Anyone using a set of these ?
how do they go ?
how do they go ?
thats some cool info, ive head of the holes being curved backwards thing before.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
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.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.
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
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.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 think that statement is the crux of this entire thread.
Who designed what out of their garage? You think CTSmoto would sell something that wasn't safe and painstakingly tested?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.
Oh please... I'm I not allowed to post my opinions either? Are they not allowed because the differ from yours?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?
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.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..
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.I have an engineering degree, do you? NO? Then why doesn't my opinion carry as much weight as yours?
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.Personally I think the CST Motos are a design I would not use. But thats me.