/romano.michael/

 

Absolute braking times for a test are very different to real-world braking though. It usually comes down to which has the best tyres and which is lighter, because even relatively poor brakes should be good enough to lock the wheels meaning the grip/weight ratio is the key factor.

Other things like feel, heat resistance, cold performance etc will have a big effect in the real world and won't show in 60-0 times unless they're specifically tested for this by e.g. doing 10 runs.

 

There's only 10% difference in those times, which is small enough to be down to different tests at different times.

As Paul says, tyres, tarmac, heat etc will all play a significant role. And suspension.

Although the Classic brakes are known to be poo for track use, they are perfectly capable of locking up for one emergency stop and the Classic weighs 16% less. The stop is effectively grip and ABS limited.

I've done 100-0 in 3.2 (1.4g ) with 6-pot AP kit

Richard.

 

Thanks fellas, I am now slightly wiser, I think!

 

hoppy
3.2!!

was that on slicks?

are the big brakes really that much better?