yep, the kit came with the new callipers, rotors, pads, braided brake lines and better brake fluid.

tis true on the difference in perception, although i did do a few practice stops from 100km - 0 (pre and post bbk) and it did pull up much earlier after install (although not a very scientific experiment, it pull up before the old the markers on the same stretch of road).

as to whether it was having the larger rotors, more aggressive brake pads, better fuild etc and the tires, it is hard to attribute to one thing in particular, but with all the components combined, it has made a positive impact on the braking ability of the car.

 

The biggest contributor was undeniably the tires, going from the crappy OEM tires to even half-decent summer rubber will dramatically drop stopping distance.

 

just did some testing on this as the car had to go back to stock for a bit

with the bbk and stock rims / tyres, the braking was improved over no bbk, with everything back on the braking was much improved. so it was stock < bbk, stock rubber < bbk, decent rubber

 

So just for clarification, with your REAL WORLD test:

1- BBK with STANDARD tyres was better than STANDARD brakes and tyres
2- BBK with better tyres was better than BBK with STANDARD tyres

So in your opinion, the BBK DID actually improve braking performance over standard brakes WITH the standard tyres, and upgrading tyres improved braking again????

That makes perfect sense, and proves a point that has been debated over and over and over again.

Thanks for the feedback billyboy.

 

Exactly, in his opinion, he has no hard data. There are plenty of tests with hard data (ie. stopping distances, brake temperatures, lap times, etc) that have proven that BBKs do not shorten brake distances and that their main contributor to performance is increased heat tolerance. When it comes to matters like this, opinions are useless. I'm sure there are people who honestly believe a louder muffler gained them power.

 

well, it is more than just an opinion for saying no hard data is a bit of a stretch - granted, not in a scientifically approved environment, but tested from 60-0 on the same spot in the stretch of road and thus i reported the results as they happened...

 

You don't have data though and the variables were not held constant. The brake pad compound changed when you swapped to the BBK setup, that alone will change the braking characteristics. It doesn't mean the BBK is responsible, it means the more aggressive brake pads are responsible.

 

what i was picking you up on is the phrase 'in his opinion' opinion is 'a personal belief or judgement that is not founded on proof or certainty'

so following on from that logic, if i didn't have any back up for my statement, then yes, you would have been correct. however, where i did the comparisons, was on the same stretch of road, the same speeds and the same conditions (ie variables were constant), so to say there is no proof or certainty is quite untrue. i tested a few times and the results were the same.

the thing that i tested was the difference that a big brake kit would make over stock and then over the stock tyres. no where did i mention or test the difference between the bbk and upgraded pads/rotors, so to bring that into the equation just serves to muddy the waters.

the results of my testing indicates what i mentioned before - the bbk kit with the new rubber was superior to the bbk with stock rubber which was again superior to the stock set up.

 

Yes but you have no hard data to back up this ascertain that another member presumed you were making.

The variables in the experiment were not controlled and the results were not quantitative but qualitative, the BBK feels better and appear to reduce stopping distances but there were no actual stopping distances recorded. What you've "proven" is that some component of the BBK may have helped with stopping distance, but there's no indication of what that component is, the brake pads, the larger rotors, the larger calipers, the new fluid, etc.

 

well, travelling at the same speed etc, i braked from a particular marker on the road and the results were based upon the stopping distance in relation to other markers on the road (granted there may be a small margin of human error re reaction time etc, but that was negated somewhat by testing multiple times) so therefore would that not then fall into the quantifiable category? for the results were also repeatable. bar a brake force testing machine, or the use of a full laboratory to test my claims, the method that i have used reinforce the statement that i made.

once again, i made no mention or sought to prove that one particular component resulted in the increase in braking performance, but rather that the bbk as whole made quite a discernibile difference in the stopping distance. how could i attest to anything else for all i was testing was the improvement that my individual bbk made over stock...

the hypothesis that i sought to test was 'does the bbk make a difference in braking distance' to which the results pointed to 'yes'

 

The problem with that style of testing is that it's qualitative, not quantitative, you can only use relative terms to describe the perceived increased stopping ability.
What I'm saying is that we do not know if the BBK itself, as defined by larger rotors and larger calipers, increased stopping ability. It is very possible that the perceived improvement was due to a single component, the pads. If that is correct, than the BBK, as defined earlier, did nothing.

 

how can it be perceived or for even that matter qualitative? the car pulled up at spot 'x' with the stock set up, pulled up at spot 'y' with the bbk and stock rubber and pulled up at spot 'z' with bbk and new rubber. now if one consults the definition of quantitative, it states 'expressible as a quantity or relating to or susceptible of measurement' now is it not measurable for the distance to where i first applied the brakes to where the car finally stopped? (spot x, y & z). therefore there was a measurable distance from the start of the experiment to the end, therefore it must be define as measurable and therefore quantitative...

so following on from this point, it brings me back to aren't you basing all your information on assumption and perceptions yourself? what data do you have to negate what i have tested and put forward? all you seem to be doing is to adding other variables into the equation to reinforce your own perception that bbk's do nothing, so therefore the information that you are putting forward to negate my results is at best subjective...

what i have done here is to test the impact, and can unequivocally say that the mrt bbk as installed on my car has made an improvement to braking distances...

 

Because you did not take actual values. Can you tell you me how many feet the stock setup stopped in? The BBK setup? No, you can simply say "the BBK stopped faster". The results you have are not quantitative because you do not have the quantities available to you, you are performing a qualitative experiment.
I have posted the data again and again but apparently people are oblivious to it.
http://www.zeckhausen.com/Testing_Brakes.htm
http://www.modified.com/roadtests/07...est/index.html
You cannot make the last statement you made as you have not performed a controlled experiment. There are still too many unknowns to allow you to satisfy your hypothesis.

 

thanks for the links - great reading

well, the results for my test and theirs are consistent which lends weight to my 'unscientific' method, i'll leave this discussion with your link to prove what i've been saying all along

 

Notice how they say feel and consistency, not stopping distance.