Jump to content

19 SILVERADO FRONT BRAKE UPGRADE

ModJunky
 Share

Recommended Posts

truckmann Enthusiast

truckmann

Posted
Posted (edited)
25 minutes ago, truckguy82 said:

You are wrong about the lever effect.

 

Think about bicycle disc brakes vs Traditional cantilever brakes. The disc brakes are all the way center and work even better

He's not wrong at all. You are comparing 2 completely different types of breaking systems on a bicycle. That's like comparing apples to tomatoes. It's like comparing manual drum brakes to modern power disc brakes. The disc brakes take advantage of hydraulic power and better friction material so they can be smaller. The cantilever style are actuated by a cable and have lesser friction material which means they need to be on the outside diameter of the wheel to have a chance. 

 

Given 2 different disc brake systems on a bicycle with the only difference being rotor size the larger rotor will be better. 

 

https://www.bikeradar.com/advice/buyers-guides/buyers-guide-to-mountain-bike-disc-brakes/

 

"Power varies with each caliper and its pad surface/leverage, but the biggest difference is rotor size. The bigger the rotor, the more leverage your brake has on the wheel and the faster it can stop it. Each 20mm increase in size roughly equates to a 13 to 15 percent increase in power."

Edited by truckmann
  • Replies 140
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

truckmann
truckmann

All things being equal that is incorrect. Bigger rotors put the clamping force farther out from the center line for better stopping torque on the wheel, so physics show that they do stop better. It's

ModJunky
ModJunky

Testing the water to see if anyone is interested in purchasing front brake upgrade for 2014-2018 silverado 1/2 ton trucks or Suv. i have a source to acquire like new loaded calipers and the new rotors

davester
davester

"you could just redesign the oem proportioning valve  internal components"   Yup, that definitely sounds like something people with no knowledge of the design of braking systems, or the trad

Posted Images

truckguy82 Senior Enthusiast

truckguy82

Posted
Posted
49 minutes ago, truckmann said:

He's not wrong at all. You are comparing 2 completely different types of breaking systems on a bicycle. That's like comparing apples to tomatoes. It's like comparing manual drum brakes to modern power disc brakes. The disc brakes take advantage of hydraulic power and better friction material so they can be smaller. The cantilever style are actuated by a cable and have lesser friction material which means they need to be on the outside diameter of the wheel to have a chance. 

 

Given 2 different disc brake systems on a bicycle with the only difference being rotor size the larger rotor will be better. 

 

https://www.bikeradar.com/advice/buyers-guides/buyers-guide-to-mountain-bike-disc-brakes/

 

"Power varies with each caliper and its pad surface/leverage, but the biggest difference is rotor size. The bigger the rotor, the more leverage your brake has on the wheel and the faster it can stop it. Each 20mm increase in size roughly equates to a 13 to 15 percent increase in power."

And yet when you increase the diameter by 10x (putting them on the outside) they are suddenly weaker

 

you don’t understand the physics of using a friction surface to stop something.

 

why on earth would they move the brakes to the inside if the larger diameter has increased braking power? 
 

This is a common misconception that some intelligent people don’t understand. Including You and bike radar. And including myself until I got schooled by someone that actually engineers brakes.

 

brake rotor diameter has nothing to do with increase mechanical advantage. I realize you’re all picturing a 6” long wrench and a 12” long wrench in your head.

 

i promise you are wrong

truckguy82 Senior Enthusiast

truckguy82

Posted
Posted

The only advantage to larger brakes is increased heat capacity and increased dissipation of heat. 
 

How much force the pad needs to apply to the rotor is not relevant

  • Like 1
truckmann Enthusiast

truckmann

Posted
Posted

Well I am 100% positive you are wrong but I guess no amount of logic or source material will prove that to you so I won't bother to try. 

davester Senior Enthusiast

davester

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, truckguy82 said:

You are wrong about the lever effect.

 

Think about bicycle disc brakes vs Traditional cantilever brakes. The disc brakes are all the way center and work even better

No, he's not.  Your bicycle example is comparing different braking systems, with different brake material, size of shoes on the braking surface, and even the braking surface itself.

 

Take some mechanical engineering courses, or even just think about it more, and you'll understand that for the same clamping force on the disc brake, if it is applied on a larger disc, there is more braking force applied to the wheel.

  • Like 1
truckguy82 Senior Enthusiast

truckguy82

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, davester said:

No, he's not.  Your bicycle example is comparing different braking systems, with different brake material, size of shoes on the braking surface, and even the braking surface itself.

 

Take some mechanical engineering courses, or even just think about it more, and you'll understand that for the same clamping force on the disc brake, if it is applied on a larger disc, there is more braking force applied to the wheel.

Lol

 

i understand more clamping force is required

 

clamping force is irrelevant

 

you should take some engineering courses

truckguy82 Senior Enthusiast

truckguy82

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, truckmann said:

Well I am 100% positive you are wrong but I guess no amount of logic or source material will prove that to you so I won't bother to try. 

Nope because I said the same thing you’re saying now, and then I got schooled

 

i dont have the time right now to take you to brake school but I can if you want on a week day

truckguy82 Senior Enthusiast

truckguy82

Posted
Posted

I guess the key to understanding this is that clamping force is not important.

 

all that matters is total energy converted to heat

truckmann Enthusiast

truckmann

Posted
Posted

The thing is I understand physics very well and yes it is about the heat conversion, but I think what you are missing is that keeping the same amount of clamping force and pad surface area (basically saying that all things are equal) a larger rotor will create a larger torque force to stop the rotation. Even the equation to calculate brake torque requires the radius of caliper. On top of that a larger rotor is also moving faster through the pads thus creating more heat friction. I could link to many articles that explain it and I don't think I can find a single one that would argue that larger rotors don't allow for a larger brake torque.  Also even though the rotor is the main heat dissipating feature in the system that is not it's main mechanical function. The reason good heat dissipation is needed is to keep from overheating all the components of the system like not warping the rotors and boiling the brake fluid. 

 

Here's an article from an engineering company that says it very simplistically. 

http://www.wcengineering.com/articles/brakes.html

 

and here's a white paper from a well know brake manufacturer with formulas. 

https://www.apcautotech.com/getmedia/89aa6773-73d7-4f7f-b935-5e6bf2d28111/Centric_and_APC_Technical_Whitepaper_A1-The-Physics-of-Braking-Systems-8-2018_1.pdf

 

As for this having any bearing on the upgrade to the 19/20 brakes it's probably not a big factor since the new rotors are not much bigger than the stock 14-18 rotors. The big improvement is with a more even clamping force from the 4 piston calipers and an increased pad contact area. Possibly a better pad friction material and difference in over all piston area too, but I can only speculate about that. 

 

I actually look forward to see what you have to say that could explain how rotor diameter has no effect on brake torque stopping power. 

 

 

flyingfool Senior Enthusiast

flyingfool

Posted
Posted (edited)

you can get 60-0 mph stopping specs from "car and driver" magazine at your local library....  

i've seen real world test on two mercedes benz sedans, one with the stock base model brakes, and then the same car with big AMG monster brakes... my discovery was the Base model 320 car out performed the AMG-32 car  by stopping 12-15 foot shorter braking distance from 60--0 mph.  but the AMG32  will have more fade resistance durring hard driving, where as the  base car only has about 5 good hard stops left in it before fade is excessive

 

Edited by flyingfool
truckmann Enthusiast

truckmann

Posted
Posted
22 minutes ago, flyingfool said:

you can get 60-0 mph stopping specs from "car and driver" magazine at your local library....  

i've seen real world test on two mercedes benz sedans, one with the stock base model brakes, and then the same car with big AMG monster brakes... my discovery was the Base model 320 car out performed the AMG-32 car  by stopping 12-15 foot shorter braking distance from 60--0 mph.  but the AMG32  will have more fade resistance durring hard driving, where as the  base car only has about 5 good hard stops left in it before fade is excessive

 

I believe that. There's more going on there than just rotor size though. They are 2 systems purposely built for different situations. Everyday street car brakes built to stop as short as possible but not very many times while a track focused car built to handle multiple heat cycles and continue to work. Initial grab and continued usage is more important than getting to 0 on a track car. Without trying to look it up I'd bet they have different pad material and possibly different rotor material. So not really an apples to apples comparison. 

groovy_moon Enthusiast

groovy_moon

Posted
Posted
On 2/22/2020 at 4:44 PM, lovelessjl said:

So is the old wisdom style of bedding the pads (basically several aggressive brake applications til almost stopped) still effective and worthwhile? Or is that just one of those "we've always done it this way" kind of things?

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
 

"Bedding In" is best done with easy driving for about 50 stops or so. When we "burnish" pads for testing we make 200 stops from about 50 mph to 0 at about 0.3 g every ~1-1.5 miles. This is a little bit more aggressive than what you would do approaching a stop sign. The most important thing is not to get them really hot when they are new. Some heavy duty linings like the kind found on Camaro SS's or Mustang GT's with the Brembo package can take longer to achieve a stable friction level.

 

  • Like 2
groovy_moon Enthusiast

groovy_moon

Posted
Posted
14 hours ago, truckmann said:

I believe that. There's more going on there than just rotor size though. They are 2 systems purposely built for different situations. Everyday street car brakes built to stop as short as possible but not very many times while a track focused car built to handle multiple heat cycles and continue to work. Initial grab and continued usage is more important than getting to 0 on a track car. Without trying to look it up I'd bet they have different pad material and possibly different rotor material. So not really an apples to apples comparison. 

The friction material may have a big part in that. Some high performance linings do not achieve max friction until they get very hot.

 

  • Like 1
groovy_moon Enthusiast

groovy_moon

Posted
Posted
18 hours ago, truckmann said:

The thing is I understand physics very well and yes it is about the heat conversion, but I think what you are missing is that keeping the same amount of clamping force and pad surface area (basically saying that all things are equal) a larger rotor will create a larger torque force to stop the rotation. Even the equation to calculate brake torque requires the radius of caliper. On top of that a larger rotor is also moving faster through the pads thus creating more heat friction. I could link to many articles that explain it and I don't think I can find a single one that would argue that larger rotors don't allow for a larger brake torque.  Also even though the rotor is the main heat dissipating feature in the system that is not it's main mechanical function. The reason good heat dissipation is needed is to keep from overheating all the components of the system like not warping the rotors and boiling the brake fluid. 

 

Here's an article from an engineering company that says it very simplistically. 

http://www.wcengineering.com/articles/brakes.html

 

and here's a white paper from a well know brake manufacturer with formulas. 

https://www.apcautotech.com/getmedia/89aa6773-73d7-4f7f-b935-5e6bf2d28111/Centric_and_APC_Technical_Whitepaper_A1-The-Physics-of-Braking-Systems-8-2018_1.pdf

 

As for this having any bearing on the upgrade to the 19/20 brakes it's probably not a big factor since the new rotors are not much bigger than the stock 14-18 rotors. The big improvement is with a more even clamping force from the 4 piston calipers and an increased pad contact area. Possibly a better pad friction material and difference in over all piston area too, but I can only speculate about that. 

 

I actually look forward to see what you have to say that could explain how rotor diameter has no effect on brake torque stopping power. 

 

 

IMHO one of the big differences is in the friction level of the pads. HH is really high for a pass car lt truck lining. 

The fixed caliper adds to the stiffness.. I need to understand the piston diameter of the pre 2019 calipers to make a comparison there. It is possible that the surface area f the 2019-2020 fixed calipers is smaller with the increased friction making up for it.... this would also add to the stiffer feeling

https://idpartsblog.com/2019/04/11/what-do-brake-pad-friction-ratings-mean/

 

Several of the Engineers I wor with have Pre 2019 GM trucks and most are going to do this..

I have an ex GM Executive lease 2019 Suburban we just picked up with the floating calipers and vacuum booster (same as 2018 and earlier trucks). This weekend I had my family and gear for a ski weekend ~800 lbs and the brakes do suck. So I am looking into it for the 'burb.

 

  • Like 1
groovy_moon Enthusiast

groovy_moon

Posted
Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, groovy_moon said:

 

Didn't read the whole article but I think they forgot about the booster's multiplicative and additive effects on the input to the master cylinder.. This is defined by the "jump in" of the booster and the "servo ratio" of the booster.

 

The JumpIn is an initial bump up of the output force of the booster when the pedal is initially depressed (a few mm).

The servo ratio is the multiplier of the booster on the input force from the pedal.... so the output of the booster approximately is:

Output Force = (Input Force X Servo Ratio) + JumpIn

Servo Ratio is usually in effect until input force on the brake pedal is about 200 N.

 

That force is then imparted to the master cylinder pistons.

 

Edited by groovy_moon

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Latest Articles

  • Posts

    • Grumpy Bear
      Some Assembly is Required

      By Grumpy Bear · Posted

      Can it still be Assembled I?    Stribeck says that we need a certain amount of viscosity under conditions of load and velocity to prevent two surfaces of a know roughness from tearing each other asunder. And we have marketing trying to tell the masses that those two surfaced require less of that commodity due to more exact limits being placed on the same old clearances. We also know that there are limits to how hard something can before it becomes to brittle to be viable and to smooth to 'wet' the surface and that both of those conditions have been known and met since about the Second World War.    That viscosity value shook out at 10 centistokes at 212 F just under a hundred years ago.  Give this a look: [Anton Parr]     What is advertised is the Kinematic viscosity (mm2/s) or that which has been density adjusted but the value we are after is the dynamic viscosity (mPa.s) or true viscosity. You can see that this number is dependent on density thus base stock and temperature. You can also see that an SAE 30 doesn't reach that value in this example. However an SAE 30 that is at the upper end of the SAE 30 range; 12.5 cSt (mm2/s), might. 12.5 * .83 = 10.375 (mm2/s). If you could find an SAE 30 at the upper end these days.   Then there is the complication of viscosity modifiers or VII or VM, whatever you wish to call them. Polymers added to very thin base oils, perhaps 3 to 6 cP oils, that will meet the SAE *W30 spec at 'tested' shear rates and 100 C/212F  target temperature. So a polymer fortified base that is a fraction of the 10 cP requirement Stribeck insist upon.   This could be all well and good if those polymers didn't have two very problematic 'features'. They shear or loose viscosity both 1.) permanently and 2.) temporality. And they do both omitted in the advertised data with the distinct  purpose of deceiving the consumer of the actual operating state of the fluid. I've shown the example of Warren Oils COSTCO 10.91 cSt 5W30 formuation several times where the 100 C HTHS value is 6.9 cP!! That's the temporary shear down and with and SSI or shear stability index of 9.4 cSt. Note the intentional deception in using mixed units?    After a short while that 9.4 cSt oil has a viscosity corrected dynamic value of 7.8 cP. But as the SSI is still within the range of an SAE *W30 whose lower value is 9.3 cSt.    This allows them to continue to call this SAE 16 weight oil a 30 weight, the cake, and still meet the API requirements for fuel efficiency IMPROVEMENT mandated by the EPA. The eating of the cake. By the time you've worn out your motor doing the responsible thing by adhering to the warranty requirements, (the stick), you get deprived of the carrot, wear control. So sad, to bad.   So what can be done? Do I need actually say? [Anton Parr]       Even this must be monitored if the oil is on the low side and the VII an organic or you opt for a 0W40 with an even lighter base oil and more / higher MW VII. (Note the lower density of the 40 weight versus the SAE 30 mono-weight?)    There is another workaround. Temperature. An SAE *W30 run at a bulk temperature of between 180 and 195 F.    Being the belt and suspenders sort I am I do both. Run it cook and run it heavy.    In Part II I'll work the AW package. 
    • Atlas
      Wow I'm in a pickle. (Broke down truck) and a story.

      By Atlas · Posted

      So, do I go elbow-deep on this thing or list it for sale and play dumb? Seems to "runs good."   I'm about $1200 away from having: -a rebuilt injector ($300) -a new cat ($250) -a new cat back exhaust (OE style) ($300) -a new AC compressor ($200) -AC refrigerant charge ($150)   In theory, this should rectify the obvious detracting issues from its value and operability. Cold AC with a non-squeaking AC pulley both sounds and feels good. An exhaust that isn't cut/hacked in 17 different places and doesn't vibrate on a crossmember would make it sound and feel less janky. A working cat would help the stink, and will save the earth, but *if and only if* the fuel system is working properly, which would also address the intermittent "rich" CEL.   Heard a good one... CEL for "Rich condition" means you haven't spent enough money on the truck lately, and it's letting you know.   Rebuilding the injector would seem to be the most important part. Replacing the cat would be secondary. I don't think mine is plugged or overly restricted, but it might be a little restricted? I have no good way to tell other than seat of the pants feel. I hate the smell.   The current theory is I have a rich idle problem: A bad fuel pressure regulator, or a leaking injector(s) being the highest probabilities. I already replaced the FPR but that doesn't mean its replacement isn't also bad. It was a new part from Dorman, but the packaging looked like it had been sitting on a shelf for 20 years.   This is the (single) upstream O2 sensor shown at idle. I'm getting a lot of "rich" it seems. Sometimes it stays high like that and doesn't drop down. That makes me think it's processing injector leaks or a partially stuck open injector.     Other times it looks like this. Nice oscillations between rich and lean, which is what I think it should be. Under load and at speed, the oscillations are nice and tight and uniform looking, high and low.     Fuel trims suggest the PCM is compensating pretty hard at idle to pull fuel out. But it's not enough to trip a CEL. Something about slowing to a stop: brake vaccum booster, EGR, or the EVAP purge is delayed, or there's pooled fuel in the intake again that's draining into a cylinder is enough to set the CEL. Of course, in two days of driving, it hasn't set. I was hoping to actually look at the freeze-frame data when it sets. IAT is high because it's idling on an 83 degree day here.  
    • Another JR
      Gasser Subforum Has Been Quiet - - So, Regenerative Braking and Using L10

      By Another JR · Posted

      Have considered installing a DC to DC charger in your camper to replace your isolator?  
    • newdude
      Gas fill door

      By newdude · Posted

      Common failure.  You need to replace the fuel door housing.   The painted cover transfers over to the new housing.  To remove the old one there is 4 spots where you poke the plastic to release it.  
    • newdude
      Gasser Subforum Has Been Quiet - - So, Regenerative Braking and Using L10

      By newdude · Posted

      No such thing as regenerative braking on a pure ICE vehicle.     Regenerative braking is the re-capture of energy from electric motors and stores it in the battery pack.  So hybrids, PHEV and EVs have regenerative braking.     What you are seeing is the charging system changing modes is all.  Its likely entering charge mode for some sort of reason is all.  All of the charging modes will be listed below.   As for L10 vs D.  L10 turns off automatic grade braking.  L10 puts you in control of grade downshifts where in D it will automatically do it based on brake pedal position and other factors.  Otherwise L10 and D drive exactly the same aside from that one aspect.    Battery Sulfation Mode The BCM will enter this mode when the interpreted Generator output voltage is less than 13.2 V for 45 minutes. When this condition exists the BCM will enter Charge Mode for 2–3 minutes. The BCM will then determine which mode to enter depending on voltage requirements.   Charge Mode The BCM will enter Charge Mode when ever one of the following conditions are met:   Windshield wipers are ON for more than 3 s. Climate Control Voltage Boost Mode Request is true, as sensed by the HVAC control module via serial data. High speed cooling fan, rear defogger, and HVAC high speed blower operation can cause the BCM to enter the Charge Mode. The estimated battery temperature is less than 0°C (32°F). Battery State of Charge is less than 80%. Vehicle speed is greater than 145 km/h (90 mph) A current sensor malfunction exists. System voltage is determined to be below 12.56 V When any one of these conditions is met, the system will set targeted generator output voltage to a charging voltage between 13.9–15.5 V, depending on the battery state of charge and estimated battery temperature.   Fuel Economy Mode The BCM will enter Fuel Economy Mode when the estimated battery temperature is at least 0°C (32°F) but less than or equal to 80°C (176°F), the calculated battery current is less than 15 A and greater than −8 A, and the battery state-of-charge is greater than or equal to 80%. Its targeted generator output voltage is the open circuit voltage of the battery and can be between 12.5–13.1 V. When fuel economy mode is active, the generator is not charging, only maintaining open circuit battery voltage. The BCM will exit this mode and enter Charge Mode when any of the conditions described above are present.   Headlamp Mode The BCM will enter Headlamp Mode when ever the head lamps are ON (high or low beams). Voltage will be regulated between 13.9–14.5 V.   Start Up Mode When the engine is started the BCM sets a targeted generator output voltage of 14.5 V for 30 s.   Tow/Haul Mode (if applicable) Pressing the Tow/Haul Mode button located on the center stack, the vehicle system voltage is raised and the remote (non-vehicle) battery will be charged. Having the headlamps on will raise the system voltage and if the Tow/Haul button is applied it will not serve any purpose. The voltage is regulated between 13.9-14.5 V.      

  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...