have to replace by front rotors. any comments on getting the cheaper ones from autozone/napa or paying the higher price for the bendix/raybestos or napa to of the line ones. which are the ones you most use. also any comments on front pads as far as the ones you like and have the best stopping power with. thanks
1999 grand caravan brake rotors
- Thread starter Robert
- Start date
I have tried both the cheaper rotors and the expensive ones. I've been told the more expensive ones have more fins, are thicker etc., but even side by side I cannot see a difference. I went so far at one time to try a cheapie on one side and expensive on the other (back when I owned 2 identical vans both getting brakes the same day). Over the couse of service I watched them with no performance difference discernable. I've seen the biggest performance difference come due to pads. I tried the new raybestos quiet stop ceramic on one and the top line regular on the other. There the ceramcs held up a little better, the rotors didn't pit as much if at all, and it had a better "pedal". I recentnly tried NAPA's ceramic pads on one of my vans and am very pleased. They're not cheap but they do work very well and when my 99 T&C needs pads I'll switch to them. BTW when I do that I'll most likely buy the better rotors as they usually carry a lifetime warranty. The one pad I would not recommend is a Bendix pad carrieed by Advance Auto Parts. I've gotten noise and vibration complaints from them. Good Luck Larry "robert" wrote:
Never saw a problem with them at all. But then again I've never had the brake problems I see so many people complaining about here. Maybe I'm less abusive but....than again my wife drives one of the vans and I can't say that for her she's hard on stuff ;-) The biggest thing I've noted is making sure the hub to rotor surfaces and the hub to wheel surfaces are cleaned of rust/corrosion and to torque the wheels properly.
Larry
Larry
David Allen
Usenet Archive
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2000
- Messages
- 1,008
- Reaction score
- 0
I used the cheapie rotors from Autozone for a couple of years and they weren't as good as the raybestos, but even the raybestos rotors didn't hold up in our van. The cheapie rotors warped pretty quickly compared to Raybestos. One set actually cracked all the way through. The front left brakes are the most affected.
My view is that I have a hard time believing that, over all the years we've been driving, this is the van that exposed us as abusive drives wrt brakes. We do live where we have to make a lot of stops going down hill. My neighbors have the same van and have the same problem. In fact, we just got done replacing both hub/bearing assemblies that overheated and went bad (due to brakes).
I suppose if you drive slow and easy, don't have too many hills with stop lights, properly torque the wheels, keep the rear brakes adjusted properly that the brakes will last a reasonable amount of time. But I think think the brake design is inadequate for this van (grand caravan). The design should have built in tolerance for fairly heavy driving and hills and so forth.
"jdoe" wrote:
My view is that I have a hard time believing that, over all the years we've been driving, this is the van that exposed us as abusive drives wrt brakes. We do live where we have to make a lot of stops going down hill. My neighbors have the same van and have the same problem. In fact, we just got done replacing both hub/bearing assemblies that overheated and went bad (due to brakes).
I suppose if you drive slow and easy, don't have too many hills with stop lights, properly torque the wheels, keep the rear brakes adjusted properly that the brakes will last a reasonable amount of time. But I think think the brake design is inadequate for this van (grand caravan). The design should have built in tolerance for fairly heavy driving and hills and so forth.
"jdoe" wrote:
making
of
pulsating
side
quiet
it
Bendix
like
I"m not sure. I am VERY careful as a mechanic in how I do my work but, in all fairness I tend to drive quite hard. I drive quite fast (75 to 85) on freeways and have a fairly even mix of urban and suburban traffic plus I tow a boat. While I do drive hard and fast I always try to drive smoooooth. That may be why I don't have the issues. I don't jackrabbit my vehicles. Never did (unless I was in a drag race) ;-) but that was a different time with REAL cars not Toys with little fart box motors and chrome toilet tubes out the back. The music came from the pipes not the boom box in the trunk ( I digress).......................now there's kids and vans. Larry "David Allen" wrote:
hold
we've
brakes.
got
(due
less
been
identical
watched
and
and
cheaper
you
Bill Putney
Usenet Archive
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2002
- Messages
- 6,434
- Reaction score
- 0
David said:
Below is a repeat of part of a recent post of mine (in the "Advice on 1999 Jeep Cherokee vs. 2001 Jeep Cherokee" thread) that may be a general solution for vehicles with marginal (always warping) brakes, as many of them are these days:
For extra insurance against warping, especially on a problem vehicle, you can have a new set of rotors cryogenically treated - will cost $75 plus shipping for treatment of a pair of rotors (based on: $1.50/pound with min. job charge of $75 - a typical rotor would weigh in the neighborhood of 15 to 21 pounds - rears are almost certainly not the problem - only necessary to do the fronts). I recommend www.300below.com. I had new rotors (fronts only) done on my '99 Concorde (LH cars are also plaqued by rotor warping) several months ago, and the brakes are as smooth today as when I first put them on - and I just spent a week vacation in the mountains of West Virginia with several 3-mile 8 to 10% downhill grades braking suddenly from 55 mph to 15 mph for hairpin turns after periodic stabbing on the straightaways to control speed - I think I just proved (to myself anyway) that there is something to this cryo-treating. Side benefits: Rotor wear is decreased to 1/2 to 1/3 of non-treated rotors, pad wear decreased to 80% of normal; friction coefficient somewhere between unchanged to slight increase.
(FWIW, I have Hawk HPS pads - very popular with the 300M and Intrepid crowd. My cryo-treated rotors are NAPA=Dana=United Brake=Raybestos. The rotor style is PHP - drop-in replacement for non-PHP but with better venting/cooling.)
Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with "x")
Bill Putney
Usenet Archive
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2002
- Messages
- 6,434
- Reaction score
- 0
robert said:
NAPA top of the line = Raybestos (reboxed as their in-house United Brake brand) - recommended. I don't know if they make Hawk HPS pads for Caravans, but they are popular with LH car owners.
Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with "x")
Matthew S. Whiting
Usenet Archive
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2001
- Messages
- 967
- Reaction score
- 0
Bill said:
Interesting as I saw an article some time ago about some testing done on cryo treated gun barrels that were supposed to suddenly gain magic powers also. A well designed set of experiments showed basically no difference before and after treatment. Do you know of any real studies on cryo treated rotors beyond your anecdote? No offense, but a sample size of one is pretty much as insignificant as you can get statistically speaking...
Matt
Bill Putney
Usenet Archive
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2002
- Messages
- 6,434
- Reaction score
- 0
Matthew S. Whiting said:
I certainly understand your snotty attitude - err - I mean, your skepticism, Matt. 8^)
Seriously - yes - I realize that my experience is purely anecdotal - a sample of one. There are some downloadable videos on the 300below.com site on the alleged science and applications of cryotreating, including that of gun barrels for competition.
I can't remember if they name names or not as far as competition shooters, but they discuss that application as if it's common knowledge in the top echelons of competition shooting that cryo-treating works and improves scores in rapid-fire competition. Their explanation says that the very uniform grain structure resulting from the treatment and lack of residual internal stresses means close to zero distortion as the gun barrel heats up during rapid-fire competition and so a tight pattern is more closely maintained for a good shooter. If they give names and references, then that's where your answer lies - otherwise, I agree - it's suspect information.
They also claim that it is used to greatly increase strength and fatigue resistance of hi-stress automotive racing parts (connecting rods, blocks, pistons, drivetrain components, etc.), and, again, you're given the distinct impression that it is a known real advantage in some racing circles (quotes from a customer that they get something like 4 or 5 races out of a single engine before rebuild or self-destruction rather than the usual one or two races. Again, I don't recall if they name names or give verifiable references. I will say that the local speed shop thru which I ordered their service told me that, while they did not have racing customers who used treated rotors, they definitely have customers who swear by it for treating engine parts.
I do remember that they link a magazine article (some trade magazine, IIRC - hopefully not an internal "publication") about a company that is saving a bunch of money on replacing a certain type of welding tip in a production environment by having the tips cyro-treated - something like ten times the life of the untreated tip - I believe they do give the name of that customer.
To be honest, I do know of one other person on a 300M forum that had his rotors done, and his warped - **but** he had the rotors cross-drilled and slotted before the treatment (mine were treated right out of the box, no other mods), and a different company did the treatment, so I don't think it is an apples-to-apples comparison; plus his experience is no more nor no less anecdotal than my experience.
What magazine was the article you read in?
Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with "x")
Matthew S. Whiting
Usenet Archive
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2001
- Messages
- 967
- Reaction score
- 0
Bill said:
I can't remember and it has been some years ago that I read this, shortly after the cryo rage hit the shooting world. I suspect it was either Shooting Times or American Rifleman as they are the only two that I have received over a long period of time. I'm not able to find a reference though.
This article may give the best reason of all ... psychology. If you think something helps, then that helps in and of itself.
http://www.rifleshootermag.com/gunsmithing/RSgunsmith1/
Like people who claim that synthetic oil gives them a 20% increase in gas mileage (typically based on checking one tank of gas!), or that Splitfire spark plugs give them 10% more horsepower, etc. The mind is a powerful device...
Matt
Bill Putney
Usenet Archive
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2002
- Messages
- 6,434
- Reaction score
- 0
"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote:
Oh yes - the ol' placebo effect.
One of the "testimonials" on 300 Below's site says "Chief A.J.'s Super Chief 10/22 (21 1/2" barrel) - 1 1/2" group with 10 shots before cryogenic treatment, sub 1/2" group with 10 shots after cryogenic treatment. Gary Lupkey, Chief A.J.'s Tribal Workshop".
Unless they just made up the numbers (i.e., lied), it would be kind of hard to fake that.
BTW - I think the placebo effect is invoked *way* too much in this world (usually to protect someone's status when threatened by something new or better). MD's were telling me 20 years ago that by 10 years ago, I was going to be in a wheel chair and totally incapacitated due to a back problem. Thanks to an herbal treatment that I've been using for the last 15 years, I am not in a wheel chair and able to work as well as any other 52 year-old.
MD's will also tell you you can't fix a congested gall bladder (and thus avoiding surgery for gall bladder removal) by using a $5 product from the grocery store (known as olive oil), but it's hard to "placebo" yourself into crapping 5 or 10 gall stones into the toilet in the morning after drinking a half cup of the stuff. I just don't think the mind is *that* powerful.
You really might want to wander around their site a little - there are several trade magazine (including shooter magazines) articles linked, and a page on the use of cryo-treating on several models of the Jack Niklaus line of golf clubs. Here are some other claims on the 300below site:
A Mitsubishi Eclipse Import Dragracer increased the life of his axle/cv-joints from 6 passes to 41 passes following Cryogenic Processing.
"The General," a 12,000 hp, 4-turbine, modified pulling tractor increased its gear life from 1/2 season to 2 seasons following cryogenic processing.
Ambulances, police cars, firetrucks, delivery trucks, and mass transit vehicles are increasing brake rotor and brake pad life by 250-400% purchasing cryogenically treated brake rotors from 300 Below.
Cryogenically treated competition engines have run for 5 years without breakage or rebuilds.
Cryogenic processing has increased turbocharger life in tractor pulling from 6 hooks to 140 hooks.
We ran more than 40 races for the 1991 season between lower engine teardowns. Before Cryo-processing, we had to tear down after every six to seven events.
Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with "x")
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
Oh yes - the ol' placebo effect.
One of the "testimonials" on 300 Below's site says "Chief A.J.'s Super Chief 10/22 (21 1/2" barrel) - 1 1/2" group with 10 shots before cryogenic treatment, sub 1/2" group with 10 shots after cryogenic treatment. Gary Lupkey, Chief A.J.'s Tribal Workshop".
Unless they just made up the numbers (i.e., lied), it would be kind of hard to fake that.
BTW - I think the placebo effect is invoked *way* too much in this world (usually to protect someone's status when threatened by something new or better). MD's were telling me 20 years ago that by 10 years ago, I was going to be in a wheel chair and totally incapacitated due to a back problem. Thanks to an herbal treatment that I've been using for the last 15 years, I am not in a wheel chair and able to work as well as any other 52 year-old.
MD's will also tell you you can't fix a congested gall bladder (and thus avoiding surgery for gall bladder removal) by using a $5 product from the grocery store (known as olive oil), but it's hard to "placebo" yourself into crapping 5 or 10 gall stones into the toilet in the morning after drinking a half cup of the stuff. I just don't think the mind is *that* powerful.
You really might want to wander around their site a little - there are several trade magazine (including shooter magazines) articles linked, and a page on the use of cryo-treating on several models of the Jack Niklaus line of golf clubs. Here are some other claims on the 300below site:
A Mitsubishi Eclipse Import Dragracer increased the life of his axle/cv-joints from 6 passes to 41 passes following Cryogenic Processing.
"The General," a 12,000 hp, 4-turbine, modified pulling tractor increased its gear life from 1/2 season to 2 seasons following cryogenic processing.
Ambulances, police cars, firetrucks, delivery trucks, and mass transit vehicles are increasing brake rotor and brake pad life by 250-400% purchasing cryogenically treated brake rotors from 300 Below.
Cryogenically treated competition engines have run for 5 years without breakage or rebuilds.
Cryogenic processing has increased turbocharger life in tractor pulling from 6 hooks to 140 hooks.
We ran more than 40 races for the 1991 season between lower engine teardowns. Before Cryo-processing, we had to tear down after every six to seven events.
Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with "x")
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
Ted Mittelstaedt
Usenet Archive
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2002
- Messages
- 2,636
- Reaction score
- 0
"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote:
Actually your both screwed.
Matt, the cryo people claim that the cryo process changes the metallic structure of the material. This is not something that you prove or disprove based on statistics. The gun barrel article you read is a bunch of poof, it is not how you would prove or disprove these kind of claims.
What you DO do is treat the material then subject to lab tests to see if a) the material's structure actually DID change as a result of the cryro process, and b) if the different structure actually has different resistance/wear/strength properties.
This is not rocket science, materials engineers have been doing this for years. And you only need ONE sample to test any of this.
And Bill, testimonials are utterly a bullshit means of supporting anything. Even if names and such are supplied you have no way of knowing if the person that testifies is being slipped something under the table. I have looked at that cryro site and while it has some interesting assertions on it, nowhere do I see any statement from a reputable independent testing lab that backs up any claim that the material's structure is indeed changed permanently. I also find it highly suspicious that they are primariarly targeting competition markets because it is well known that extremely competitive teams will throw money at anything that they think works, regardless of the science behind it. Note that I am not saying that cryonic freezing doesen't work - just that this site is a hideously awful place to refer anyone to if your intent is to prove that it does work.
Ted
Actually your both screwed.
Matt, the cryo people claim that the cryo process changes the metallic structure of the material. This is not something that you prove or disprove based on statistics. The gun barrel article you read is a bunch of poof, it is not how you would prove or disprove these kind of claims.
What you DO do is treat the material then subject to lab tests to see if a) the material's structure actually DID change as a result of the cryro process, and b) if the different structure actually has different resistance/wear/strength properties.
This is not rocket science, materials engineers have been doing this for years. And you only need ONE sample to test any of this.
And Bill, testimonials are utterly a bullshit means of supporting anything. Even if names and such are supplied you have no way of knowing if the person that testifies is being slipped something under the table. I have looked at that cryro site and while it has some interesting assertions on it, nowhere do I see any statement from a reputable independent testing lab that backs up any claim that the material's structure is indeed changed permanently. I also find it highly suspicious that they are primariarly targeting competition markets because it is well known that extremely competitive teams will throw money at anything that they think works, regardless of the science behind it. Note that I am not saying that cryonic freezing doesen't work - just that this site is a hideously awful place to refer anyone to if your intent is to prove that it does work.
Ted
Matthew S. Whiting
Usenet Archive
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2001
- Messages
- 967
- Reaction score
- 0
Bill said:
Yes, but the point is that many things can change the way a barrel shoots or the way that rotors warp or not. Simply removing and replacing the barrel for the cryo treatment could change the headspace, which could change the accuracy. Also, the seating of the action and barrel in the stock could change, etc. I'm not saying anyone is lying, just possibly making incorrect cause and effect attributions.
For example, let's say the wheel lug nuts were grossly overtorqued and the rotors warped. The owner takes them off, has them cryo treated and then turned on a lathe. They are now reinstalled and this time the lug nuts are hand torqued to the proper value. The rotors don't warp again. It was the cryo, right?
Maybe, maybe not, but I'll bet you a steak dinner that the owner credits the cryo in any event.I'm not saying it isn't helpful, I'm just saying I've not seen credible evidence. The above sounds like an Amsoil advertisement.
After using Amsoil in my motorcycle and one car many years ago, I don't believe all of their claims either.Some things above just don't make logical sense. I can see treating the rotors potentially making the rotors last longer, but I don't see it making the pads last longer. Unless the short pad life was from rusted and pitted rotors and the cryo somehow prevents rust, which I doubt. Even if cryo serves an annealing function, which is what most claim from what I've read, that wouldn't increase pad life.
If Amsoil as a good as it claimed back in the 70s, everyone would be using it now. Same for cryo. I use synthetic oil and have for 25 years, but my cars don't get magically quieter, I've never seen a measurable fuel mileage improvement (and I keep a log book and calculate every tankful), etc. I use it for one reason only, it is less viscous at low temperatures and my cars crank better in the winter. This is a very noticeable effect. I believe it also gives better high-temp protection, but that isn't a major consideration in PA.
Matt
Bill Putney
Usenet Archive
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2002
- Messages
- 6,434
- Reaction score
- 0
Ted said:Actually your both screwed.
Matt, the cryo people claim that the cryo process changes the metallic structure of the material. This is not something that you prove or disprove based on statistics. The gun barrel article you read is a bunch of poof, it is not how you would prove or disprove these kind of claims.
What you DO do is treat the material then subject to lab tests to see if a) the material's structure actually DID change as a result of the cryro process, and b) if the different structure actually has different resistance/wear/strength properties.
Correct. They do have micrographs on their site showing 'before' and 'after' grain structure. And you are also correct in that they are not exactly a disinterested independent third party presenting the "proof".
Agreed - you would have to know the integrity (honesty, method of "proving", and objectivity so that, as has been pointed out, they don't fool themselves into believing their own false hopes - that pesky placebo effect) of the person (company) being quoted and that of the person (company) doing the quoting.
Fair enough - I wasn't expecting it to prove anything - just some of the stuff seems convincing combined with my own experience (not that I would expect that to convince anyone else). I may dig a little deeper into some of the magazine articles though with the hopes of stumbling across something a little scientific and independent like what you point out would be needed.
I sure am enjoying driving my car while I fool myself into thinking that the brakes don't pulsate any more - ignorance is bliss! (I know - still no proof - I'm just being an a**-hole) 8^)
Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with "x")
Bill Putney
Usenet Archive
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2002
- Messages
- 6,434
- Reaction score
- 0
"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote:
I'm not a gun expert, but I think I understand enough to say that you are wrong on this point *because* the difference that they're pointing out is *not* absolute accuracy per-se, but *repeatability* - big difference related to what they are claiming. IOW, if absolute accruacy is crap, but repeatability is improved, it will show up as the pattern of holes in the target being off center, but in a much tighter cluster for a good/consistent shooter. In that regard absolute accuracy can be compensated for and/or adjusted out with adjustments of the sites - so that's would not be important and therefore not measured, or it would be adjusted out before the start of the tests - in any case, not a factor.
I think Ted would agree that this could be easily proved by hard mounting the gun (to eliminate the variability of the human shooter), and checking the tightness (not absolute accuracy, again, because that can be adjusted out) of the pattern before and after cryo treatment of the same gun. (And if effects of variation in re-assembly were an issue, to make it double-blind, you have multiple barrels, half treated, half untreated, with the person doing the assembly in random order not knowing which barrels were which, then measure the results as each is assembled and fired.)
Not the case on my car.
I undsertand the example, but none of that is the case with my car - no over-torqueing, new rotors used. Yes - maybe the particular sample of Raybestos rotors I used were superb to survive the multiple 3-mile 8 to 10% downhill grades I just took it thru unscathed. Again, you are correct - my anecdotal experience doesn't prove anything scientifically.
It might be interesting if a few of the jeep and minivan owners invested in a little experiment and got new rotors and had them cry-treated to see if their chronic problems "magically" disappeared. (And yes, I know, even that would not be scientific proof of anything - I'm just glad that I didn't allow my health to be wrecked by demanding proof that the herbs worked before trying them on my back).
Barring out and out lieing, a tighter pattern by an expert competition shooter is fairly convincing. 140 vs. 6 "hooks" for turbo life in tractor pulling is hard to explain away - except of course as Ted says, they were paid off to make the statement. Arnold Plamer apparently believes in it for his line of golf clubs - but I agree that it could be as much a marketing gimmick rather than a true scientifically-based improvement. Would anyone named Arnold be that shallow? 8^)
I've thought about that too - but hardness and finish of one component in a wearing system can certainly affect that without necessarily seriously changing COF - a tribologist would bear that out I think - so I believe the claim is credible.
I've wondered about claims by some on this ng about certain brands or types of pads affecting rotor warping since for a given braking event, watts are watts, and, barring improper lug nut torqueing, watts are what would cause the warping (one possible explanation is that the filming of the pad material onto the rotor surface can be more consistent with one type of pad than with another and so the affect of warping can be seen without true warping) - but I digress...
No - it does not prevent rusting. An engineer at 300 Below told me that when I asked him that question before I had my rotors treated. Plus, I can tell you that the parts of my treated rotors that are not rubbed by the pads are rusting like any other iron rotor would - Oh - wait - I haven't scientifically proved that it's actually rust - there could be some other explanation. But whatever it is, it looks and feels just like rust. 8^) (sorry couldn't resist).
I don't know if you can accurately say that. Again, as an engineer, I can see how changes in molecular and grain structure and other properties could do that without necessarily degrading COF.
And if the back herbs worked, the medical profession would have adopted it into their protocols. And if olive oil would cause rock-hard gall stones to turn into littel sponges and dump out into the crapper, they would be doing that instead of surgery to remove an organ and charging thousands of dollars and days of recuperation time. 8^)
Science says the bumble bee can't fly, but the poor ignorant bumble bee hasn't gotten the news, and he keeps flying around! 8^)
Seriously - I reiterate that I realize that I haven't proven anything about cryogenic treatment. The option is out there for people to try. The gamble seems to have paid off for me.
Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with "x")
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
I'm not a gun expert, but I think I understand enough to say that you are wrong on this point *because* the difference that they're pointing out is *not* absolute accuracy per-se, but *repeatability* - big difference related to what they are claiming. IOW, if absolute accruacy is crap, but repeatability is improved, it will show up as the pattern of holes in the target being off center, but in a much tighter cluster for a good/consistent shooter. In that regard absolute accuracy can be compensated for and/or adjusted out with adjustments of the sites - so that's would not be important and therefore not measured, or it would be adjusted out before the start of the tests - in any case, not a factor.
I think Ted would agree that this could be easily proved by hard mounting the gun (to eliminate the variability of the human shooter), and checking the tightness (not absolute accuracy, again, because that can be adjusted out) of the pattern before and after cryo treatment of the same gun. (And if effects of variation in re-assembly were an issue, to make it double-blind, you have multiple barrels, half treated, half untreated, with the person doing the assembly in random order not knowing which barrels were which, then measure the results as each is assembled and fired.)
Not the case on my car.
The owner takes them off, has them cryo treated and
then turned on a lathe. They are now reinstalled and this time the lug nuts are hand torqued to the proper value. The rotors don't warp again. It was the cryo, right?
I undsertand the example, but none of that is the case with my car - no over-torqueing, new rotors used. Yes - maybe the particular sample of Raybestos rotors I used were superb to survive the multiple 3-mile 8 to 10% downhill grades I just took it thru unscathed. Again, you are correct - my anecdotal experience doesn't prove anything scientifically.
It might be interesting if a few of the jeep and minivan owners invested in a little experiment and got new rotors and had them cry-treated to see if their chronic problems "magically" disappeared. (And yes, I know, even that would not be scientific proof of anything - I'm just glad that I didn't allow my health to be wrecked by demanding proof that the herbs worked before trying them on my back).
Barring out and out lieing, a tighter pattern by an expert competition shooter is fairly convincing. 140 vs. 6 "hooks" for turbo life in tractor pulling is hard to explain away - except of course as Ted says, they were paid off to make the statement. Arnold Plamer apparently believes in it for his line of golf clubs - but I agree that it could be as much a marketing gimmick rather than a true scientifically-based improvement. Would anyone named Arnold be that shallow? 8^)
The above sounds like an Amsoil advertisement.
Some things above just don't make logical sense. I can see treating the rotors potentially making the rotors last longer, but I don't see it making the pads last longer.
I've thought about that too - but hardness and finish of one component in a wearing system can certainly affect that without necessarily seriously changing COF - a tribologist would bear that out I think - so I believe the claim is credible.
I've wondered about claims by some on this ng about certain brands or types of pads affecting rotor warping since for a given braking event, watts are watts, and, barring improper lug nut torqueing, watts are what would cause the warping (one possible explanation is that the filming of the pad material onto the rotor surface can be more consistent with one type of pad than with another and so the affect of warping can be seen without true warping) - but I digress...
No - it does not prevent rusting. An engineer at 300 Below told me that when I asked him that question before I had my rotors treated. Plus, I can tell you that the parts of my treated rotors that are not rubbed by the pads are rusting like any other iron rotor would - Oh - wait - I haven't scientifically proved that it's actually rust - there could be some other explanation. But whatever it is, it looks and feels just like rust. 8^) (sorry couldn't resist).
I don't know if you can accurately say that. Again, as an engineer, I can see how changes in molecular and grain structure and other properties could do that without necessarily degrading COF.
And if the back herbs worked, the medical profession would have adopted it into their protocols. And if olive oil would cause rock-hard gall stones to turn into littel sponges and dump out into the crapper, they would be doing that instead of surgery to remove an organ and charging thousands of dollars and days of recuperation time. 8^)
Science says the bumble bee can't fly, but the poor ignorant bumble bee hasn't gotten the news, and he keeps flying around! 8^)
Seriously - I reiterate that I realize that I haven't proven anything about cryogenic treatment. The option is out there for people to try. The gamble seems to have paid off for me.
Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with "x")
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
Matthew S. Whiting
Usenet Archive
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2001
- Messages
- 967
- Reaction score
- 0
Bill said:
Actually, this is a very old wives tale and science says no such thing. I'm surprised someone who claims to be an engineer would propogate this old saw...
That's good. I'll keep my eye on it. As I said before, I'm not saying it doesn't have merit. I've just not yet personally seen convincing evidence that it does (3rd party data, etc.) and the one reasonably controlled experiment I read with regard to gun barrels suggested that it did not have any measurable affect.
If it is shown to work, I'll use it!
Matt
Bill Putney
Usenet Archive
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2002
- Messages
- 6,434
- Reaction score
- 0
Matthew S. Whiting said:
I suspect that that was a true saying some years ago, and that over time, with computer analysis and simulation, eventually science did crack that nut (don't know for sure - just speculating). Even though it may be a little outdated, it illustrates a valid point, and I will keep using it. Certainly science is explaining the unkowns one by one, but there will always be plenty of things that it can't explain but that work in spite of man's ignorance.
No problem. I just think it's peculiar that you see people complaiing about constant brake problems on Chysler and other forums, and so far, I know of only two poeple (including myself) within that sizeable but limited population that have tried cryo as a last resort. I'll bet neither you nor I put 1% of the products we use in our home or car to the scrutiny to which you are putting this when there is a real need for a solution when there appears to be none due to marginal design.
Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with "x")
I have a 96 Town and Country. A few months ago I went on the Tire Rack site and found that they sell those Brembo Rotors for about what you would pay at NAPA for their part. I combined these with ceramic pads and have no complaints.
Richard.
Richard.
Latest threads
-
-
Chrysler's comeback plan: refreshed Pacifica, a new crossover, and a Halcyon inspired sedan
- Started by Shaggy
- Replies: 0
-
-
-