Raybestos ST43 Anyone
Thread Starter
2nd Gear Member
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 349
From: webster, ny
Raybestos ST43 Anyone
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
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
Thread Starter
2nd Gear Member
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 349
From: webster, ny
Thread Starter
2nd Gear Member
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 349
From: webster, ny
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?
4th Gear Member
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,778
From: Harrisburg PA
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.
- 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.
Thread Starter
2nd Gear Member
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 349
From: webster, ny
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.
- 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.