This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
This page is awfull there is almost no mention whatso ever of motorcycle disk brakes, which are completly diffrent from car ones. There is also next to no mention of the matreials used or their structure ect, sorry but this page is poor and almost useless. someone sort it out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.142.163.122 (talk) 10:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
One item that is very important to the development of disc brakes is the inverted caliper, it is most commonly used on the Buell motorcycle. The design allows an immense rotor to be used within a specific wheel size.
Another interesting note is the recent bonding of steel to aluminum discs, reducing the weight of the vehicle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.193.81.191 (talk) 05:30, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
User:24.21.241.47 added a large discussion of "full circle" disc brakes including a single external link to a company that makes (?) them. Sounds like a real technology, but has never been mentioned by autoweek or ward's. Google didn't have anything like it in the top 10 in a search for '"full circle" brake'. I've never heard of it. I removed it. What do you all think? Reminds me of Quasiturbine... --SFoskett 03:13, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
they're called "full contact disc brakes" http://www.newtechbrake.com/ http://www.carbibles.com/brake_bible.html —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.80.224.238 (talk • contribs).
Wasn't that in PM or PopSci a few yrs ago, a spl ish on "future car" tech? (Anybody remember what ish that was?!) Trekphiler 17:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
The picture caption states "On automobiles, disc brakes are located within the wheel". Is that always the case? Doesn't Jaguar use a rear axis where the discs are located almost at the differential? // Liftarn
yes have a Jaguar XKE 1967 and it has inboard brakes located at the rear differential.
Alfa Romeo did, can't remember which model though. The idea is to reduce unsprung mass. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.54.4.120 (talk) 05:50, 26 April 2011 (UTC) Citroen used the same "discs near differential" on their smaller cars. "Oltcit", licensed Citroen made in Romania, used the same technology. Unfortunatelly, the stress on CV axles is very high during breaking.
Pinion mounted disc brakes are used on many off road vehicles. These vehicles are modified by using Rockwell 2-1/2 ton axles from military trucks. To reduce weight, the stock drum brakes are removed, and a disc brake set up is mounted on the pinion of the differential. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Somebodyalreadytookmyclevername (talk • contribs) 20:55, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Do some of the recent additions/changes seem a bit dodgy to anyone else? At a minimum, there's now grammar cleanup that's needed, and I'm not sure I agree with the technical accuracy of some of the changes.
Atlant 20:28, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
fudu —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.62.117.238 (talk) 11:16, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm new here, so I was hestiant to make changes myself, but I agree. Particularly, the setench about how .007 inch thickness variation can be felt - this is entirely dependant on the rest of the braking system. I was going to change it to this:
The thickness variation can often be felt by the driver when it approaches or exceeds the maximum allowable value specified by the manufacturer.
but thought I should get some feedback here first, seeing as I'm new :)
--Emesis 16:08, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
There is a lot of information about disc brakes and how they are used for motorized vehicles (e.g. cars), but how about disc brakes used on bicycles, because surely they are not the same.
Bicycle disc brakes work in an identical way to cars, in that they all have a master cylinder, a disc (known as a rotor on a bike) and a caliper, interconnected by brake fluid, which operates the pistons. The main difference is the mounting and the overall size and weight of the brake. The bicycles' rotor is mounted on the wheel therefore making it easier to replace the brake pads. Also, the brakes are considerably lighter, approximately 300 grams for each brake, although this excludes the rotors. The size of the rotors also differ, from 140mm to 225mm in diameter. The brakes are not vented either unlike a car that has effectively two rotors attached with a gap in between, although new brake designs are being released by the likes of Hope Technology, which are vented. All bike rotors are cross-drilled, reducing the build up of gasses which can affect braking performance, and it also helps to keep both the pads and the rotor cooler, by increasing the surfac area they have to cool down. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.19.153.145 (talk • contribs) .
Re: Materials used for bicycle disc-brake rotors. While it's true that stainless steel is preferable to mild steel for disc rotors, in my experience it's incorrect to state that most rotors are currently made of stainless steel - most of them are mild steel as a quick glance at the rusty discs on many MTBs at a meet, or at a shopping centre, will readily attest. Further, there's also currently no in-line citation to support this assertion. Chapter 11, page 13 (11-13), however, of Sutherland's Handbook for Bicycle Mechanics (7th Edition) states that "Stainless steel is preferred due to its anti-rust properties." Therefore, citing Sutherland's Handbook, I intend to amend the current assertion that "Most bicycle brake discs are made of stainless steel, ..." to "Most bicycle brake discs are made of steel. Stainless steel is preferred due to its anti-rust properties." 123.211.218.67 (talk) 15:01, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Why do my edits regarding cross drilling keep getting removed!
The drilling of discs is to remove/vent high temperature gases from the brake pad/disc surface. They also increase the discs surface area allowing more heat to transfer to the atmosphere.
Any effect on unsprung mass is negligible/incidental.
They do not 'in the main crack', this is dependant on use and manufacturing quality.
"Manufacturers use drilled discs if they determine that the average owner of the vehicle model will not overly stress them"
This article is grossly inaccurate, I am a highly qualified vehicle engineer with nearly 25 years experience in the industry.
I see your point but contact area is not a major factor. The arguments for/against cross drill include 1) removal of metal lowering thermal mass.... If you work this out for ordinary cars this is small and accounts for about 0.004 material spread across the disc, using my estimates. This is small compared to a typical thickness spec that allows 0.040 removal per side of material due to wear and machining. 2) Increasing air movement and surface area helping cooling.... surely this is small.. forgot to sign this...Ianhenderson007 (talk) 13:12, 9 July 2010 (UTC) I see the comment about pad temp going up, I think the area change is small, and the contact is wiped across the pad, so surely the pad temp is dependent on the rotor temp and physics of the interface being the overwhelming factor.Ianhenderson007 (talk) 13:12, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Might I ask what qualifications the author of these half baked opinions holds? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goldenthesarge (talk • contribs) 11:22, 30 June 2008 (UTC) Surely this is a format for brain storming, we should be bring opinions and then facts to this discussion. (I see lots of this but not much half backed ideas.) hopefully a better public page then emerges, or am i stating the obvious.Ianhenderson007 (talk) 13:26, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
I added some information about cross-drilled rotors under the "Discs" subsection. I'd like to add something somewhere that brakes work by converting the car's kinetic energy to thermal energy; a dramatic illustration of this can be seen here: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v306/RiddleFox/cars/RedHotBrembos.jpg
Just not so sure where. Riddlefox 21:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
What's that nonsense about "heat dissipation"? Cross-drilling does not improve heat dissipation. Quite the opposite, disk brakes with cross-drilled disks are more prone to overheating due to lower contact area and, consequently, higher heat accumulation in the pad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.56.71.163 (talk • contribs) 04:17, 8 December 2010 (UDT)
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.182.56.5 (talk) 20:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Pad and rotor bedding procedures are often overlooked by drivers. In performance automobiles, properly bedding new pads in old rotors is essential for performance, comfort and squeal reduction. Is it appropriate to add a procedure to the article? Wpjonathan 13:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Most/ some? manufacturers give a simple 10 stop procedure for this. So any recommendation should refer to the manufacture's specification for bedding in.Ianhenderson007 (talk) 21:45, 8 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ianhenderson007 (talk • contribs) 21:22, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Having recently shelled out ~$90 to replace a "brake switch" I'd like to see more general information on the parts that go into the brakes and how to replace/repair them. So if someone could add a section for this, that'd be nice. Also, after poking around a bit most places seem to have "brake light switches" for about $3 and they go into the main fuse box under my hood...takes a good 3-4 seconds to replace it. Am I getting hosed on this deal or is the "brake switch" something different? -Anon 12:33, 2 May 2006 (CST)Really? You go to Wikipedia to complain about the cost of a minor repair? And you talk as if you actually know something about the topic. If it was such a simple repair, why didn't you just do it yourself?
Crosley's '49-50 discs were not "a type of" but true modern discs: http://www.ggw.org/~cac/Images/Misc/DiscBrakes-Sm.JPG Examination via a '35-53 MOTOR manual diagram further proves this fact. The apologetic wording "type of" needs to be stricken. Sorry, Jag. Imperial's '49-53 disc brakes should by right be mentioned, though those DO fit the billing of being "a type of", as they were fully enclosed with dual expanding full-circle pressure plates. WQ59B 03:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
In fact the Dunlop Brakes on my 1964 MkII Jaguar had a mechanism to retract the pads away from the Disc / Rotor. The Spec on this pull back was 0.010 inches. This was achieved using a pin and hat holding the pad to the piston.Ianhenderson007 (talk) 13:19, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
And I think its worth discussing the knock back that occurs on typical Automobile brakes. The small amount of play in the bearings knocks the pads back away from the rotor, and with no clamping force they effectively do not cause drag. It is also possible that lateral run-out does the same thing.Ianhenderson007 (talk) 13:19, 9 July 2010 (UTC) Ianhenderson007 (talk) 21:38, 8 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ianhenderson007 (talk • contribs) 20:56, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
The brake pistons retract because of the elasticity of their seals. Pads stay behind, pushed away initaially by the uneven rotor and after that by the air wedge created at high rotating speeds. Lubicating the guides helps.
One of the sections near the end makes reference to the acronym 'DTV' but it's not readily apparent what this is. Either I'm blind or the article could use a bit explaining it :) Ayocee 16:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
DTV = Disc Thickness Variance, and refers to a condition where there are different thicknesses (high/low spots) across the face of the disc —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.54.4.120 (talk) 05:57, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
One of my friends has developed a liquid cooled disc brake ("liquid cooled drive line" I think is the official description) called the "D-Brake." It attaches to the tail end of the vehicle's transmission and applies braking force to the drive shaft. Is this technology worth noting in the article? I don't know if this is the first of its kind or not, but I have detailed information available should it be deemed noteworthy. --Jack 22:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
This article completely overlooks the use of disc brakes on modern passenger trains a "hole" that needs to be filled by an expert in the field. Peter Horn 14:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
The article on the Concorde uses a picture of its disc brakes, which are made out of carbon because of the high temperatures they must withstand when stopping a nearly-200 ton airliner. Would it be useful to put that picture in this article? Ilikefood (talk) 17:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
This article has some major problems.
Bigdumbdinosaur (talk) 22:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
The British standard is 2 Ls, the American standard is with one. Both spellings are present in the article? Should it be standardized?
If so, to the American or British spelling? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kopitarian (talk • contribs) 16:03, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
That will never happen nor will you get the moderators to agree to use one spelling here - unless of course we ignore the fact that 70%+ "English" speaking people in the world are using American and just put the article in British standard. It would make the British and Aussies happy but would annoy the hell out of everyone else. Of course it is only a matter of time until every article is just that. It is almost impossible to find an article very accurate — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.203.42.50 (talk) 13:39, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Didn't the Tucker Torpedo use disc brakes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.1.156.204 (talk) 00:07, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
In 1889 Elmer Ambrose Sperry of Cleveland invented a disk brake for his electric car which employed electrically actuated pistons to clamp down on the disk. This is a known and widely accepted fact. In 1902 F. W. Lanchester received a patent for a nonelectric disc brake system that employed copper linings that clamped upon a metal disc. There are two types of disk brakes, Spot type and clutch types, again there is no mention here. I suggest that this page needs to be reworked and properly referenced. ((http://www.fourproducts.com/Images/Development_of_the_FSBC.pdf)). Jacob805 (talk) 07:14, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Many sections of this article lack any references, and should be deleted if inline citations are not added. Of 31 citations, the brake judder section contains the majority. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE 14:27, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
((cn))
wherever there's any real doubt of the accuracy. LeadSongDog come howl! 00:06, 24 August 2011 (UTC)I was surprised to read nothing in the article concerning disc brakes as used on aircraft. Despite their early origins in automobiles, I'm pretty sure the first practical disc brakes were used on airplanes because of their thin profile and light weight, and it was at least 20 years before they were used on cars. I do have plenty of knowledge of the subject, but I unfortunately don't have much time to dig up source material. Are there any other aviation buffs on here that can at least provide some source material to at least give aviation a mention here? Shreditor (talk) 07:38, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Whilst searching for some replacement brake discs for my motor car I became aware that some performance part suppliers are offering discs that have been treated by taking them down to a low (sub -200°C ?) temperature for a time seemingly of hours or a couple of days (?) possibly with a further post refrigeration heat treatment. This is supposed to improve them by making them more uniformly hard so that they wear less and last longer or perform better at high temperature/loading. Is there any evidence that can be linked in to support such claims, if so then it is a topic that would be a useful addition to this article in my opinion. 82.39.233.172 (talk) 18:54, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
I took this photograph at a car show and was wondering if it would fit in this article? Hope it helps! Thanks.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Envy fstop (talk
Envy fstop (talk) 03:57, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Why does the intro now sound like the point of a disc brake is to generate heat, and slowing the wheel is a side effect? Besides making heat, they also wear down the pads, and the discs. They also make noise, sometimes a lot of noise. And they generate profits for the brake industry. These are all side effects: the point is to slow the wheel, and along the way they also create heat, noise, wear, and profits. See also WP:OBVIOUS. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:04, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
:A disc brake is a mechanical device that converts overcomes the energy inertia of a vehicle's motion momentum by the application of controlled pressure, producing waste heat which is then dispersed by conduction and convection. That any better?
One thing I would agree with, though, is dropping the "A disc brake is a wheel brake..." aspect as they're not exclusive to wheels.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 00:31, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Disc brake. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ((Sourcecheck))
).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check))
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:02, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
I thought the word "rotor" is usually used for the disc component of a disc brake system, but I barely see this used in the article. I'm inclined to update the lead sentence to:
I'm inclined to just update the lead paragraph now, but would like to confirm if this is the more commone usage, including British usage. If "rotor" is indeed more common, updates may need to be applied at numerous places in the article.—LithiumFlash (talk) 16:24, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
I can't find any evidence that rotor is US English or UK, or that it's considered non-standard. We do know that rotor is a common term for the disc,[1][2] so it is important to tell the reader in the lead that the terms are interchangeable. Disc is the more frequent term than rotor, but it's not an overwhelming difference.
If anyone does find a good source which tells us whether rotor is definitively UK or US English, mention of that factoid would belong down in the body of the article, in a history or etymology section.
We really need to get past this terrible habit of literally the very first thing we tell the reader about a topic is "Foo (or Foo' in UK/US English)..." As if the nationality of the alternate term was the #1 most important fact about every topic. The English variety of synonyms doesn't belong in the lead of any article, unless that is actually the central reason why a Wikipedia article on the topic exists. There was a terribly long discussion about this at Talk:Car and there was near-unanimous support for this kind of approach: just tell the reader the synonyms in the lead. Go into detail about nationality further down int he body of the article, if sources exist.
That's why I have so much to say about this. We spend too much time discussing UK and US varieties of alternate terms, which is largely fueled by the fact that it's in the lead of so many articles. Move it out of the lead and editors will stop caring so much. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:04, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
This section was on the main page. It is superstition and does not follow any logic. You might as well say you need to put fuzzy dice on the mirror to prevent brake problems.
Please provide factual evidence before returning it to the main page. By "factual evidence", I mean actual evidence, not communally-reinforced theories that have been done for decades without justification.
The superstition:
@Audacity: I firmly believe that anonymous contributors, spammers, should be systematically blocked. Peter Horn User talk 12:34, 14 June 2018 (UTC)