P3D Add performance checkbox removes on new custom orders

[Knightshade]

The evidence is strong. Investors who have visited the factory during that time period were shown the binning process as part of the tour To believe otherwise would require you to believe that Tesla faked this part of the tour in order to deceive those taking the tour.

There's quite a few other possibilities.

Including:

The guide just made something up (because a Tesla employee would NEVER make up something that wasn't true, right?)

or

They did test initially. And realized all the parts met their spec.


That second one is more likely.

And explains why they all have the same part number


Because as already explained to you- every other company that bins parts does so for the purpose of stamping a different part number on the less capable part.

That is WHY YOU BIN.

They shared their experience right here on TMC but you either missed it or chose to close your mind.

Love to see some links BTW

The other evidence comes directly from the man who runs the company.

You mean the one who said a Tesla would take an automated cross-country drive by the end of 2017?

Then said it again for end of 2018?

Then said feature complete FSD by end of 2019?

And robotaxis in 2020?

That guy?

Your wacky theory rests entirely upon the assumption that if Tesla had binned the drive motors they would necessarily have given them a different part number (because that's what other companies do). Pretty weak medicine.

As far as going to Tesla and asking "to buy a 980", LOL! That proves you are unfamiliar with how it works. Because Tesla won't sell you a 980. That's right - they are unobtainable except to authorized Tesla Service Centers for install into a Model 3. You can't just waltz in and buy one without a car to put it in. And when a Tesla Service Center orders one, they need to tell them the VIN number of the car it's going into. Can you guess why they need that info?

Now you're just flat out lying dude.

The Tesla parts catalog specifically shows you're lying.


The 980 is not a restricted part. It's sold over the counter.

The 980 does not require your VIN to order it.

Screen shot from Model 3 catalog directly disproving your claim.

In contrast, here's a shot of the part of the HV wiring harness which IS a restricted part and they won't sell you over the counter.

I'd suggest you quit while you're behind, but doubtless you'll keep digging a bigger hole.... I bet the Boring company could use someone like you!

 

[Knightshade]

Nah, I like Knightshade. I know it's an uphill battle Still, I was hoping to get some definitive info, but....I struck out.

I gave you a list of definitive info... what parts were used as of what dates, in what models... the fact the lower-spec REMAN unit (630) only showed up in the catalog when the 990 came along...the fact the 990 internally looks like a 980 with some of the parts missing...the fact every delivered-as-just-AWD that was software flashed to a full P had a 980 in it, even a year after they were putting 990s in AWDs, etc...

And then pointed out the only possible conclusion you can draw from all that definitive info.

That the 990 is cheaper and less capable.


I even said I was wide open to any OTHER explanation that fit all the facts- nobody has been able to provide one.... (several folks provided ideas that are contradicted by definite info though so we can dismiss those)

 

[lbowroom]

John, your arguments only hold water if you allow that Tesla is making uninformed, illogical decisions. If that’s the way you want to roll and only accept something if Tesla confirms it, then you win.

 

[john5520]

John, your arguments only hold water if you allow that Tesla is making uninformed, illogical decisions. If that’s the way you want to roll and only accept something if Tesla confirms it, then you win.

All I ask is for some hard data to support the conclusion. Hard data to me is the actual cost prices and test data. The cost would have to come from Tesla most likely, or anyone privy to that info.

The test data can be from anyone willing to hack an AWD with the 990 to see what it can do. Or stick it in a P3D . Wouldn't you want to see that?

 

[lbowroom]

Of course I’d want to. Deductive reasoning is pretty sounds though, outside of conspiracies. Of course there’s more power available to all models, not infinite without a cost, but there’s more. This is where Tesla chooses to draw the line. At least today.

 

[Mash]

that's a nonsensical statement.

When you move your foot from the accelerator to the brake pedal, the "power" of the car is irrelevant.

You're no longer accelerating.

The idea a "more powerful" car needs "bigger brakes" in street use has no basis in reality (or physics)


The only place bigger brakes do anything for you is a race track, and only for repeated high-speed braking over and over with no chance to cool anything down. And even then they never stop you shorter they just endure more of those repeated stops before they stop you longer. And this is irrelevant in street use (I suppose outside evading police pursuit on the autobahn maybe?)





And yet- in normal use they stop the car in exactly the same distance as the largest, most expensive, brakes you can put on the vehicle.

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

The P3D- comes with far far crappier tires than the P3D+

Swap PS4s tires on your P3D- and you'll knock ~30 feet off your braking distance 60-0 (mph).

Swap P+ brakes on and your braking distance will change by 0.

Smaller brakes have lower heat capacity and slower heat dissipation. And if they are not floating - they bend under heat and start rubbing pad at wrong angle.

Don't even start talking about track - standard brakes losing whole pad in record time there. And performance brakes boil fluid in first 7 minutes.

Spirited city driving overloads standard brakes as well. It doesn't have to be extreme. And once you upgrade your tires and shorten stop distance - now your troubles multiple.

I didn't test it, but I wouldn't be surprised if P3- with 4S tires wouldn't survive even single stop from the top speed and pad will be evaporating at the end. Gas layer between pad and rotor can easily explain to you why brakes ALSO stopping a car.

Btw, as far as I know, standard brakes also use different pad material. I can only assume standard ones built for longevity and noise comfort at the cost of temperature resistance. Smaller pad with lower melting point, smaller rotor, sticky tires, heavy car with a lot of power.

You are completely right if you're talking about single emergency brake from a street speed limit. But you underestimate how much heat energy brakes have to dissipate. And how big is the difference of rotor convection and pad compound melting point.

 

[Knightshade]

Smaller brakes have lower heat capacity and slower heat dissipation.

Neither of which make any difference from any remotely legal speed for even a panic stop.

The car will stop in exactly the same distance when tested.

Because the tires, not the brakes, are what actually stop the car.

Look up the formula for stopping distance.

It asks about the coefficient of friction between tire and road. It does not ask about your brakes. At all.

Don't even start talking about track - standard brakes losing whole pad in record time there. And performance brakes boil fluid in first 7 minutes.

Which would be why I mentioned that's the only place upgraded brakes are functionally useful.

And even then upgraded brakes won't stop you shorter than stock the first time. They will just stop you in the same distance over a larger number of repeated stops without letting them cool in between.

Spirited city driving overloads standard brakes as well. It doesn't have to be extreme.

It really does unless you're breaking a bunch of laws. (Disclaimer- the autobahn might be an exception, but most of us aren't driving on it)

And once you upgrade your tires and shorten stop distance - now your troubles multiple.

Nope.

Best tires you can put on the car and it still won't be unable to engage ABS.

Once you engage ABS, MOAR BRAKE does nothing to stop you any shorter.

I didn't test it, but I wouldn't be surprised if P3- with 4S tires wouldn't survive even single stop from the top speed and pad will be evaporating at the end.

If you're driving at 162 mph on the street you have a lot bigger problems than your misunderstand of what actually stops your car.

Gas layer between pad and rotor can easily explain to you why brakes ALSO stopping a car.

If using brakes from 1952, yes that's true.

Otherwise outgassing isn't really a thing anymore, and hasn't been in quite some time.



Pulp Friction - Those Poor Rotors

(bold added)

Crossdrilling your rotors might look neat, but what is it really doing for you? Well, unless your car is using brake pads from the '40s and 50s, not a whole lot. Rotors were first drilled because early brake pad materials gave off gasses when heated to racing temperatures, a process known as "gassing out." These gasses then formed a thin layer between the brake pad face and the rotor, acting as a lubricant and effectively lowering the coefficient of friction. The holes were implemented to give the gasses somewhere to go. It was an effective solution, but today's friction materials do not exhibit the same gassing out phenomenon as the early pads.


For this reason, the holes have carried over more as a design feature than a performance feature. Contrary to popular belief, they don't lower temperatures. (In fact, by removing weight from the rotor, they can actually cause temperatures to increase a little.) These holes create stress risers that allow the rotor to crack sooner, and make a mess of brake pads--sort of like a cheese grater rubbing against them at every stop. Want more evidence? Look at NASCAR or F1. You would think that if drilling holes in the rotor was the hot ticket, these teams would be doing it.

Btw, as far as I know, standard brakes also use different pad material. I can only assume standard ones built for longevity and noise comfort at the cost of temperature resistance. Smaller pad with lower melting point, smaller rotor, sticky tires, heavy car with a lot of power.

Again- if you're melting your pads, you're not remotely doing legal street driving. Especially on a car that has regen braking.

You are completely right if you're talking about single emergency brake from a street speed limit.

Which is clearly, literally, what I was discussing.

It's probably why I repeatedly mentioned I was talking about in legal/normal street use- and that "on the track" was an entirely different thing (but even THEN upgrades do not stop you shorter- they can't they can only stop you "the same" for longer)

 

[Mash]

Look, you don't need to explain to me that on a single street legal brake you only limited by tires.

Except Germany - I started to get softer pedal on performance brakes just driving autobahn and slowing for slow traffic and speed limits. Also we all know that you don't buy M3P to drive only to the shop and need brakes to sustain panic stop only. Well, you personally, maybe. Maybe few more guys.

I skipped whole track thing here, but track shows that M3P is already heavily taxing brakes. It's unusually bad survivor for that power level car. Use P- brakes, stickier tires and do few spirited driving runs and you might end up in trouble without doing actually extreme stuff.

I'm only saying performance brakes are not for the show. If you keep car stock and drive legal speed without brake testing - you most probably will be fine. And you will benefit from cost savings on brakes, lower unsprung weight, lower pad maintenance, lower dust, no noise. Start upgrading, drive faster and find out limits. Actually go at night on empty highway and find limits without breaking speed limit. See how that works so you know what to expect.

Gassing out is not a myth - it happens. Why there are no drillings on rotors in actual motorsport? Because they balance whole system out, drive on sintered metal compounds at temperatures 4 times higher than street pad can exist. It's irresponsible to say that regular pad epoxy won't evaporate.

 

[Knightshade]

Look, you don't need to explain to me that on a single street legal brake you only limited by tires.

I mean- it really seemed like I did.

Except Germany - I started to get softer pedal on performance brakes just driving autobahn

Man, if only I'd specifically mentioned that as the one time you'd care on a legal road... oh, wait...I did...twice...for example-

It really does unless you're breaking a bunch of laws. (Disclaimer- the autobahn might be an exception, but most of us aren't driving on it)

I'm only saying performance brakes are not for the show

Except, at anything remotely legal, anywhere not the autobahn or the race track, they're 100% for show... (and limiting the aftermarket wheels that fit... and making future brake work harder and more expensive....)

And if you DO track the car significantly you're gonna want better-than-P+ brakes most likely too.

Gassing out is not a myth - it happens.

I mean- the guy who I cited telling you the gas thing being a real concern is a leftover myth from the 1950s teaches SAE master classes on braking systems, designs them for major OEMs, and has literally written a book on the topic.

https://www.amazon.com/High-Performance-Brake-Systems-James-Walker/dp/1613250541


If you wanna call citing an expert in the field irresponsible knock yourself out I guess? Surely you've got better sources, right? (preferably not someone trying to sell you upgraded brakes)

What are those again?

But if you want even more experts confirming what I'm telling you, sure...here's some- including a number of google books links to entire books on upgrading cars all telling you what I'm telling you-


The truth about aftermarket "high-performance" brakes. — Exploring Overland

Cross-drilling of brake discs began in the early days of disc brakes, when existing pad materials and adhesives tended to outgas strongly when heated. Cross-drilling relieved the fractional layer of (compressible, remember) gas the pad would exude between it and the disc. But modern brake pads exhibit virtually none of this outgassing

What Kind of Rotors Should I Get?

In years past, crossdrilling and/or Slotting the rotor for racing purposes was beneficial by providing a way to expel the gasses created when the bonding agents employed to manufacture the pads...However, with today’s race pad technology, ‘outgassing’ is no longer much of a concern

Muscle Car Brake Upgrades

With these asbestos-based pads, at extreme temperatures the bonding agents within the pads would begin to break down and release gases, which is known as outgassing... Today, however, outgassing is a thing of the past thanks to advanced materials and technology in pad materials and compounds

How to Build Ford Restomod Street Machines

Brake pad technology has almost entirely eliminated outgassing

Why there are no drillings on rotors in actual motorsport?

I mean- the guy who designs braking systems for motorsports for a living already told you why.

Because the gassing thing stopped being a real issue 60+ years ago.

He goes on to explain why slotting might be useful still for track-use specifically (but not drilling- and not for pure street use)- but it has nothing to do with outgassing.

Or see all the other sources above if you're still unclear on this.

 

[Mash]

Those sites repeat the same guy for as long as I can remember myself.

Gas layer is something where I don't need experts - I experienced it myself. And I know the difference of fluid boiling and gas layer - pedal travel is the same, but suddenly brakes don't work.

It's not complete loss of brakes, but under panic stop you can make problem worse by pushing it further. Melting brake pads lose friction very quickly as well. And his argument that motorsport don't drill, so it's not needed is stupid. For the reasons I said and you skipped - motorsport doesn't have gassing. But they have glowing hot rotors that need to be reliable. Street pads have epoxy and they gas out if they abused. And it doesn't mean drilling helps - I actually don't know.

You also keep repeating same mantra that brakes don't brake. They do and if you overload them they won't. Please, stop aggressively agreeing with me making it look like you don't. I'm confirming bunch of stuff you said and you still fight that.

But you have no data behind your claim that P- brakes won't overheat with stickier tires on the street spirited driving.

Jesus, do I also talk like you?
No wonder people don't like debating with me...

 

[Sam1]

You also keep repeating same mantra that brakes don't brake. They do and if you overload them they won't. Please, stop aggressively agreeing with me making it look like you don't. I'm confirming bunch of stuff you said and you still fight that.

Here's the thing on brakes. If they don't stop the car, then why are they installed on the car? Anyone up to prove that wrong? Just put some sticky tires on there, remove the calipers, turn off regen, and show us how well those tires stop the car on demand. lol

 

[Msjulie]

This may be considered flame bait and not intended as thus, and it's anecdotal cause I only saw it happen to me and 1 or 2 others

Long time back, heavy Audi A4 Quattro wagon with mild brake updates actually did suffer the overheat/pads unstuck from the metal backing. They weren't race pads, just uprated, so my bad using them how I had used them.

I also have felt whatever it should be called when the pads get hot and there is no stopping happening for a few moments but after cool down are just fine ie if the fluid had overheated I would have expected to have a less than essentially full recover of braking function when cool. I've always been told it's overheated pad material/gassing - but I'm not a material scientist just a person who used to track mildly prepped street cars. We had no such concerns with the properly prepped racers.

 

[Knightshade]

Those sites repeat the same guy for as long as I can remember myself.

It's almost like they're citing experts in the field presenting known facts or something!

Your argument seems to be "How can we believe gravity is a thing when everyone keeps citing this one Newton dude?!"

(though even then- I've cited several sources who are NOT quoting that one guy- you appear to have either ignored them, or don't understand them (maybe both?)

Gas layer is something where I don't need experts

Doesn't seem that way since you keep repeating myths from the 1950s debunked by half a dozen different sources so far...

It's not complete loss of brakes, but under panic stop you can make problem worse by pushing it further. Melting brake pads lose friction very quickly as well.

Again- outside the autobahn, you're not going to "melt your brake pads" in a panic stop unless you're massively exceeding any legal speed limit by a LOT.

Thus why the original point was these brake upgrades do nothing useful outside a race track with the possible exception of the autobahn.

And his argument that motorsport don't drill, so it's not needed is stupid.

That...wasn't actually his argument.

He went into considerable detail about the multiple reasons drilling is worse than blank rotors

And then ADDED for emphasis that the fact motorsports doesn't do it should make it clear there's no performance benefit to be gained- otherwise they'd be gaining it.

Drilling is also stupid because it's removing mass from a device whose primary function is to be a heat sink and it also makes the rotor more prone to stress cracks.

You'd know that if you had actually read and understood the facts given to you.

He goes on to mention SLOTTING rotors can have benefits on a race track that probably outweigh some of the drawbacks (but only for track use)- but drilling holes not so much.

For the reasons I said and you skipped - motorsport doesn't have gassing.

Neither do regular cars generally since the 1950s.

Which I've given you multiple different sources on that you keep pretending don't matter.

But they have glowing hot rotors that need to be reliable. Street pads have epoxy and they gas out if they abused.

Even if we accepted this claim that runs counter to what a bunch of experts tell us- again a normal non-autobahn remotely-legal panic stop in non-track use is not "abuse"

And it doesn't mean drilling helps - I actually don't know.

Well that's obvious

You also keep repeating same mantra that brakes don't brake.

No, I've literally never said that.

I said brakes don't stop the car- tires do.

Because that's how physics actually works.


Again- the actual formula for stopping distance asks the CoE of the tire/road interface. It doesn't ask about your brakes at all.

Here's the thing on brakes. If they don't stop the car, then why are they installed on the car?

To help the tires maximize their ability to stop the vehicle (since the tires are the thing that actually stops it)

The entire point of the pulp friction essay by the guy who designs braking systems for a living was to teach you (apparently you, too, didn't bother to read it?) that once you have reached the limit of the tire (which all OEM factory brakes can do without need of upgrade going back at least a decade or two) then MOAR BRAKE does literally nothing to change your stopping distance.

It physically can't.

Anyone up to prove that wrong? Just put some sticky tires on there, remove the calipers, turn off regen, and show us how well those tires stop the car on demand. lol

See you didn't read the article. (or didn't understand it, but didn't read seems more likely- it's very clearly written)


Put your question a different way though to show how you miss the point.


Take car A- no brakes, but sticky tires. Put it on an infinite length road, with no air resistance, get it up to 60, then remove acceleration.

Does the car stop- at all?

Of course it does.

Because the friction between tire and road stop it.



Take car B- It has the BEST AND BIGGEST BRAKES EVER MADE. But it has frictionless tires. Put it on an infinite length road, with no air resistance, get it up to 60, then remove acceleration. Slam the brake pedal if it makes you feel better.

Does the car stop- at all?

Nope. Not ever.


Because the brakes don't stop the car- the tires do



Seriously though- go read the Pulp Friction article- it'll clear up/correct a lot of misunderstand you appear to have about how/what brakes work and do and what actually stops your car and why.

 

[Mash]

I give up to continue having stupid talk where you pretend to read answers, while in fact you just taking words out of context and continue pushing same sentences on the topic. I actually think that you are chatbot and this is a prank.

You intentionally ignoring that there is nothing behind your claim that regular brakes with stickier tires on model 3 won't overheat at single panic stop. None of your arguments about that. You just sure about it, like you have a proof. And you don't.

 

[Knightshade]

I give up to continue having stupid talk where you pretend to read answers, while in fact you just taking words out of context and continue pushing same sentences on the topic. I actually think that you are chatbot and this is a prank.

I'm sorry you're bothered by someone presenting facts, with multiple sources all supporting those facts, versus your literally argument of "I don't believe your facts but have no sources to support this disbelief and no science to support why I think otherwise"

You intentionally ignoring that there is nothing behind your claim that regular brakes with stickier tires on model 3 won't overheat at single panic stop.

No, I'm not ignoring it- you're just refusing to accept facts again.


Because they don't overheat. (this probably would've been mentioned in one of the hundreds of reviews of the Model 3 when it was released if they did... because it's be very notable... since NO OEM brakes, from any car maker, "overheat" in a single panic stop from normal/legal speed. They haven't in decades.)

CR did note a different problem that turned out to be a coding issue that Tesla fixed with a SW update- but had nothing to do with size of the brakes.


Anyway, I can cite folks as diverse as professional car mags and Brembo themselves all telling you that OEM brakes don't overheat from a single normal panic stop- but you appear to refuse to believe any sources provided-still here's a couple for you to dismiss/ignore I guess?

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

The Power to Stop

every car has brakes strong enough for the anti-lock system to hold its tires on the verge of lockup for at least one stop. So when a vehicle’s brakes are cold, the stopping distance is more dependent on the traction of the tires than the power of the brakes.

(with the autobahn stopping from 150 mph exception I specifically mentioned multiple times, and then you said WHAT ABOUT THE AUTOBAHN as if I hadn't said it multiple times... so I agree there's someone not actually reading- but it's you)

 

[U_S_D]

You guys really know how to ruin a thread.

 

[dimachaerus]

You guys really know how to ruin a thread.

Yeah, I came back hoping to see some fun speculation about the potential meaning (even if there is none) behind the removal of the performance checkbox, yet I see another potentially locked thread that goes far off topic.

 

[moridin2002]

It's almost like they're citing experts in the field presenting known facts or something!

...I said brakes don't stop the car- tires do.

Because that's how physics actually works.


Again- the actual formula for stopping distance asks the CoE of the tire/road interface. It doesn't ask about your brakes at all.
...

Take car B- It has the BEST AND BIGGEST BRAKES EVER MADE. But it has frictionless tires. Put it on an infinite length road, with no air resistance, get it up to 60, then remove acceleration. Slam the brake pedal if it makes you feel better.

Does the car stop- at all?

Nope. Not ever.


Because the brakes don't stop the car- the tires do

Alex, can I get partial understanding of the problem for $1000? You have part of the equation correct.

The braking system and tires work in concert to stop the car. Driver's foot (or electrically controlled driver aid) to pedal to master cylinder (which is mounted to the firewall) to fluid through hoses to ABS controller to brake caliper to brake pad to rotor to hub through bearings to wheel to tire (all supported by chassis and suspension) to the road.

If we take it to the extreme, a vehicle with the stickiest race tires ever made (lets say LC0 Hoosiers) and carbon to carbon brakes with infinitely stiff calipers, uprights, suspension links, chassis, and bushings/bearings, perfectly calibrated ABS, and the best aero in the world (Formula 1 car?) will not do a damn thing in a vacuum with a frictionless road surface - ever watch a car hit black ice, or hydroplane into a wall? So, it must be that the road that stops the car, not the tires. Or, maybe its the thing supporting the road that does... are we ever even really stopped though? The Earth is moving, the universe expanding

Better brakes can help a vehicle stop shorter. Why? Stiffer assemblies (think awesome calipers, brake lines, brake pads, and pedal boxes) flex less and allow the working fluid to more directly apply pressure through the system to the brake pad and rotor combo. This lets the ABS system function more effectively (better response time) which can shorten stopping distances. Dynamic characteristics of the system matters. Pad compound is also very important. And this is before we even talk about better tires are improving weight transfer and chassis dynamics through different suspension. Source: me (mechanical engineer with vehicle design and testing experience), pad mu vs. temperature charts, chassis dynamics calculations for weight transfer, and this: Test n° 1 Stopping Distance

Riddle me this: If its only tires that stop the car, how come Edmunds was able to demonstrate excessively long stopping distances in their long term test Model 3 which was then rectified by an over the air update? The tires didn't change.

 

[Stickboy46]

It's pretty straightforward reasoning based on a bunch of known/documented facts:


All Ps ever made use the 980

The only car the 990 has ever appeared in is the non-P LR AWD (starting in early/mid 2019 depending on area)



So there's 2 axis of difference to consider- cost, and performance capability.

Consider if you can find a way to disagree with any of these individual observations:




1) We know the 990 is either same or lesser performance- because if it were greater it would be in the P. Yes?

2) We know the 990 is cheaper- because if 1 is true (it's not HIGHER performance) and it were equal or more expensive in cost, why would it exist at all?



From 1 and 2 combined we know the 990 is less capable. Because if was cheaper and EQUALLY capable they'd use it everywhere, not just only in the LR AWD.


Thus we can conclude the 990 is both cheaper, and less capable.

Because nothing else fits all the facts we actually know.


(FWIW I think we did see a 990 teardown, though it was just a few pics showing the insides, not detailed analysis/testing- and it was visiblly/physically different... which I mean why else would it be a different PN right?)

That is a LOT of assumptions and very minimal facts ...

 

[Knightshade]

That is a LOT of assumptions and very minimal facts ...

it's really not.

It's a bunch of actual, known, facts, and then the only conclusion we can draw from that fit all of those facts.

Again- if you think you can draw a DIFFERENT one that fits all the actual facts- please let us know what it is.

So far nobody else has one.

Alex, can I get partial understanding of the problem for $1000?

The answer is... what you're about to say

You have part of the equation correct.

No, all of it.

Here it is-

d= v^2/2ug

d=distance for car to stop
v=velocity of car
u=coefficient of friction between tire and road
g= acceleration due to gravity (9.80 m/s^2)


Notice how the formula doesn't ask about your brakes, but DOES ask about your tires?


Because the maximum deceleration (which would be what's going on during a panic stop) is every single time limited by the friction of the tires... and MOAR BRAKES!! does not change that. At all.

The braking system and tires work in concert to stop the car. Driver's foot (or electrically controlled driver aid) to pedal to master cylinder (which is mounted to the firewall) to fluid through hoses to ABS controller to brake caliper to brake pad to rotor to hub through bearings to wheel to tire (all supported by chassis and suspension) to the road.

I'd encourage you to read the article I posted from the guy who designs brake systems for a living.

He covered what each part of the system does, and why none of them stop the car (other than the tires).

It was in fact the entire point of the article- with math, physics, and everything included.

If we take it to the extreme, a vehicle with the stickiest race tires ever made (lets say LC0 Hoosiers) and carbon to carbon brakes with infinitely stiff calipers, uprights, suspension links, chassis, and bushings/bearings, perfectly calibrated ABS, and the best aero in the world (Formula 1 car?) will not do a damn thing in a vacuum with a frictionless road surface - ever

Sure. In fact I already gave the same type of example earlier (though making the tires instead of the road frictionless) to make the same exact point. The tire/road friction is what actually stops the car

It's weird you're trying to repeat back my own example to me.

watch a car hit black ice, or hydroplane into a wall? So, it must be that the road that stops the car, not the tires.

I think you're getting lost now... it's the friction between the tire and road that does it.

See, again, the actual formula for stopping distance. It's the only part of the equation that cares about any actual parts on the car.

Better brakes can help a vehicle stop shorter.

This is 100% completely wrong.

Period, full stop.


Brembo says you're wrong (already quoted them doing it)

Car and Driver says you're wrong (already quoted them doing it)

So does stoptech and a ton of others... here's Road and Track for example debunking your claim-

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

When ABS is activated, this tells the onboard systems that your wheel has stopped rotating, meaning that you’ve exceeded the maximum stopping force of the tire. In other words, your stopping distance is limited by the tire. Your brake was likely perfectly capable of applying more pressure, however the tire lost grip, so more pressure serves no purpose

In fact- they even toss in some math not entirely unlike what I gave you earlier... pointing out that u (the coefficient of friction of the tire) is the single thing that dictates the stopping distance of the vehicle. Because that's the maximum force the tire can apply to the road. Which is the force that actually stops the car

And since the stock brakes can already maximize that by engaging ABS, well, let's quote them again-

With μ equal to 0.7, the car would stop in nearly 172 feet. No matter how expensive or advanced the brakes are, if a car’s tires have a frictional coefficient of 0.7, there’s no way for it to stop in less than 172 feet using the disc brakes alone

Then (somewhat like the Pulp Friction article) then mention some of the OTHER things changing brakes parts CAN do for you... but that stopping shorter is not one of them

Then they reiterate:

If you want to definitively improve stopping distances, whether at the track or on public roads, buy nice tires.

Because- as (most of us) understand- the tires are what stop the car.

Why? Stiffer assemblies (think awesome calipers, brake lines, brake pads, and pedal boxes) flex less and allow the working fluid to more directly apply pressure through the system to the brake pad and rotor combo. This lets the ABS system function more effectively (better response time) which can shorten stopping distances.

100% nonsense.

It's explicitly debunked in the GRM pulp friction link in fact where he discusses compliance and why that can't stop you any shorter

Although those cool-looking stainless steel brake lines alone will not make your car stop any faster, the decrease in compliance and improvement in pedal feel can make a driver much more confident.

Same with the other parts you mention- each of which he explains what they CAN do for you and what they CAN NOT (spoiler: stop shorter is one they can't do)

Dynamic characteristics of the system matters.

To feel? Sure.

To stopping any shorter? 100% nope.

and this: Test n° 1 Stopping Distance

Weirdly- they do not provide their testing methodology or their raw data.

I bet it's because what they did was test from speed like 10 or 20 times in a row with no cool down....

Meaning they were testing fade resistance- not stopping distance.

(they don't mention that of course because they don't want the average sucke^h^h^h^h^h customer to realize their pads won't do jack to stop them any shorter in a normal highway panic stop- because they can't.)


Because, as physics (and Brembo, Stoptech, Road and Track, Car and Driver, professional Braking systems engineers, and more) tells us- brake pads can't change that second one for a normal single panic stop.


The National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology. Center does tests like that... (because they expect that unlike a normal civilian driver, a cop might need to repeatedly be braking hard from 100 mph or more over and over)... Interestingly they too make the point you are wrong about this when they explain why they do not measure stopping distance in such a normal civilian panic stop situation-

https://www.justnet.org/pdf/EvaluationBrakePads2000.pdf

When braking to a targeted deceleration rate, where the speed of the vehicle at brake application is the same, the stopping distance should also theoretically be the same, making any measurement of stopping distances irrelevant

Instead they test fade- by repeating braking from 90 mph over and over, heat soaking the system to see how much abuse it can take.

This type of thing matters for police work- and for race tracks- but not normal, legal, civilian street driving.


Plus- of course- fade measures how much longer stopping takes after things get very hot... the stopping distance is never shorter than the first normal panic stop- no matter how great the brakes are- it can't be...since it's the tires that stop the car

Riddle me this: If its only tires that stop the car, how come Edmunds was able to demonstrate excessively long stopping distances in their long term test Model 3 which was then rectified by an over the air update? The tires didn't change.

Glad you asked!

Because the code controlling the ABS computer had a bug in it. (and as we established- in a correctly working car ABS engages when the tires are at their limit of friction.... so if it's NOT correctly working it's failing to maximize the tires friction limit- and will take longer to stop).

Notice how they fixed it with computer code- and not changing any hardware (including brake parts).

Once they did that, the tire was able to once again maximize available friction and distance got shorter.


Here's a better question for you-

Why does the non-P model 3 with 19s stop shorter than with 18s?

The only difference after all? The tires.

For that matter, why does a P3D+ with BIG BRAKES stop in the same distance as an LR AWD without BIG BRAKES once you swap PS4s tires on the LR AWD?

(Spoiler- it's because the tires are what stop the car)