When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
the shield also acts as a duct to draw air to the rotors but obiously it doesnt do too much because its easy to overheat the brakes at a track. if it does bother you you can make ducts to the rotors if you do remove the shields which will funciton better for cooling.
the shield also acts as a duct to draw air to the rotors but obiously it doesnt do too much because its easy to overheat the brakes at a track. if it does bother you you can make ducts to the rotors if you do remove the shields which will funciton better for cooling.
In effect - this is more or less true.
The plate helps produce a low pressure area on one side of the rotor (effectively producing "lift" like a wing or sail) which ultimately draws slightly more air across the rotor. The effect is intended more to keep dust off your wheels than to cool your brakes though.
Even then, my wheels honestly don't get any dirtier than they did in stock form.
I can't speak for stock, but I've never had a heat problem with my aftermarket brakes. My brakes are cool enough to touch within a minutes after driving the car.
Originally Posted by slipstream444,Jun 19 2007, 02:02 PM
As for the OP's question: there's no problem with running without the dust shields.
I have a set of "Brake Man" brakes that required the removal of the shields and I've had no problems at all - dust or otherwise. 18,000 miles and counting.
those are wicked looking rotors. How do they perform?
Originally Posted by dnelson1627,Jun 20 2007, 11:08 AM
There is already a thread in here about drilled and slotted rotors, just looking for his opionon(sp??) that would be the reason I asked him.
The "wave" rotor performs quite well.
It's a great balance of weight savings and cooling efficiency. The rotor's friction surface is made from steel and the "hat" or center section is made from forged aluminum (this is critical).
The most important thing to remember about a rotor - is it's a heat sink. Therefore, heavier is always better. On the other hand, the benefit of a lighter rotor is reduced unsprung weight. So the trick is to strike a perfect balance of energy absorption and weight reduction.
The only way to offset the loss of energy absorbing mass in a rotor is the application of a more efficient cooling design. That's what the wave rotor offers.
There are also several benefits to a properly designed two-piece rotor. The greatest benefit is the shift of mass bias to where it counts - the friction surface. A lighter center section allows for a heavier friction surface, without increasing the overall mass of the rotor. Two-piece rotors can be designed to allow expansion in more than one plane, which essentially eliminates warpage. Two-piece rotors greatly reduce the amount of energy transmitted to the hub and wheel bearing assembly.
My front rotors each weigh about 0.8 pound less than stock, while being able to absorb significantly more energy.
Cross drilling is not an important feature on my rear (wave) rotors. Cross drilling is intended to prevent the buildup of gasses that can prevent pad to rotor contact. Gas liberated from the brake pads during heating is the main cause of the buildup. However, this isn't as much of an issue with modern brake pads. Slots are as effective as cross drilling. Additionally - cross-drilled, cast iron, one-piece rotors will eventually crack and fail. The loss of surface area also reduces braking effectiveness. http://www.thebrakeman.com/products
I purchased mine via Rick's a few years back. Expensive to be sure - but worth every penny. Before you make your car faster - it needs to stop faster.
06-19-2007, 07:24 PM
