Revolution Rotors CTSmoto
1 - 20 of 87 Posts
grooved rotors
i run a brembo brake package on my mercedes benz, massive calipers and rotors. in the tech info provided with the kits, brembo talks about different types of rotors and venting/cooling systems. they state that perforations/hole are to be curved backward against rotation. grooves or channels are to meet the outer section of the pads first, not as illustrated with these rotors where it hits the inner edge of the pads first. i also believe that they lack a substantial amount of material to dissipate heat, so true high performance results are possibly comprimised with this design. the wave rotor functions based on leading and trailing edge contact on the pad surface, so the pattern on these rotors can possibly follow that theory
i run a brembo brake package on my mercedes benz, massive calipers and rotors. in the tech info provided with the kits, brembo talks about different types of rotors and venting/cooling systems. they state that perforations/hole are to be curved backward against rotation. grooves or channels are to meet the outer section of the pads first, not as illustrated with these rotors where it hits the inner edge of the pads first. i also believe that they lack a substantial amount of material to dissipate heat, so true high performance results are possibly comprimised with this design. the wave rotor functions based on leading and trailing edge contact on the pad surface, so the pattern on these rotors can possibly follow that theory
Joined
·
11,763 Posts
thats some cool info, ive head of the holes being curved backwards thing before.
and yes, those rotors def dont have enough mass to provide any serious braking. Look at the AP and Brembo iron rotors, damn things are massive.
those are poser brakes for sure.
Joined
·
561 Posts
The reason I posted this thread is because I have spotted a glaring design flaw in the discs.
I have contacted the manufacturer and quizzed him about it and he doesnt seem to agree with me.
No one has picked the flaw in this thread yet. See if you can pick it.
I didnt want to cause a big stink straight up so I asked people if they had any experience with the discs.
If anyone has used these discs, I would like to get some photos of a certain part of the discs to prove my point to the manufacturer.
I have contacted the manufacturer and quizzed him about it and he doesnt seem to agree with me.
No one has picked the flaw in this thread yet. See if you can pick it.
I didnt want to cause a big stink straight up so I asked people if they had any experience with the discs.
If anyone has used these discs, I would like to get some photos of a certain part of the discs to prove my point to the manufacturer.
Joined
·
738 Posts
The design flaw is pretty obvious as the loading of the rotor under braking is transfered to the carrier on the weak point on the carrier. Its backwards basically. However it may still be strong enough.
I use Brake tech rotors that are designed similarly, but have the force of the rotor against the strong part of the carrier.
Attached is a pix of a brake tech rotor to illustrate the difference. The loading of the rotor is on the strong side of the carrier. They have to be made left and right side specific because of this. The pix shown is a RIGHT side rotor.
JJ
Attachments
Joined
·
561 Posts
Spot on Jimmy
The load point on the BrakeTech rotors is intended to be the radial split between the rotor and carrier just opposite the rivet. The rivet is not load bearing, it just stops the disc from wandering to the side.
But this is the issue with the Revolution Rotors. The designer has intended for the rivet to be the main load bearing part. He has repeatedly said to me that the rivet is in compression whereas both you and I can see that it is in tension, in fact floating and the small alloy tab opposite the rivet, which is actually intended to be cosmetic (his words) is in fact the main load bearing part and being alloy (aircraft grade or not) in those dimensions is not strong enough to withstand brake force.
The real task of the tab is not cosmetic at all but should be intended to stop the rotor from dislocating from the carrier when the brakes are applied in reverse. And even in this instance has too much clearance for that.
I think its a matter of time before the designer realises he has a valid patent but he drew it backwards.
You want to talk to Mike Chenoweth ? http://www.ctsmoto.com/contactus.aspx
The load point on the BrakeTech rotors is intended to be the radial split between the rotor and carrier just opposite the rivet. The rivet is not load bearing, it just stops the disc from wandering to the side.
But this is the issue with the Revolution Rotors. The designer has intended for the rivet to be the main load bearing part. He has repeatedly said to me that the rivet is in compression whereas both you and I can see that it is in tension, in fact floating and the small alloy tab opposite the rivet, which is actually intended to be cosmetic (his words) is in fact the main load bearing part and being alloy (aircraft grade or not) in those dimensions is not strong enough to withstand brake force.
The real task of the tab is not cosmetic at all but should be intended to stop the rotor from dislocating from the carrier when the brakes are applied in reverse. And even in this instance has too much clearance for that.
I think its a matter of time before the designer realises he has a valid patent but he drew it backwards.
You want to talk to Mike Chenoweth ? http://www.ctsmoto.com/contactus.aspx
Joined
·
3,272 Posts
noticed that myself...hopefully they dont end up fully floating off the carrier lol.
Joined
·
0 Posts
Big Kahuna here uses those rotors. I personally feel that they are all bling, no thing, for the same reasons as mentioned above.
Joined
·
738 Posts
Yes, I agree, on the Brake Techs the rivet is full floating and only keeps the carrier and rotor in side to side alignment. The rotors actually have a lot of side to side float in them. Unlike Galfer Waves that have little to no float.
I did see in some magazine in the last month or 2 (will try to find it) where they used some of the CST Moto rotors and really like them. I think it was Super Street bike, but can't say for sure.
I also agree it appears he drew his design backwards. Not how I would have done it. A little tab of alloy taking the brake force. But its not my area of expertise.......
I tell you something that really scares me was the first time I took apart a FOX Shock to discover the entire weight of the bike on the shock is held in place by the spring that is held in place by a tiny little circlip ring held in by a interference fit of the spring perch. Apparetnly most shocks are designed that way.
JJ
Joined
·
1,094 Posts
Wow, why such hatred for a new product? Design flaws, please. CTSmoto has ran many independant test on their setup, believe it or not, they could not get the rotors to fail.
I'm sure CTSmoto will be releasing the results as soon as they button up the patent, but these things out perform stock in every way. He even sent in Galfer and Braketech rotors for the same test, you'd be surprised which rotors came out on top.
I've been running the prototypes for about two years now on the street. Since then Mike has tweaked the design into perfection. I'm headed to the shop this weekend to have the new design fitted.
Maybe you should think about what you do know, before you go bad mouthing a product you don't fully understand.
I'm sure CTSmoto will be releasing the results as soon as they button up the patent, but these things out perform stock in every way. He even sent in Galfer and Braketech rotors for the same test, you'd be surprised which rotors came out on top.
I've been running the prototypes for about two years now on the street. Since then Mike has tweaked the design into perfection. I'm headed to the shop this weekend to have the new design fitted.
Maybe you should think about what you do know, before you go bad mouthing a product you don't fully understand.
Joined
·
738 Posts
Even NASA is not above having design flaws. Design flaws that kill people. Certainly someone designing something out of their garage is capable of being falable.
NO hatred on my part. I have no dog in the CST Moto hunt, I just responded to the original poster with my opinions. Are my opinions not allowed without accusing me of being a hater? I even mentioned where the CST Motos got a good report in a recent magazine test, so wheres the hatred?
I understand you will like them, you bought them. Everyone wants to be happy with their purchase decisions. Even to the point of convincing themselves of something that isn't true.
I have an engineering degree, do you? NO? Then why doesnt my opinion carry as much weight as yours?
Personally I think the CST Motos are a design I would not use. But thats me.
Not talking to me? Your reply followed my post. Learn to use the qoute button then.
JJ
Joined
·
738 Posts
Look what I found. Page 25 Sept 08 Super Street Bike magazine. Not the issue that has the review, havent found that one and it may have not been of the CST's but of the Beringers instead.
Beringer Aerotec looks erily similar to the CST Motos. Now I am curios.
Whose zooming who? $799.00 :th_SmlyROFL:
JJ
Beringer Aerotec looks erily similar to the CST Motos. Now I am curios.
Whose zooming who? $799.00 :th_SmlyROFL:
JJ
Attachments
Joined
·
738 Posts
Actually it was 2 Wheel Tuner and not Street Superbike I read this in. Link Below.
http://www.rotorrevolution.com/Media/2wtSept08/2wtSept08_carbajalwriteup.pdf
Seem to work real good for doing stoppies for stunting.
Couldnt say how the CST/Beringer clones would work at a track day. My guess based on 30 years of riding and 7 years of club racing is not very good.
But for stunting (as illustrated in this article) and posing, they are a WINNER, I guess. Just not for me though.
JJ
http://www.rotorrevolution.com/Media/2wtSept08/2wtSept08_carbajalwriteup.pdf
Seem to work real good for doing stoppies for stunting.
Couldnt say how the CST/Beringer clones would work at a track day. My guess based on 30 years of riding and 7 years of club racing is not very good.
But for stunting (as illustrated in this article) and posing, they are a WINNER, I guess. Just not for me though.
JJ
Joined
·
738 Posts
I think that statement is the crux of this entire thread.
Is it strong enough? Yes? No?
I can't say for certain. I just don't like it from looking at it though. It would appear to me they designed it backwards. I personally would not buy this rotor because of it. Thats why we have choices.
JJ
Joined
·
1,094 Posts
Who designed what out of their garage? You think CTSmoto would sell something that wasn't safe and painstakingly tested?
Oh please... I'm I not allowed to post my opinions either? Are they not allowed because the differ from yours?
What isn't true? I've been riding with these for the past few years. I know first hand that they perform much better than stock and they are only prototypes.
Nope, I have no idea what the hell is going on when Mike starts describing all the technical mumbo jumbo about the rotors, but I respect his knowledge on the subject and I have seen and read the results from the testing myself.
That's your right, but your opinion on the design of the rotors doesn't make them any more safe or unsafe. When Mike first sent in the rotors for testing, they did the same thing you did. Looked over the design and try to determine where they would fail. They thought they would fail at the rivets but to their surprise they did not. Nothing the did to the rotors could get them to fail. They were scratching their heads trying to figure what they could do next.
Mike did take their advice and made one small change to the rotors for the final cut. He had just sent them in for final testing the last time I was there and I haven't hear the results yet but I figure they will be even better than before.
So despite your "expert" assessment of Mike's design, the rotors will not fail. It's a fact even the testers couldn't even figure out.
Granted, the looks of the rotors are not for everyone, but you can't discount the quality and overall performance advancements these rotors bring to the table. Just because Galfer and Braketech (of course both great products) have been around a while, doesn't make them a better choice with it comes to performance.
Joined
·
21,850 Posts
Ok for one i havent ridden these rotors for the fact that i have had tremendous results from my Braketechs and like them more so than Brembo full floaters and Galfer SBK rotors that I HAVE ran on the track.
The design does look to be flawed slightly, as the load bearing tabs seem to have too much spacing on the and looks like after awhile could possibly cause the floating rivet to fail.
Where are these "torture tests" that compare the Brembo, Braketech and CTS rotors? Id like to see it, also is it an independent test or done in house at CTS?
The design does look to be flawed slightly, as the load bearing tabs seem to have too much spacing on the and looks like after awhile could possibly cause the floating rivet to fail.
Where are these "torture tests" that compare the Brembo, Braketech and CTS rotors? Id like to see it, also is it an independent test or done in house at CTS?
1 - 20 of 87 Posts
Join the discussion
Join now to ask and comment!