Menu
What's new
By:
Advanced search...

Brake splash shields

Opposed 3 pots?

Admittedly I'm a bit out of touch since I left the industry 3 years ago, but if only ever seen 3-pots on hondas with linked brakes, and then they were
Sliding calipers, not opposed pistons.
 
Tokikos, usually found on the more expensive Kawasakis that get thrown down the road by rich kids a week or two after purchase (ZX7 / and 9 Rs).

And the VFR800 has Nissin 6 pot ones from memory
 
Oh, loads of stuff used to have 6-pots back in the 90s. The Tokicos were notoriously hard to bleed, so most people used to swap them for the SRAD 4-pots.

Look at that Jag caliper Freddofrog posted. 2 pots on one side, 1 on the other. That's what I meant was weird.
 
Haha. A good friend of mine had a P6 he sold 4 years back, and it had a really moody v8 in it.
Would really upset most stuff, the other cars wouldn't know what was going on as they got mobbed by a 70s barge.
 
BRAKE SPLASH SHIELD(S)
BRAKE SPLASH GUARD(S)
BRAKE DUST SHIELD(S)
BRAKE DUST GUARD(S)
BRAKE DISC SHIELD(S)
BRAKE DISC GUARD(S)

ROTOR SPLASH SHIELD(S)
ROTOR SPLASH GUARD(S)
ROTOR DUST SHIELD(S)
ROTOR DUST GUARD(S)
BRAKE ROTOR SHIELD(S)
BRAKE ROTOR GUARD(S)

None of those search terms will find a definitive answer to what they are for.

However .........
 
As I've already mentioned in #27, up until the 1970's (in the UK at least) Dunlop and Girling were at the forefront in the design and manufacture of brake systems.

Below are Girling and Dunlop adverts for disc bakes from 1957 car magazines, note that disc brakes had only started to appear on cars around that time.

advert_Girling_nov57.jpg
advert_Dunlop_jun57.jpg



At the time, Girling was a brand that was part of Lucas, but Dunlop was an independent company that was into tyres for all sorts of transport, as well as anything ***ociated with wheels, such as brakes. As a result, Dunlop were heavily patenting their brake designs.

DUNLOP BRAKE DISC PATENT in Google throws up some interesting information. Some excerpts from Google Books show that Dunlop patented disc brakes for aircraft, and then for cars in the 1950's. One excerpt states that reliable disc brakes first appeared on the Jaguar C-Type (Dunlop design), the Citroen DS, and the Triumph TR3 (Girling).

In particular, someone called Henry James Butler was filing the Patents for Dunlop in the US (Dunlop Co must have realised that patenting in the US was imperative). This website http://www.freepatentsonline.com/ seems to be the best for searching for Patents, particularly in the US. Searching in there for "henry james butler brake" (without quotes) throws up loads of patents, in particular "Brake with dust shield".

Here it is, US2746577

US2746577A_fig1.jpg



This was first filed in 1951, and as far as I can tell, it is the first patent for a "dust shield" for disc brakes.

As you can see, the disc (diagonal hatching, labelled 1 and 3) is fully enclosed. The pipe 12 is stated to be a source of compressed air, which can be applied to keep the disc cool. Butler starts off by saying that disc brakes are used in aircraft and implies that they aren't so much of an issue and goes on to say "when a disc brake of the type described hereinabove is used in a road vehicle however, it is found that dust and road dirt adhere to the radially extending sides of the disc with the result that when the brakes are applied, the disc is scored and abraded by particles of grit and the like whilst the pads of friction material are very rapidly worn down". He then says that the patent is to prevent this and states that, in conjunction with the amount of compressed air, heat dissipation would be "optimised" (my wording). He says that the patent is applicable to aircraft, road cars, and large road vehicles.

His patent cites 7 other patents: 2 of which are for cooling of drum brakes; 1 for shielding the entire drum (for similar reasons to his patent) ; 2 for single brake disc design; and 1 for a disc wiper (1950, shown below)

Here is the latter, US2496699

US2496699A_fig1.jpg


Bruce E. Clark (patentee for Chrysler of the above) states "One difficulty with [disc brakes] has been found to be that the portion of the disc which is exposed to the air is also exposed to dust, water, mud, slush, and similar road dirt. The presence of this road dirt on the disc is detrimental when the dirt comes into contact with the friction element. Water and dirt radically change the coefficient of friction of the element on the disc and wear of the parts is accelerated. I have provided means to remedy this defect by preventing the road dirt from coming into contact with the friction disc. I provide a means for cleaning a localised area of the disc and always presenting a clean disc surface in alignment with the friction element. In addition I seal the movable member itself from direct contact with the road dirt."

Of the two designs, IMO the latter is better, but one has to ask
1. why were these types of patent being proposed ?
2. why were they never fully implemented ?

The answers are fairly obvious.

1. in the 1950's disc brakes were new on cars, and these patents were "contingencies" in case such problems became apparent over time
2. (i) in the 1940's and 1950's roads were "un-paved" in many parts of the US and Europe; (ii) the early materials used to manufacture discs and pads may not have been durable; (iii) fabrication and maintenance of the above would have been more difficult than maintenance of the disc and pads themselves

As a result, brake disc shields evolved into something more-or-less resembling an umbrella, and like an umbrella, shields are not going to do a great deal in heavy rain conditions.
 
Because Citroen were an early adopter of disc brakes and are a marque with which I am familiar, I can confirm by example how pointless these shields are. Up until the mid-70's (when PUG took over Citroen), although Citroen had been forerunners in front-wheel-drive design, they did not use transverse engines. The result is that the 2CV and variants, the DS and variants, and the GS and variants, all had the front brakes mounted inboard on the gearbox on the front. Only the rear brakes were mounted outboard.

Front inboard on the GS
GS_front.jpg


Rear outboard on the GS
GS_rear.jpg


You can see that Citroen attempted to fully enclose the rear discs on the GS. I never attempted to inspect or maintain those because I never had a GS long enough. But I did have several GS/2CV variants that had the inboard discs on the front (but with outboard drums on the back) and, even inboard, the discs and pads gave problems.

I also had several BX's (which had PUG transverse engines) and the front and rear setups are shown below (outboard discs all round).

BX_front.jpg


BX_rear.jpg


You can see that they put huge shields on the rear brakes but no shields on the front. Problems with those rear discs and pads were as bad, worse even, than on the rear of the Accord. Unlike the inboard discs/pads on the GS/2CV variants, the outboard front brakes on the BX gave no problems whatsoever. Eventually I removed the shields on the rear, which slightly improved the issues on the rear.

Note also that all those cars had steel wheels, so where discs were outboard, one side of the disc was fairly enclosed. With modern cars having alloys that leave the discs and pads exposed on one side, shields on the back of the disc become even more pointless.

The main issue with the rear discs on the BX and on the Accord, is the build-up of a raised rusty area on the outer edge on the outboard side of the disc. From what I have read, the reason for this seems to be due to high temperatures (poor ventilation) and contamination from brake-dust from the pads themselves !!

Note that I purchased my Accord when it was 15 months old with 12k on the clock, and even then the rear discs were showing the problem. Indeed, the dealer that I bought the car from, got the discs and pads renewed for free under Honda warranty, several months before the 3 years warranty was up. But the problem only came back, and it's an incessant problem.

Conclusion

Brake splash guards, brake dust shields, are an anachronism that some brake manufacturers still cling onto : note that even today, some volume car manufacturers (including Honda) tend to use off-the-shelf brake designs from suppliers, and clearly don't question the existence of the guards/shields. Conversely, some marques do not have any guards/shields fitted.

Finally, removing the guards/shields does not result in MOT failure in the UK, so if one decides that there is either a technical or legal reason for keeping the shields, there isn't. The best solution is to regularly (e.g. every 6 months) inspect the discs and pads, and clean them up if dust (usually from the brake pads themselves) is building up.

btw, it took longer to type this up and proof-read it, than it took to research and bookmark everything LOL
 
While we are on busting myths, there are references to "warped rotors" earlier on. Cast iron rotors do not warp with rapid heating and cooling (they can crack though), and floating calipers are not capable of detecting warped discs.

A warped disc or rotor has an even thickness, but does not have the brake surfaces on a flat plane. Think warped vinyl record.

Think about it: if a disk is actually warped a floating caliper will move with the disk and a double acting fixed caliper will transfer fluid from one side to the other, but neither will change the pressure in the brake system.

People identify 2 different types of feedback as "warped rotors".

a. Pulsing brake feedback as a result of uneven rotor thickness, and
b. Shimmying steering under brakes as a result of uneven deposition of brake pad residue on the rotor surface.

it doesn't help that a can also cause b and b will exaggerate effect of a.

As machining the disc surface clean, allowing new bedding in of brakes, solves both a and b, almost he entire brake industry simply calls the problem "warped rotors" as shorthand, leaving brake manufacturers quietly shaking their heads. They never actually see a warped disc, yet are blamed for substandard manufacturing.

The myth of warped rotors is worth millions servicing and repairs. No brake specialist is going to tell you your disc isn't warped when they can make a quick few hundred quid by selling you new discs and pads. But it is also curious that some people never seem to have the problem, and some people it just seems to follow them around.

Cars that suffer from brake feedback problems are generally cars that do a bit of stop-go traffic. Cars with more abrasive pads that wear away the disks (e.g. cars you see with chronic dust blackened front wheels - this is not just pad wear, it's actually disc wear) ) treat a brake disc as a consumable item and machine the disk as part of braking, don't tend to suffer from "warped discs". Car brands with softer brake pads have long life discs, but are much more prone to uneven wear and brake problems (virtually all Jap cars).

If you have this problem, before you resort to active mechanical intervention, do a few hard stops every week. Say, one harder than usual stop per drive. This cleans your discs from uneven deposition of brake material. You can also take your car up a and down a mountain pass, and brake a lot.

This was the advice I received from an engineer at a large brake pad manufacturer. Any problems with brakes his factory had signed off on would land on his team for ****ysis (we're talking hundreds of thousands of cars sold world wide).

On my 94 Accord, it solved my "warped discs" problem completely.

The origin of the problem seems to be the amount of float present in wheel bearings. This is also what creates the gap between the pad and the disc when not braking. The car will basically find some sort of bias that causes more contact with one section of a disc than another. But it is a fuzzy uncertain harmonic rather than an exact formula.

I'll leave it on this point: The idea of spot heating or rapid cooling warping brake discs is so ingrained that bringing up the "warping is a myth" topic seems to upset some people to the core. Particularly old-timers who have had a lifetime of replacing "warped" brake discs. Physics vs religion.
 
^ nice description of another myth ;)


I've been wondering how much heat does get into the brakes during braking.

I started with the braking distances from the highway code (I think they originate there)
distances.jpg


then I constructed this table in Excel

mph -- m/s -- kJ -- time -- kW

..10 --- 4.5 --- 16 -- 0.7 --- 23
..20 --- 8.9 --- 64 -- 1.4 --- 47
..30 ---13.4 --144 -- 2.1 --- 70
..40 ---17.9 --256 -- 2.7 --- 93
..50 ---22.4 --400 -- 3.4 ---117
..60 ---26.8 --576 -- 4.1 ---140
..70 ---31.3 --783 -- 4.8 ---163



The kJ column is the kinetic energy in kilo-Joules of a car of mass 1600kg, at the corresponding speeds.

The time column is the time in seconds that it takes for the car to decelerate to a stop when the car's brakes are fully applied (if you work it out, the "red" braking distances result from using a constant deceleration of 6.53 m/s/s, so divide the m/s column by 6.53 to get the time it takes to stop once the brakes are fully applied).

The final column is the "heating power" in kW that has to be dissipated by the brakes when the car's brakes are fully applied (divide kJ by time).

Note that it works out at 23kW for every 10mph, and since most of the braking is done by the front brakes, at full braking that's about 10kW per 10mph on each front disc. But note that this is maximum braking, so this is the sort of heating that you would expect to dissipate a lot on a track-day.

For normal braking, just divide the kJ column by the time you take to normally come to rest e.g. 20mph to stop in 4 seconds = 64kJ / 4 = 16 kW "heating power".

To gently decelerate using the brakes from one speed to a lower speed, use the difference between the kJ numbers divided by the time e.g. 40mph to 20mph in 8 seconds= (256kJ - 64kJ) / 8 = 24 kW "heating power"

I don't know about you, but those numbers do surprise me, and I'm sure they are correct.


Then read this http://automotivethinker.com/brakes-2/shields-behind-rotors/ which is interesting in the way the shields were causing problems on a track day, then look at the mythology in a couple of the comments underneath.
 
Yes, the sheilds in a tarmac motorsport environment are actually a negative. They become a heatsink, and create uneven cooling on the inside face of the disc. Brake ducts directing cold air into the centre of a directional finned disc sorts most of this out. But temps on track quickly get to 600°deg on the rotor after a few hard laps for a typical GT sportscar. Warping feel is often actually the pad material imprinting/marking the disc face. Which is why for example you never put the handbrake on after a session on track.
 
A few remarks about inboard disc systems. I've seen inboard discs and we had a 1220 GS Pallas when I was young. I don't remember what brakes it had on the rear. I've also had a look and an Alfa Romeo with discs mounted on the rear transaxle and marveled at the "empty" look of the rear wheels.

I see the main advantage of inboard brakes as lowering sprung mass at the end of the suspension arc. Suspension works on the difference in inertia between 2 bodies connected via a spring, so the lighter the mass connected to the road, the more effective the suspension will be with smoothing out the ride, especially dealing with the smaller bumps.

However the CV joints on cars with inboard brakes have to deal with the far greater torque of braking forces than on cars with hub mounted brakes. Both the joints and axles need to be stronger.

btw I think the splash shields protect rotors from potential oil & grease splatter so that in some sort of containment failure (ball joint boot, CV joint boot) the brakes don't fail.
 
The original 2CV had inboard drums on the front and outboard drums on the rear, the original DS had inboard discs on the front and outboard drums on the rear. It was only later that the 2CV and variants had inboard discs instead of drums, but kept the outboard drums on the rear.

The GS had discs all round, as did the SM. Both had inboard discs on the front, and outboard discs on the rear. But quite a few Jags (e.g. E-type) had inboard discs on the rear (with outboard discs on the front). Obviously in those cases it was fairly practical to put discs inboard where the driveshafts were at a low angle with direct connection to the diff. It was only when engines became transverse such that the diff was to one side, that it became more practical to mount the brakes outboard. I had a DS (23 Pallas) as well as an Ami Super (I swapped the 1015 for a 1220 engine), and it always concerned me that all of the braking was through the front driveshafts. There are a few threads on TA about driveshafts snapping on the 2.4 (on the UK driver's side), if that had happened on a DS or GS or SM or 2CV during heavy braking, the consequences could be unpleasant.

I very much doubt if the splash shields are there to protect rotors from potential oil & grease splatter if a boot splits, because the Citroen BX didn't have them on the front (with outboard discs all round) and the Accord has them on both front and rear (so why on the rear if they're on the front for a different reason). I'd only be convinced of some reason other than those given in #37, if someone found a patent that proposed a shield in the same position, but stated to be for a different purpose. Feel fee to spend time searching for such a patent ;)

For example, if you put "brake heat shield" (without quotes) in the search box in that patent website, you'll find a lot of "brake heat shields" for aircraft brakes, and a couple for car brakes: but if you look at the diagrams of the patents for the latter, those types of shield are not the same and are either proposed to protect the caliper or the wheel bearing from heat ; not to absorb disc heat or to protect the brake hoses or rubber boots etc (another reason given on various forums on the internet).

I doubt if a manufacturer would fit splash shields, splash guards, dust shields, dust guards for a different purpose without patenting it and also giving it a different name, so it seems to me that they are there for the semantic implied in the name, which is to protect the disc from the environment ....but they don't actually do what it says on the tin (which is why you'll find marques in every decade with shields on only one axle, or not fitted at all ).
 
US3516684 BRAKE SPLASH SHIELD filed Oct. 1 1968 by Horatio Shakespear ***ignor to General Motors Corporation Detroit.

Abstract: "Splash shields are attached to the bottoms of vehicle lower control arms and shaped to prevent road splash from the opposite wheels from contacting the brake units"

---------------------------------------------------------

"The invention relates to road splash shields for vehicle brake units and more particularly to shields which intersect the road splash cone patterns emanating from a wheel on one side of the vehicle toward the brake unit of a wheel on the other side of the vehicle. When the brake units are generally circular in shape, as brake drums or discs, the road splash from a left front wheel, for example, will splash transversally of the vehicle in a pattern including an oblique cone tending to impinge on the right front brake unit. While some elements of the vehicle frame and chassis usually intersect the cone pattern, there is a considerable amount of road splash which is not prevented from hitting the brake unit. This is particularly important when the brake unit is not enclosed, as is often the case with a disc brake unit. Generally circular splash shields have sometimes been provided inwardly adjacent the rotating discs. However, such splash shields also tend to limit the cooling of the discs. It is now proposed that splash shields be mounted well away from the discs but still intersecting the road splash paths which are not otherwise intersected by other structure so as to prevent the impingement of road splash on the brake units. The splash shields embodying the invention are mounted obliquely to the splash paths and are provided with coamings which extend at generally right angles to the road splash paths and downwardly so as to deflect road splash back to the road surface and also to provide drip edges for splash residue so that the residue may fall to the road surface".

---------------------------------------------------------

Phew, thank goodness for plastic wheel arches and plastic splash trays under the engine ;)
 
I'm intrigued about the statement in the patent in #45 "When the brake units are generally circular in shape, as brake drums or discs, the road splash from a left front wheel, for example, will splash transversally of the vehicle in a pattern including an oblique cone tending to impinge on the right front brake unit".

Here is the pattern of an oblique cone

rKc2d__.jpg



I presume that the circular (base) end of the cone is from the rotating disc (or drum), which suggests that the water is ejected inwardly, as in the pattern above ?

So I had a look at my CM2 (7th gen Accord Tourer) and shone a torch through the alloy-wheel on front and back, to see where a spray pattern like the above would hit.

On the front, I presume it would travel up along the driveshaft ?

On the rear, since the 7th gen Tourer has a trailing arm, I can't tell where such a pattern would travel.

A better way would be to remove the wheels on one side and take a look, but I'm not OCD enough to do that.

But anyway, if that is the real reason for Splash Shields, then it might be worth hanging onto them until they do become loose. IMO once they have become loose, it's not worth replacing them to prevent such a cone pattern from travelling inwards ?


Edit: one other thought, McPherson strut suspension would eliminate that spray pattern, so maybe best to buy a French car instead LOL
 
But the cone from each wheel would meet in the middle ! and that's not taking into account the turbulence caused by the cars forward motion. Sometimes theory and fact don't coincide.
 
I'm not sure where the notion of an "oblique cone" originates i.e. whether it was a theory or something that was observed on a test rig.

The patent does not give evidence, it merely states that "circular splash shields have sometimes been provided inwardly adjacent the rotating discs" which "tend to limit the cooling of the discs. It is now proposed that splash shields be mounted well away from the discs but still intersecting the road splash paths" (circular shields first appeared on some cars in the late 1950's, this General Motors patent comes 10 years afterwards)

So the implication is that the discs themselves are known to generate an "oblique cone" of water. Obviously the cone of water may not reach the other side as a cone (the patent indirectly says this) and it depends on the length and shape of the cone, and the force produced, as to where the water will end up.

The issue seems to be that the splash shields are not there to protect the wheel that the shield is on, it's there to prevent a cone of water from being ejected inwardly. This now makes sense to me as to why they fitted large shields on the rear of the Citroen BX but not on the front.

On the front there are large structures that prevent such a cone from being generated
BX_front.jpg


but on the rear, they may have been concerned about excessive amounts of water getting onto the hydraulic piping between the trailing arms, and shields behind the discs were probably an easier solution rather than attempting to place shielding around the hydraulic piping.
BX_rear.jpg


There is a lot of mythology about these shields, I'm now beginning to think that they're there to prevent excessive water spray being ejected inwards. But, looking on the front and back of my 7th gen Tourer, the only thing that concerns me by removal of the shields, might be water being thrown back along the front driveshafts (the Accord does not use McPherson struts so it's very possible)


edit: quite a few "interesting" pdf's on the net from "rotating disc pattern of fluids" in Google (without quotes). Most of them are related to geophysical and oceanographic vortices and cite Euler equations and Coriolis phenomena.

But this one from the Journal of Fluid Mechanics (2004) is just a disc immersed in a fluid http://www.legi.grenoble-inp.fr/people/Jan-Bert.Flor/PUBLICATIONS/JFMMF.pdf with mathematical modelling and a camera system on a rig to verify the model. From some of the images, the fluid is not ejected at the edges, but recirculates inwardly with boundary layers. I would expect in heavy rainfall, the brake disc is rotating within a mist or spray, and water droplets in air can be said to behave as a fluid. This will generate boundary layers and recirculation, such that with an airstream travelling across the disc, an oblique cone travelling away from the disc could develop i.e. a vortex. They weren't daft in the 1950's LOL
 
Richard B said:
btw I think the splash shields protect rotors from potential oil & grease splatter so that in some sort of containment failure (ball joint boot, CV joint boot) the brakes don't fail.
Click to expand...
I alluded to that hypothesis a short while ago.

Btw - the reason for inboard disc technology in the middleweight Hondas of the early 80s (MVX250 up to the CBX550) was three-fold

1) Protect the dual piston caliper to a large extent from road dirt.
2) Allow a single disc to be centralised, removing the pull on one side under braking, and hidden (it was thought that the aesthetics of a single sided external disc would put people off, moreso if the same part number lower stanchion on both sides had bolt holes for another unused caliper), and
3) Honda could use iron for the rotor for additional bite without detracting from the looks after a night out in the rain.
 
I'm not sure what you mean by "inboard" on a motorbike because, on a car, inboard and outboard either apply to which end of the driveshaft where the brake disc/drum is, or the position of a shield in relation to the disc.

But continuing into this tangential area. any ideas "who" first introduced disc brakes onto motorbikes ?

Also, are (or were) the brakes on motorbikes also "outsourced" (as seems to be the case on cars) ?


edit:
oh, and did any motorbikes have shields fitted and when, and any ideas why ?
 
freddofrog said:
I'm not sure what you mean by "inboard" on a motorbike because, on a car, inboard and outboard either apply to which end of the driveshaft where the brake disc/drum is, or the position of a shield in relation to the disc.

But continuing into this tangential area. any ideas "who" first introduced disc brakes onto motorbikes ?

Also, are (or were) the brakes on motorbikes also "outsourced" (as seems to be the case on cars) ?


edit:
oh, and did any motorbikes have shields fitted and when, and any ideas why ?
Click to expand...


By inboard I mean shrouded from the elements. Honda enclosed discs on at least five models of their range with a front end wheel hub that more or less mimicked the rear drum brake system.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/14/Honda_Motorcycles_MVX250.JPG/1200px-Honda_Motorcycles_MVX250.JPG



Lockhart and Honda in the very late 60's worked together on production disc brakes.
 
Yeah, those hondas were weird.

Bringer 4 disc setup anyone?

 
Nooooo, those are pairs of discs.

4 front brake discs and floating opposed piston calipers with 4 pads.



 
But they also do these too;



And all of those setups are in the name of reducing gyroscopic effect by moving the mass nearer the spindle.
 
Channel Hopper said:
By inboard I mean shrouded from the elements. Honda enclosed discs on at least five models of their range with a front end wheel hub that more or less mimicked the rear drum brake system.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/14/Honda_Motorcycles_MVX250.JPG/1200px-Honda_Motorcycles_MVX250.JPG



Lockhart and Honda in the very late 60's worked together on production disc brakes.
Click to expand...

found an interesting article on the MVX250 http://www.mcnews.com.au/honda-mvx250f-with-phil-hall/

Same picture in the article of four of the bikes (note that someone has removed the shrouds on one bike)
Honda-MVX-250F-Trio.jpg


"It produced 40bhp in a bike that weighed just over 150kgs wet so it wasn’t a ball of fire, but it was certainly brisk enough for the day. Other technology that made it interesting was the use of Honda’s enclosed disk brakes where the disk was fixed on the outer periphery, the caliper gripped it from INSIDE and the whole arrangement was enclosed in a metal, ventilated casing. This arrangement certainly meant that the brakes worked in the wet, something most exposed and stainless steel disks on Japanese bikes did not, but the penalty was weight, and unsprung weight at that, the enemy of good handling. Having had many years of experience with the type on the various CBX550’s I owned, I can tell you that the trade-off is probably just fractionally to the negative."

Nice schematic of the engine in that article
Honda-MVX250F-Crankshaft-Rods.jpg


"real-time usage of the bike saw catastrophic failures of the conrod in the vertical cylinder. In a model that was going to last a long while in the market, a solution for this would, of course, have been found, but the MVX was slated for obsolescence almost from the moment it hit the showroom floors and, no sooner had it arrived than it was gone, the problem gloriously unresolved."

"There was another reason for the comet-like life of the MVX. The main competition for the MVX came from Yamaha’s brilliant LC model, a bike with style, clout, a racing pedigree a mile long and a raft load of companies producing hot-up bits to make it go even faster than it already did. It really was no contest.
And so the brilliant little MVX, Honda’s first two stroke road bike, came and went and its passing went virtually unnoticed"
 
Goodluckmonkey said:
Yeah, those hondas were weird.

Bringer 4 disc setup anyone?

Click to expand...
I wondered what you meant by "Bringer 4 disc setup" , until I realised it's a typo LOL

I've not really heard of Beringer, they've only been doing brakes since 1990 http://www.beringer-brakes.com/en/the-company.htm#3-25-years-experience-in-performance

Looks Beringer are using those brakes in #56 in light aircraft (or maybe they developed them for light aircraft and use them on bikes too)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pc9Akzu24UY
 
Richard B said:
Game Over



(image is link)
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what that shows other than MOAB (mother of all brakes) LOL

From the patents I stumbled across for aircraft brakes, shields for large aircraft brakes are there for a different reason for shields on cars

I might dig out a few

edit:
e.g. US6915880 US7255208
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top