Model Y Performance Rear Motor

[Jeffgtx]

i mean, if we are going to argue that tesla catalogue integrety is the basis of a decision, it will take more to get me on board there. maybe they are not interchangeable because they are matched to go with something else different in the trims. don't know. i dont know enough to take a side here, but i wouldnt rule out supplier diff as a reason just yet.

 

[Knightshade]

i mean, if we are going to argue that tesla catalogue integrety is the basis of a decision, it will take more to get me on board there. maybe they are not interchangeable because they are matched to go with something else different in the trims. don't know. i dont know enough to take a side here, but i wouldnt rule out supplier diff as a reason just yet.

If it was a different supplier of a functionally identical part why would the 990 only, ever, appear in one specific trim, and the 980 appear in every other trim of not just the 3, but every trim generally (so far) of the Y?

If they're functionally identical they'd use whichever had better supply just then- and you'd find at least some examples of each part in each version of the car.

 

[Electric Steve]

Nope.

Covered in other thread in some detail- but if they were functionally interchangeable they wouldn't have one of them appear exclusively on a single trim, and they'd both be under a master PN in the catalog for repair/replacement purposes....among the other reasons.


For example PC makers often have 2 or 3 brands of drive that are considered equivalent- there's a master PN that tells manufacturing "Put one of MP123 in this box" and you can drill down under PN MP123 and see 3 different lower-level PNs any one of which counts as MP123-- and whatever brand the factory happens to have a bunch of that week based on supply chain, that's what goes in... so the laptops you get this week might have a Samsung drive, and next week a Toshiba drive, both under the same master PN. If a drive fails under warranty they'll replace it with whatever brand is on hand when they do the repair under the master PN.


Yet 100% of non-LR-AWD 3s get a 980, and (since mid-2019 anyway) 100% of AWD LR 3s get a 990...and nothing in the catalog suggests one can be replaced with the other for a repair.

From what I could find online, the working theory is that the 990's are purely a cost-cutting measure; a version of the 980 that's good enough for non-P on the M3, but not good enough for P. As for why the MY always has 980's, it may well be that it needs them because it's heavier, or maybe this cost-cutting measure isn't being applied from the very start, allowing them to simplify production by essentially building one type of car and deciding which trim to assign it to at the last moment.

It's also been suggested that the 980's are just 990's that fell short during inspection, much as CPU's are separated up by which ones overheat at full speed. If so, then they might have a limited number of 990's, which are already allocated to non-P AWD M3's, so there are none to spare for the MY. Or they could have a diminishing number as they improve the yield for 980's.

Supposedly, the initial difference between performance and regular AWD was in the software and maybe in the inverters, not the motors. But if you're not going to drive the motor as hard, you can get away with a somewhat lower-specced alternative.

Assuming all this is true, I'm not sure how I feel about it. I'm paying for the Performance trim, but it's strange that the regular AWD's are either identical in hardware or only very slightly different (the inverters).

 

[DDrawer]

In all this time of knowing about these two motors, nobody has done an engineering breakdown on them?

It's also been suggested that the 980's are just 990's that fell short during inspection, much as CPU's are separated up by which ones overheat at full speed. If so, then they might have a limited number of 990's, which are already allocated to non-P AWD M3's, so there are none to spare for the MY. Or they could have a diminishing number as they improve the yield for 980's.

This process is referred to as "binning". When manufacturers separate the various levels of silicon quality (after testing of clock speeds), and sell them as different sku's. Could be the case (though I don't know if that is a "thing" with mechanical quality).

 

[Knightshade]

From what I could find online, the working theory is that the 990's are purely a cost-cutting measure; a version of the 980 that's good enough for non-P on the M3, but not good enough for P.

Uh...yeah...that's literally what I already explained.

As I mentioned, there's a VERY long thread about this exact topic in the 3 forums.

As for why the MY always has 980's, it may well be that it needs them because it's heavier, or maybe this cost-cutting measure isn't being applied from the very start, allowing them to simplify production by essentially building one type of car and deciding which trim to assign it to at the last moment.

Already mentioned earlier in this very thread (the simplicity for initial rollout)

It's also been suggested that the 980's are just 990's that fell short during inspection, much as CPU's are separated up by which ones overheat at full speed. If so, then they might have a limited number of 990's, which are already allocated to non-P AWD M3's, so there are none to spare for the MY. Or they could have a diminishing number as they improve the yield for 980's.

This has already been shot down in the other thread in some detail.

The most obvious reason being you wouldn't suddenly have a lower-scoring part split off over a year into production.

As you say- yields tend to go UP, not down.

So if there really was such a big difference they had bunchs of 980s not good enough for the P- why didn't that exist early in production- rather than 12-18 months into it?


Naah- what happened is the 980 was the only rear drive unit. Period. They put it in everything.

Then after they got things going and had some spare engineering time they came up with a cheaper, less capable, DU, for the LR AWD models to save a few bucks. That's the 990.

Further- a 990 inverter (see below for more on that) has been taken apart by now (pics in that long thread I mention)... it's physically different from a 980 (not massively- but somewhat and with not a ton of detail on what's really different)

Supposedly, the initial difference between performance and regular AWD was in the software

Correct. 100% software.

and maybe in the inverters, not the motors.

Incorrect.

The inverter is part of the drive unit along with the motor.

980 is the PN of the whole drive unit not just the motor.

A 980 is a 980, P, AWD (pre change to 990s), etc...

Assuming all this is true, I'm not sure how I feel about it. I'm paying for the Performance trim, but it's strange that the regular AWD's are either identical in hardware or only very slightly different (the inverters).

yeah, it's identical HW. A 980 is a 980.

This is the same situation for the first 6 months of Model 3 production (really 7-12 months as the 990s starting phasing in in that time period).

It's not really THAT strange though- a number of car makers sell a "tuned" version of a vehicle where there's relatively little hardware difference... (with some having viable aftermarket products essentially selling the hotter tune for the car- don't hold you breath on that for Tesla though)


If you REALLY want different HW though- check the box for the Performance Upgrade Package on the P... I mean, you'll lose range... and likely be slower with big heavy 21" wheels... but at least it'll be different!

 

[Electric Steve]

Uh...yeah...that's literally what I already explained.

As I mentioned, there's a VERY long thread about this exact topic in the 3 forums.




Already mentioned earlier in this very thread (the simplicity for initial rollout)




This has already been shot down in the other thread in some detail.

The most obvious reason being you wouldn't suddenly have a lower-scoring part split off over a year into production.

As you say- yields tend to go UP, not down.

So if there really was such a big difference they had bunchs of 980s not good enough for the P- why didn't that exist early in production- rather than 12-18 months into it?


Naah- what happened is the 980 was the only rear drive unit. Period. They put it in everything.

Then after they got things going and had some spare engineering time they came up with a cheaper, less capable, DU, for the LR AWD models to save a few bucks. That's the 990.

Further- a 990 inverter (see below for more on that) has been taken apart by now (pics in that long thread I mention)... it's physically different from a 980 (not massively- but somewhat and with not a ton of detail on what's really different)






Correct. 100% software.



Incorrect.

The inverter is part of the drive unit along with the motor.

980 is the PN of the whole drive unit not just the motor.

A 980 is a 980, P, AWD (pre change to 990s), etc...




yeah, it's identical HW. A 980 is a 980.

This is the same situation for the first 6 months of Model 3 production (really 7-12 months as the 990s starting phasing in in that time period).

It's not really THAT strange though- a number of car makers sell a "tuned" version of a vehicle where there's relatively little hardware difference... (with some having viable aftermarket products essentially selling the hotter tune for the car- don't hold you breath on that for Tesla though)


If you REALLY want different HW though- check the box for the Performance Upgrade Package on the P... I mean, you'll lose range... and likely be slower with big heavy 21" wheels... but at least it'll be different!

I did, in fact, check that box, although I may yet swap those wheels out. (Well, I'll definitely swap them out in the winter, but I might not put them back on come spring.)

If the 980 and 990 are the drive unit, not the motor, then perhaps they have the same motor but different inverters. The 990 might also skimp out on whatever features would have been required for it to sustain higher RPM's, such as perhaps additional cooling or thicker wires.

As an aside, the tuned, "Nismo" version of my Juke definitely has some different parts. Even in my regular one, there are ways to reprogram the computer to get more performance, but apparently at the cost of longevity. In other words, Nissan made a reasonably fast car, and then detuned it for the regular model, skimping on a few parts. Sounds like Telsa did much the same.

 

[Knightshade]

If the 980 and 990 are the drive unit, not the motor, then perhaps they have the same motor but different inverters. The 990 might also skimp out on whatever features would have been required for it to sustain higher RPM's, such as perhaps additional cooling or thicker wires.

Yup that's exactly the current theory and the only one that appears to fit all known facts... (the inverter bit particularly based on photos of the insides- cooling and wiring on the 3 at least is identical AFAIK)

Making the 990 cheaper, less capable, and not an interchangeable part with the 980.

As an aside, the tuned, "Nismo" version of my Juke definitely has some different parts. Even in my regular one, there are ways to reprogram the computer to get more performance, but apparently at the cost of longevity. In other words, Nissan made a reasonably fast car, and then detuned it for the regular model, skimping on a few parts. Sounds like Telsa did much the same.

Eventually, yeah... for the first 6-12 months of 3 production they used exactly the same parts (which is why many earlier 3 owners keep asking for a paid software unlock to turn their LR AWD into a P3D-, since they're physically identical cars)

It looks like Tesla is doing the same on the Y (possibly because they don't have enough testing with the 990 on the heavier vehicle... possibly just to keep initial manufacturing ramp as simply as possible by using a single part, maybe some of both)

But it wouldn't surprise me at all if the rear DU in the Y eventually switches to the 990 as well to save $- especially with them expecting eventual Y production to be even greater than the 3.

 

[Electric Steve]

Yup that's exactly the current theory and the only one that appears to fit all known facts... (the inverter bit particularly based on photos of the insides- cooling and wiring on the 3 at least is identical AFAIK)

Making the 990 cheaper, less capable, and not an interchangeable part with the 980.





Eventually, yeah... for the first 6-12 months of 3 production they used exactly the same parts (which is why many earlier 3 owners keep asking for a paid software unlock to turn their LR AWD into a P3D-, since they're physically identical cars)

It looks like Tesla is doing the same on the Y (possibly because they don't have enough testing with the 990 on the heavier vehicle... possibly just to keep initial manufacturing ramp as simply as possible by using a single part, maybe some of both)

But it wouldn't surprise me at all if the rear DU in the Y eventually switches to the 990 as well to save $- especially with them expecting eventual Y production to be even greater than the 3.

The fact that owners keep asking for a software upgrade to Performance sounds like a missed opportunity for Tesla.

In other words, if they keep using the 980's, they forgo the savings over the 990's, but have the ability to offer a post-purchase, software-only upgrade to (stealth) Performance. That might be a net financial win for Tesla, and it would certainly make car owners happier.

Alternately, if the inverters are really the only difference, being able to upgrade them in the field (effectively converting a 990 to a 980) would allow a software-plus-hardware conversion. Still a good way to get more cash out of buyers who regret not choosing Performance from the get-go.

 

[Knightshade]

The fact that owners keep asking for a software upgrade to Performance sounds like a missed opportunity for Tesla.

In other words, if they keep using the 980's, they forgo the savings over the 990's, but have the ability to offer a post-purchase, software-only upgrade to (stealth) Performance. That might be a net financial win for Tesla, and it would certainly make car owners happier.

Well, the most obvious reason to avoid that would've been it would discourage P sales- if you can "always" upgrade to a P later, why buy the P up front? And that'd be bad for Tesla since P has the most profit.


Now- they're in a weird situation today, because if P requires a 980, you CAN'T buy a "new" AWD 3 and unlock it, but you could still unlock older ones... so offering the full P unlock now is free money without canibalizing future P sales.

On the other hand- it's also telling new AWD buyers "Hey you are buying downgraded hardware from before" which isn't a great message even if it's plenty sufficient to the job of a non-P AWD car.

T
Alternately, if the inverters are really the only difference, being able to upgrade them in the field (effectively converting a 990 to a 980) would allow a software-plus-hardware conversion. Still a good way to get more cash out of buyers who regret not choosing Performance from the get-go.

I'm pretty sure if a drive unit fails under warranty they just replace the entire unit rather than trying to swap just the inverter out...so I don't think the DU is intended to be a serviceable part like that

(indeed the parts catalog appears to have remanufactured versions of both versions of the whole drive unit for exactly that purpose)

ASY, REMAN, 3DU-Rear 800 MOSFET - No Ground Strap
1521365-00-B

ASY, REMAN, 3DU-REAR 630 MOSFET - No Ground Strap
1521487-00-B



That's apart from most service centers already being too few in number and generally understaffed and backed up on work (at least pre-virus- with some folks having reported weeks-long waits just for an appointment)

And lastly I'd be kinda surprised if doing all that would come out much cheaper than just selling the AWD and getting a P instead.

 

[cusetownusa]

Well, the most obvious reason to avoid that would've been it would discourage P sales- if you can "always" upgrade to a P later, why buy the P up front? And that'd be bad for Tesla since P has the most profit.

While I mostly agree with you...there is still a difference between a Performance and Stealth Performance. I think if they offered a Stealth Performance for less than the Standard performance they would get more people buying the stealth performance versus just the AWD. I know I would be one of them. I don't want or need anything from the Stealth performance other than the increased acceleration.

 

[Knightshade]

While I mostly agree with you...there is still a difference between a Performance and Stealth Performance. I think if they offered a Stealth Performance for less than the Standard performance they would get more people buying the stealth performance versus just the AWD

They did. For almost the entire existence of the Performance Model 3 it was about $5000 cheaper to get the P3D-

The same-price-on-both-versions P thing is only new since January of this year.

Apparently the results of pricing them different wasn't what they wanted, hence the same-same today.

 

[Electric Steve]

They did. For almost the entire existence of the Performance Model 3 it was about $5000 cheaper to get the P3D-

The same-price-on-both-versions P thing is only new since January of this year.

Apparently the results of pricing them different wasn't what they wanted, hence the same-same today.

I wish they offered a PUP without the 21" tires.

 

[Knightshade]

I wish they offered a PUP without the 21" tires.

Do you actually plan to track the car?

If not just skip the PUP (or get it and sell the 21s I guess... point being the 145->155 top speed bump and the brakes and tiny suspension drop are all useless in legal street driving)

 

[Electric Steve]

Do you actually plan to track the car?

If not just skip the PUP (or get it and sell the 21s I guess... point being the 145->155 top speed bump and the brakes and tiny suspension drop are all useless in legal street driving)

I'm not sure that the performance brakes and lowered suspension are useless outside a track. The aluminum pedals are purely cosmetic.

As for tracking it, we'll see. At this point, there's no Track Mode for the Y, though.

Speaking of which:

 

[Knightshade]

I'm not sure that the performance brakes and lowered suspension are useless outside a track. The aluminum pedals are purely cosmetic.

The brakes are cosmetic too if you're not tracking the car (or evading police pursuit I guess).

The car will still stop in exactly the same distance as an otherwise identical car with the standard brakes. The brakes don't stop the car, the tires do.

Only functional reason for "bigger brakes" is fade resistance for situations like "repeated braking from over 100 mph without letting them cool"... which you don't typically do outside of a track or the chase scene from a Jason Bourne movie.

 

[johnmodely]

The brakes are cosmetic too if you're not tracking the car (or evading police pursuit I guess).

The car will still stop in exactly the same distance as an otherwise identical car with the standard brakes. The brakes don't stop the car, the tires do.

Only functional reason for "bigger brakes" is fade resistance for situations like "repeated braking from over 100 mph without letting them cool"... which you don't typically do outside of a track or the chase scene from a Jason Bourne movie.

Completely incorrect...stopping distance is definitely determined by rotor/pad size and the maximum pad force the caliper can produce. Sure in rainy/snow conditions your argument could be true, as the weakest link is the tire friction to the road, but in dry conditions better brakes = not slamming into the back of another car that weaker breaks would not prevent.

 

[Knightshade]

Completely incorrect...

Nope- basic physics- on which you clearly need a lesson. Don't worry, I'm here for you.

(seriously- buckle up- because everything you think you know about brakes is wrong... I know that can be hard to accept- but it remains the case)

Co
stopping distance is definitely determined by rotor/pad size and the maximum pad force the caliper can produce

Completely false.


Again, I'm here to help: This is the formula for stopping distance-

d=distance to stop
v= velocity of car
u= coefficient of friction between tire and road
g=acceleration due to gravity (9.80 m/s2)

Notice how it does not ask about your rotors or calipers. Because those don't matter.

. Sure in rainy/snow conditions your argument could be true

Also in any other conditions- because physics.

Co
but in dry conditions better brakes = not slamming into the back of another car that weaker breaks would not prevent.

100% wrong. Because, again, basic physics.

Better TIRES=not slamming into the back of another car.

Because the tires stop the car- not the brakes.

Once the brakes are locked (or ABS is engaged), which the smallest factory brakes can easily do, then more brake does nothing at all for you.


But don't believe me, how bout Brembo?


Here's Brembo- a company with a pretty huge interest in SELLING YOU BETTER BRAKES right? Their FAQ addresses why they don't publish stopping distance tests.

At the speeds that stopping distance is generally measured from (60 to 70mph), the test is primarily testing the tire's grip on the pavement.

As delivered from the manufacturer, nearly all vehicles are able to engage the ABS or lock the wheels at these speeds. Therefore, an increase in braking power will do nothing to stop the vehicle in a shorter distance.

For this reason, we do not record stopping distances at this time.

Here's Stoptech/Centric- another company with huge financial interest in selling you BETTER brakes.

https://www.apcautotech.com/getmedi...epaper_A2-Brake-Bias-Performance_8-2018_1.pdf

“You can take this one to the bank. Regardless of your huge rotor diameter, brake pedal ratio, magic brake pad material, or number of pistons in your calipers, your maximum deceleration is limited every time by the tire to road interface. That is the point of this whole article.

Your brakes do not stop your car. Your tires do stop the car. So while changes to different parts of the brake system may affect certain characteristics or traits of the system behavior, using stickier tires is ultimately the only sure-fire method of decreasing stopping distances.”

So that's two of the largest upgraded brakes manfacturers both telling you you are wrong.

STILL don't believe em?

Here's Road and Track- surely they know something about cars, right?

How Changing Tires Can Improve Your Braking & Stopping Distances - How Tires Upgrade Your Braking System

I mean- the TITLE akready tells you Why braking is all about tires

the article itself starts out like this:

If you want your car to stop faster, an intuitive start may be to upgrade your brakes. While it may sound logical, for everyday driving it will probably have no effect on your actual stopping distance.

You know- just like I already told you.

STILL not convinced?


Here's a guy who has literally written books on braking system design

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1613250541/

He's also designed braking systems for major OEMs and car makers, as well as teaches SAE master classes on the topic.

GRM Pulp Friction


He explains what each individual part of a braking system does... and does not do.

In fact- the bit that Stoptech is quoting in the previous link?

It's from this essay.

Which explains in detail, with math and physics, why your understanding of brakes and stopping distance is factually and entirely incorrect.

For example-

As the brake pedal force is gradually increased, the deceleration rate will also increase until the point at which the tires lock.

Beyond this point, additional force applied to the brake pedal does nothing more than make the driver's leg sore. The vehicle will continue to decelerate at the rate governed by the coefticient of friction between the tires and the road.

Since every factory-installing braking system can already lock the wheels (or engage ABS in newer cars)- MOAR BRAKE does literally nothing to reduce stopping distance.

There are many things upgraded brakes CAN do for you (the GRM article describes them in fact, part by part) but "stop the car shorter the first time" is absolutely not one of them- and apart from "feel different" none of them are terribly useful outside of a race track where you'll be repeatedly stopping from triple-digit speeds over and over without the brakes cooling down.


Because physics.


The brakes don't stop the car- the tires do.

Anyone who says differently is selling brake upgrades

(and less honestly than Brembo and Stoptech too)




Hope this helps!

 

[johnmodely]

@Knightshade wow im sorry my response took so much time out of your day...im actually a physics and computer science engineer so you did not need to lecture me on what actually stops the car. As with everything else in physics the realities are much more complex. While you are correct that ultimately in simple terms the tires are what is stopping the car, the more complex part is where the ENERGY goes. All this energy is dumped into the breaking system, and when you are going from 60-0 larger breaks have a material impact. I dont have time to lecture you of course, but I would love to bet money on you that considering equal environmental conditions and tires a porche will definitely stop sooner than a honda civic.

FYI if you REALLY want a deep dive into physics, check out why front breaks are way larger than rear (even though a smaller or equal size can both physically lock the wheels like your argument above), and you'll get a better understand on why break size matters.

 

[byeLT4]

@Knightshade .im actually a physics and computer science engineer...
... front breaks .... why break size matters.

Brake

 

[Knightshade]

@Knightshade wow im sorry my response took so much time out of your day..

Took about 3 minutes.

95% of that post is copied and pasted from the last several times it's had to be explained to someone who incorrectly thought brake upgrades change braking distance

.im actually a physics and computer science engineer so you did not need to lecture me on what actually stops the car

It really seems like I did.

And still do.

. As with everything else in physics the realities are much more complex. While you are correct that ultimately in simple terms the tires are what is stopping the car, the more complex part is where the ENERGY goes. All this energy is dumped into the breaking system, and when you are going from 60-0 larger breaks have a material impact.

Except, of course, they absolutely do not and I just cited a professional car magazine, two actual brake systems manufacturing companies, and a guy who designs brakes for car companies and has literally written books on the topic and teaches SAE master classes on brake systems. who all say you're wrong about it.


On top of that- we have for example Model 3 owners who tested braking distance on the non-performance version of the car (ie with smaller brakes) and found that with the mediocre all-seasons they come with braking distance is quite poor (in the 120-130 foot range depending on the Michelin or Conti all seasons).

But if they swap to the same PS4s performance tires the P version has... their tested braking distance is suddenly exactly the same as the P with the big brakes (just under 100 feet)


If the brakes mattered at all the P would still stop measurably shorter. It doesn't.

Which is an obvious result if you understand the tires not the brakes stop the car

Maybe time to consider you're wrong about it?

I dont have time to lecture you of course

Or ability, since you're objectively and factually wrong.

, but I would love to bet money on you that considering equal environmental conditions and tires a porche will definitely stop sooner than a honda civic.

That's too many variables- and frankly horrible experimental design- it you're a physics major and didn't think of how bad your test case is... yikes.

The correct test would be test the same model porsche, both on the same tires, and only upgrade the brakes.

Porsche conveniently sells a nearly $10,000 carbon ceramic brake upgrade kit in fact.

To save you some time- it's already been tested a bunch of times.

Here's Car and Drivers result for example-

The 911 with the PCCB system performed about the same as the other 911 and the Vette. The average stopping distances of the two 911s were within a foot of each other (305 feet), not surprising since both cars were wearing the same tires

Not only do their actual results disprove your fundamental premise- they even mention they EXPECTED no difference because the tires were the same

(and BTW- they were testing 100 mph to 0, not just 60-0- and still a $10,000 MOAR BRAKES upgrade did nothing to improve stopping distance when the only change was the brakes)

Because unlike you, they understand the brakes don't stop the car- the tires do.


On the other hand- put a set of great tires on the porsche and test- now swap on crap tires.... magically there IS a difference... and a significant one.

(same with the Honda of course-physics don't change for brands)

FYI if you REALLY want a deep dive into physics

You're floundering in the shallow end- might wanna slow down a bit kid

, check out why front breaks are way larger than rear (even though a smaller or equal size can both physically lock the wheels like your argument above)

So- first- that's not actually true universally

Though it often is.

Check out the Tesla Model S or Model X. The rear brakes are larger on both.

Front: 13.98"/355mm
Rear: 14.37/365mm


Second-- on MOST cars (but not all of them) the front brakes ARE larger... because usually due to the distribution of weight in the vehicle and especially during braking as the weight of the vehicle shifts forward, the amount of force the tires which are what actually stop the car can exert against the road is higher in the front where more of the weight is.

Thus the amount of force required to lock the front wheels (or engage ABS) is different from the amount needed in the rear.

But as everyone (except you apparently) gets is once you have enough force to do that- which the stock brakes do on basically every production car in the last decade or two, MORE braking force gets you literally nothing because the tires can not use it- and the tires are what stops the car

(there's also some stuff around brake balance that impacts oversteer/understeer characteristics- but you're nowhere near ready for the intermediate classes on this stuff

, and you'll get a better understand on why break size matters.

C'mon man- you can't even spell the thing you don't understand?


Here's even more sources citing you being wrong BTW-

Hey! this first one has a lot of physics! You might learn something!


Why a Big Brake Kit Won't Make Your Car Stop Faster - Autos.com

the Standard Kinetic Friction Equation applies to stopping just as much as starting movement.

In simple terms it says an object in contact with the ground will absorb the most kinetic energy right before movement, or sliding. This applies in the reverse as well: an car in motion will absorb the most kinetic energy right before the wheels lock up.

With respect to modern vehicles, this equation states that the only way to make a car stop quicker is to either increase the coefficient of friction with the road, (e.g. upgraded tires) or decrease mass by lightening the vehicle. Note, both of these things have little to do with brakes

Again they go on to explain some benefits big brakes CAN offer (primarily for track use/abuse- not the street)- but the main focus is to correct the notion they stop you any shorter- they don't and can't.


The Myth Of The Big Brake Kit – Stop Lying To Yourself!

The common myth of a big brake kit is that your car will stop faster with larger pads and rotors because you have more surface area (thus more friction).

The truth of the matter is that most likely, you already have more stopping friction in your stock brakes that you can use.

Your braking force is ultimately limited by tire grip. If you are able to lock up your tires, then you don’t need any more friction.

Huh... seems like we've heard that one a time or two...or 7 or 8 by now...




Performance Brake Blog - Will A Big Brake Kit Increase The Stopping Power of a Street Car? | Cquence.net

A big brake kit will not increase the stopping power of a vehicle or decrease its stopping distance due to the physics involved

Seriously though I've given you what close to 10 sources now- including 2 major performance car magazines, 2 major OEM brake manufacturers, multiple performance car parts dealers, and a guy who literally has written books on this and teaches SAE master classes on brake system design....

all citing you being wrong, several of them going into pretty deep technical detail why.... and your entire attempt to disagree boils down to... you've taken a few physics classes and you say nu uh.

Hopefully you're doing better in your CompSci classes