Raybestos ST43 Anyone

[14901490]

So after doing a search here i find no info on the ST 43 brake pad. The reason i ask is they were suggested to me by a ' Vette guy as being superior to the HT 10 or HT14 for trac kuse. I realize the brake bias is set up differently on the Mustang , but am wondering if anyone has tried these & impressions ? Thanks

This ad is not displayed to registered or logged-in members. Register your free account today and become a member on Mustang Forums!

[Argonaut]

Im around Vette guys a lot and I can't say I've ever even heard of it. Carbotech, PFC, Hawk and Cobalt Friction are all popular, Willwood also (for those with Willwood calipers).

[14901490]

Originally Posted by Argonaut

Im around Vette guys a lot and I can't say I've ever even heard of it. Carbotech, PFC, Hawk and Cobalt Friction are all popular, Willwood also (for those with Willwood calipers).

whats your current preference?

[RodeoFlyer]

There is a guy in NorCal that has used them with success in TT on his S197. He also uses the 41's. He said they last 5-6 weekends but are just as hard on rotors as the others. He gets them thru Porterfield.

[14901490]

Well I bought a set of the ST 43 for the fronts - so as soon as my HT 14 are spent I'll post a report . Looking like next season unless I get south before ..
Thanks

[RodeoFlyer]

You may want to have a set for the rear ready as well. I've found that if you don't step up the rears the bias is such that the car isn't happy out back, and trailbraking becomes a little dicey.

[14901490]

Originally Posted by RodeoFlyer

You may want to have a set for the rear ready as well. I've found that if you don't step up the rears the bias is such that the car isn't happy out back, and trailbraking becomes a little dicey.

my current set up is
front stoptech st 40 calipers (Saleen BBK ) on slotted 14 " rotors with ht 14

REAR IS STOCK WITH HT 10.

no bias issues now - but with the new st 43 on front you feel i'll want the same on the rear?

[Argonaut]

You learn something new everyday...and here is something I learned just the other day from a very respected former World Challenge driver and coach:

- The usual advice you see with regards to Front vs Rear pads is that the rear pad should be 'lesser' than the front. For example the conventional wisdom is to run HT-14 on Front and HT-10 on rear, or Carbotech XP10 on front and XP8 on rear, etc.

- I have always questioned this, it didn't make sense to me. My thinking was that factory systems are heavily front biased for safety and therefore I was giving up some rear stopping power by putting a 'lessor' pad in the back. Even though I have always followed this advice, I was thinking about changing and going to the same pad front and rear in an attempt to get the rear to do a little more of the work.

- But here is what I learned - the reason we use a lesser pad in the back has nothing to do with the coefficent of friction or stopping power of the pad. It has to do with the optimum temperature for the pad. Different pads provide their peak performance at different temperatures. So in a front weight biased car like the mustang, that relies heavily on the front brakes (what....70+% of braking done by the front?), the temps out front are going to be much higher than the rear. Hence we use a lesser pad on the rear because it works better at a lower temp.

- So (assuming this is correct) in theory it means you could actually be giving up stopping power by using same pad front and back, depending on the pad of course and its optimum operating temp.

[14901490]

Originally Posted by Argonaut

You learn something new everyday...and here is something I learned just the other day from a very respected former World Challenge driver and coach:

- The usual advice you see with regards to Front vs Rear pads is that the rear pad should be 'lesser' than the front. For example the conventional wisdom is to run HT-14 on Front and HT-10 on rear, or Carbotech XP10 on front and XP8 on rear, etc.

- I have always questioned this, it didn't make sense to me. My thinking was that factory systems are heavily front biased for safety and therefore I was giving up some rear stopping power by putting a 'lessor' pad in the back. Even though I have always followed this advice, I was thinking about changing and going to the same pad front and rear in an attempt to get the rear to do a little more of the work.



- But here is what I learned - the reason we use a lesser pad in the back has nothing to do with the coefficent of friction or stopping power of the pad. It has to do with the optimum temperature for the pad. Different pads provide their peak performance at different temperatures. So in a front weight biased car like the mustang, that relies heavily on the front brakes (what....70+% of braking done by the front?), the temps out front are going to be much higher than the rear. Hence we use a lesser pad on the rear because it works better at a lower temp.

- So (assuming this is correct) in theory it means you could actually be giving up stopping power by using same pad front and back, depending on the pad of course and its optimum operating temp.

Interesting that you bring that up as I was also wondering the same thing - why not make the rear do more of the work ?ie put a more aggessive pad on the rear ??

[RodeoFlyer]

Originally Posted by Argonaut

You learn something new everyday...and here is something I learned just the other day from a very respected former World Challenge driver and coach:

- The usual advice you see with regards to Front vs Rear pads is that the rear pad should be 'lesser' than the front. For example the conventional wisdom is to run HT-14 on Front and HT-10 on rear, or Carbotech XP10 on front and XP8 on rear, etc.

- I have always questioned this, it didn't make sense to me. My thinking was that factory systems are heavily front biased for safety and therefore I was giving up some rear stopping power by putting a 'lessor' pad in the back. Even though I have always followed this advice, I was thinking about changing and going to the same pad front and rear in an attempt to get the rear to do a little more of the work.

- But here is what I learned - the reason we use a lesser pad in the back has nothing to do with the coefficent of friction or stopping power of the pad. It has to do with the optimum temperature for the pad. Different pads provide their peak performance at different temperatures. So in a front weight biased car like the mustang, that relies heavily on the front brakes (what....70+% of braking done by the front?), the temps out front are going to be much higher than the rear. Hence we use a lesser pad on the rear because it works better at a lower temp.

- So (assuming this is correct) in theory it means you could actually be giving up stopping power by using same pad front and back, depending on the pad of course and its optimum operating temp.

Hi Argo -

Not to disrespect any World Challenge drivers, as I am friends with a few -

Is your friend familiar with the S197 Mustang? More importantly, is he familiar with Electronic Brake Force Distribution - which the S197 Mustang has?

The basis of the system is that it works in conjunction with the ABS, sending pressure to the braking wheel needing it most. Considerably more braking is done in the back than in days of old. This is also combined with a platform that has much better weight distribution than ever before - i.e : more weight in the rear now - more braking done in the rear.

I've proven it in the real world, trying various compounds and variations front and rear myself. The car is much better under braking when you run the same compound in the back. Your rear pads will last a lot longer as well, since you wont be cooking them.