# 140mm STEEL-Rotor: 58g !



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

i finally got my 140mm steel rotor prototypes. i was pretty excited when i saw the weight: 58g !

now all i need is a 140 adapter for my bike and then i will go for some riding. with the EBC gold pads i intsalled my Avid Juicy Ultimates gained so much power i should be able to go one size smaller front and rear. from 180/160 to 160/140.

i will keep yu guys updated on how it performs...


----------



## Ninko (Jul 19, 2006)

you're making awesome stuff last time Nino.. where can we afford all this??


----------



## Cheers! (Jun 26, 2006)

That's impressive. It's the same weight as the 140mm ebay Ti rotors.


----------



## DeeEight (Jan 13, 2004)

Ummmm.... what's so hard about the adapter ?!? USE A FRONT CALIPER ADAPTER on the back... its not rocket science here... this is how many disc makers that already have 20mm differences in front/rear rotors have done it for years. They only make the mount adapters in one size... for the front... and use the same one for the back, but shrink the rear rotor 20mm in diameter.


----------



## Jerk_Chicken (Oct 13, 2005)

nino said:


> i finally got my 140mm steel rotor prototypes. i was pretty excited when i saw the weight: 58g !
> 
> now all i need is a 140 adapter for my bike and then i will go for some riding. with the EBC gold pads i intsalled my Avid Juicy Ultimates gained so much power i should be able to go one size smaller front and rear. from 180/160 to 160/140.
> 
> *i will keep yu guys updated on how it performs*...


Probably no better than a good set of vee brakes, at a huge weight penalty to boot.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

*well...*



Jerk_Chicken said:


> Probably no better than a good set of vee brakes, at a huge weight penalty to boot.


if you would know me better you would know that these actually are my words

but anyway - i was talking against discs ALL THE TIME up to a few weeks ago when i changed pads on my winterbikes Avid Juicy Ultimates. with the EBC Gold installed the pucker power went up dramatically and i really have to say that this now became indeed a brakeset with superb action. BUT as mentioned i still used 180/160 rotors as in stock trim the Juicy didn't have the bite i was looking for. my old and trusty V-brakes on ceramic rims would be on par if not more powerful still. but the change in pads made all the difference! so now i think i can even go back ones size and still have enough power in the discbrakes.

BUT: those who know me know that on my real bike i still use V-brakes:thumbsup: i don't see the need for discbrakes. still much heavier than a nice set of V's and the small advantage they have in the wet isn't changing my mind. not yet


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

*1st test: very good !!*

i mounted my 140mm rotors to my rear by using a 160mm front adapter. works perfect. and that adapter saved another 2g...

the rotor seems so small it almost seems there is none at all

BUT the power is here. after just a few hundred meters the power came on strong. i really can't tell the difference to the 160mm i had before. also continous braking didn't seem to do any bad. we will see once i hit real trails.maybe i'll do a downhill on a paved road with continous braking just to see what the limit might be...i'll let you guys know. but for now it's all good-very good:thumbsup:


----------



## Baltazar (Jan 30, 2004)

the rear wheel is so easy to lock up, so there is no need for 160 mm on the rear brake, atleast not for xc. would be if there is alot of downhills, then 160 mm in the rear is good.


----------



## DeeEight (Jan 13, 2004)

Those cheap "stop'n'go" mechanical discs I posted about a couple years ago on here do the same thing... 160mm front / 140mm rear rotors. Matched to the correct leverage/cable pull levers and they provide excellent stopping power for XC riding.

Edit: found the post, make that three years ago...

http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?t=2963


----------



## Cheers! (Jun 26, 2006)

How heavy are the standard avid 140mm rotor?


----------



## DeeEight (Jan 13, 2004)

Does avid even have a 140mm rotor yet? Shimano XTR does.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

*Avid 140: 91g*



DeeEight said:


> Does avid even have a 140mm rotor yet? Shimano XTR does.


yes there is an Avid 140: 91g:madman:


----------



## Buoyen (Aug 14, 2006)

I just wondered: This rotor looks like my Alligators - is it you who makes them? hehe


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

*alligator...*



Buoyen said:


> I just wondered: This rotor looks like my Alligators - is it you who makes them? hehe


yes sure-that's the alligator design. a design that works great on the bigger diameters should also work on a 140, right?


----------



## Buoyen (Aug 14, 2006)

Cool 

If/when these hit the marked, I think I'll get one because I (sub 60kg) have more than enough power (160/160 on Formula ORO).


----------



## tolleyman (Mar 5, 2006)

Yes, please let us know when they are available!


----------



## caballero (Nov 20, 2004)

are these available yet ?


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

*not yet...*



caballero said:


> are these available yet ?


i will let you guys know when they are available ! should be in 1-2 months.


----------



## Cheers! (Jun 26, 2006)

There will be even lighter versions soon:

https://reviews.mtbr.com/interbike/ashima/

for 160mm


----------



## Hubert (Dec 22, 2004)

Does the smaller contact surface between pads and discs affect the performance of the brakes?
I wonder why other brands who are also into lightweight don't use a more open rotor-design. This sort of weightsaving doesn't cost more money and looks easy to me compared to titanium bolts and carbon levers.


----------



## DeeEight (Jan 13, 2004)

Yes, less surface area = less friction = worse braking. Worse the large holes tend to grab at the pad surface more leading to faster pad wear. Also less mass of a material means you run the risk of your pads overheating sooner (the heat from braking has to go someplace, and if the rotor can't absorb anymore....).


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

*i basically agree...*



DeeEight said:


> Yes, less surface area = less friction = worse braking. Worse the large holes tend to grab at the pad surface more leading to faster pad wear. Also less mass of a material means you run the risk of your pads overheating sooner (the heat from braking has to go someplace, and if the rotor can't absorb anymore....).


however this is all NOT the case with the alligator disc. these have proven to be without any negative side effects.
this still has to be seen with those new, lightweight rotors where i see many thin parts in 90 degree angle to the rotation direction. in my opinion this might lead to added wear of the pads. but the weight is cool.

but the Alligators are already proven performers. we will see how this new design works....


----------



## Jerk_Chicken (Oct 13, 2005)

nino said:


> however this is all NOT the case with the alligator disc. these have proven to be without any negative side effects.
> this still has to be seen with those new, lightweight rotors where i see many thin parts in 90 degree angle to the rotation direction. in my opinion this might lead to added wear of the pads. but the weight is cool.
> 
> but the Alligators are already proven performers. we will see how this new design works....


There is at least one report, if not two, at this time circulating on the boards about a negative impact the rotors had on braking.

It could also be largely based on the rider's terrain and style. Lightweight bikes, riders, and flatlands tend to be very easy on brakes. I wouldn't recommend rotors like this for anyone into more serious types of riding that burdens the brakes.


----------



## Jerk_Chicken (Oct 13, 2005)

Hubert said:


> Does the smaller contact surface between pads and discs affect the performance of the brakes?
> I wonder why other brands who are also into lightweight don't use a more open rotor-design. This sort of weightsaving doesn't cost more money and looks easy to me compared to titanium bolts and carbon levers.


The above design looks hideous for braking. Looks and weight taking priority over braking performance.

I noted in my own experience in comparing the Maggie Louise wavy rotor and the Hope two piece of the same diameter and there is a significant difference. I didn't not particularly care for the Hope, by comparison, except for the performance under high heat, though the Maggie never really posed a problem in this area.


----------



## DIRT BOY (Aug 22, 2002)

Cheers! said:


> There will be even lighter versions soon:
> 
> https://reviews.mtbr.com/interbike/ashima/
> 
> for 160mm


Those rotors are soooo ugly. Too bad. Living in flat Florida, these would work fine power wise.


----------



## DeeEight (Jan 13, 2004)

Jerk_Chicken said:


> There is at least one report, if not two, at this time circulating on the boards about a negative impact the rotors had on braking.


Nino claims they're the same performance because he sells them, come on, keep up with the program. He couldn't very well sell any (especially as his version is a rip of the alligator design) if people more widely knew about the problems with them.


----------



## macadam (Apr 4, 2006)

Hi guys,

I'm using the Alligators rotors with the Marta's, 180 front and 160 rear.

They aren't bad rotors, but for sure they aren't "proven performers". For XC racing purposes one can live with them. But you don't get all the power out of your brakes. The Marta's originanly came with 160/160 wave rotors. The rear was perfect but I needed more power in the front. For a while I put a Formula Oro 180mm rotor in the front and the power was awesome, probably a bit too overkill for the local trails. Then I went for the Alligators, to save some weight, and they were enough for the local trails. They have a nice strong bite, BUT that will fade after ~5 seconds of dragging the brake. Thus if you need to do sustained descents in which you need to use your brakes a lot, than Alligators are not for you. As I said for XC they are good, since you don't have long descents and the brakes are able to cool down. At least this is my experience using them with the Marta (and btw, I tried different pads with more or less the same conclusions: strong bite in the beginning of the brake, but they fade after). 

The end of the story is that they will be a good fit on a XC race bike. In my case I think I will go back to the Marta SL rotors 180/160. I like more consistency from the brakes. 

Hope this helps, 
Adrian


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

*wow....*



Jerk_Chicken said:


> There is at least one report, if not two, at this time circulating on the boards about a negative impact the rotors had on braking.
> 
> It could also be largely based on the rider's terrain and style. Lightweight bikes, riders, and flatlands tend to be very easy on brakes. I wouldn't recommend rotors like this for anyone into more serious types of riding that burdens the brakes.


2 negative reports ??? i'm impressed

i could show you 50+ reports of people that are extremely happy, people that rave about improved performance, better resistance to fading...etcetc.

only flatland? i have DH-teams using them in races...


----------



## chequamagon (Oct 4, 2006)

nino said:


> 2 negative reports ??? i'm impressed
> 
> i could show you 50+ reports of people that are extremely happy, people that rave about improved performance, better resistance to fading...etcetc.
> 
> only flatland? i have DH-teams using them in races...


well Mr. Salesman -

put your money where your mouth is. Lets see it. No more of this "I could show you..."

I want to actually see it.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

*here you go...*



chequamagon said:


> well Mr. Salesman -
> 
> put your money where your mouth is. Lets see it. No more of this "I could show you..."
> 
> I want to actually see it.


first learn some german
http://www.mtb-news.de/forum/showthread.php?t=284295&highlight=alligator+bremsscheibe

or here:
http://www.light-bikes.de/website/new/2007/06/19/bremsenscheiben-leichtbau

this one is a very detailed and informative test on several lightweight rotors. PLEASE, PLEASE read this one !!!! i will also help to translate this article and no, it is not written by a friend of mine. that guy "bikeaholics.de" is the equivalent to YOU in the german forum. always writing against me...

here's what they say on the Alligators:
"Zu den leichten Tuning-Discs aus Stahl gehört die "Windcutter"-Disc des Herstellers Alligator. Sie wiegt zwischen 91 und 93g. Die großen Ausbrüche im Material sorgen für eine gute Selbstreinigung und niedriges Gewicht. Die Bremsleistung ist hervoragend und standfest ist sie ebenfalls."

i will help you translate:
the windcutter discs from Alligator also belong to the lightweight rotor group. they weigh between 91-93g. the big holes in the material make for good self cleaning and low weight. the brakepower is excellent and it is also durable.

while you are reading you will also learn about all the problems you get with the Hope Floatings or Titanium and Aluminium rotors...it's a real nice thread about lightweight rotors:thumbsup:


----------



## chequamagon (Oct 4, 2006)

wie man unhöflich von Ihnen mich sprechen Sie jetzt deutsch annimmt


----------



## plussa (Jul 12, 2005)

I think the Alligator / Ashima serrated rotors are total *crap*.

I destroyed three sets of pads in a week when I tried to get them working. (Avid, Avid sinterded, EBC red).

In the rear the 160mm rotor was OK except the fast pad wear, but in the front the power with 180mm rotor was only about 60-70% of the power with Avid 180mm polygon rotor. And the pads were useless after a couple hard stops from 20-30 mph! Especially the sintered pads just crumbled down because of the too open design.

I can brake with my rear wheel in the air with Avid or Hope rotors but not with Ashima.
Now I'm using the new Hope floating rotors.. Better looks and better power, works great with Juicys.

Usually pads last for two *years* in my use. I don't understand how people can praise the rotors. I wish I could but no...

I even tried to make the edges of the rotor smoother with a file, but the power went even worse.


----------



## chequamagon (Oct 4, 2006)

i dont count 50+ positives in that board.... maybe 10, a few negatives, and a bunch of babble from you.


----------



## Cheers! (Jun 26, 2006)

I thought the force due to friction was Ff=Fn*Un

where Fn = normal applied force (in this case the clamping pressure produced by hydraulic pressure)
where Un = coefficient of friction (in this case pad material and rotor material)

That means that however many cut outs/pockets on the rotor does not matter unless the temperature is too high. At that point when temps get that hot, either of two things would happen
1.) Fluid boils resulting in loss of hydraulic pressure
2.) Pad starts to overheat resulting in decrease of coefficient of friction. 
Either of which noted above will decrease Ff

Now to determine if this rotor is "too small." Too small meaning there isn't enough mass for it to act as a heat sink you integrate the above equation over distance transversed

So E=Energy converted from Ff = Un*INT(Fn)
Energy is always conserved and neglect the little losses (in this case dissipation of heat into the enviroment and the sound energy generated by two sliding surfaces)

Once you know the total amount of energy, you convert it into heat energy to determine how much heat there is. From that you can use the specific heat capacity of stainless steel to determine what the resulting temperatuere of the rotor is. If this temperature is higher then the specification (i.e. Normal operational temperatures of the pad / fluid) or if the temperature is so high that the stainless steel starts to lose its yeild strength you have a problem. 

Since the braking application (time) or in this case distance is short for XC riders. Which is mostly likely the type of user that these light weight rotors are intended for... The amount of heat generated should be small. Also it is important to note that surface area does not impact total Ff that can achieved (assuming that nothing overheats).


----------



## DeeEight (Jan 13, 2004)

It depends what one considers XC.... the ride I did on thursday evening is what was considered XC in these parts for much of the past 20 years, but most others today would be considered a Super-D race (or Enduro DH if you're european) given it was about 10km long trail, starting at about 320m along a ridgeline with climbs and descents on a fire road going as high as 400m on a loose gravel surface covered with freshly falled dead leaves. I was riding my disc brakes for much of the descents to keep my speeds down around 40kmh on the straights and more braking to around 25-30 into the corners as an error in many spots involves a trip down the side of a ridgeline or if you're lucky, head on into a tree or very large boulder. I've got Rockshox (F) / Amp D-1 (R) semi-hydraulic discs on my Amp B3, the front using EBC Green pads and 163/135mm rotors. After one descent I splashed thru a puddle and my front rotor sizzled as the water vapourized off it.


----------



## Cheers! (Jun 26, 2006)

DeeEight said:


> It depends what one considers XC.... the ride I did on thursday evening is what was considered XC in these parts for much of the past 20 years, but most others today would be considered a Super-D race (or Enduro DH if you're european) given it was about 10km long trail, starting at about 320m along a ridgeline with climbs and descents on a fire road going as high as 400m on a loose gravel surface covered with freshly falled dead leaves. I was riding my disc brakes for much of the descents to keep my speeds down around 40kmh on the straights and more braking to around 25-30 into the corners as an error in many spots involves a trip down the side of a ridgeline or if you're lucky, head on into a tree or very large boulder. I've got Rockshox (F) / Amp D-1 (R) semi-hydraulic discs on my Amp B3, the front using EBC Green pads and 163/135mm rotors. After one descent I splashed thru a puddle and my front rotor sizzled as the water vapourized off it.


That doesn't sound like an XC course at all. What I consider XC are race courses suitable for UCI Mountain Bike XC championships.


----------



## DeeEight (Jan 13, 2004)

A lot of UCI World Champion courses have been pretty tame though. Oh and I made a typo...both my discs on my amp run the EBC green pads. The front rotor is 163 and the rear 135 so pretty close to the discussion of an alligator 160/140 combo.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

*well....*

while we are discussing about lightweight steel rotors let's just have a look at the latest issue of german BIKE magazine (11/07)...there's a nice article on Notubes aluminium discs....Magura WARNS everyone to use them !!....

in that same issue there is an article on 10 different sub 10 kilo fullsuspension bikes. some of them also equipped with those aluminium rotors. and guess what? they all get the same comments: "less power, no good for everyday use"

nice


----------



## chequamagon (Oct 4, 2006)

Oh I get it Nino - 

Once you realize most people think your product sucks, just bring up the fact that another competing product sucks worse, and maybe sales will continue. Hmm, good strategy.

Look, EVERY lightweight rotor sucks in some way. I know this, I started the lightweight, aftermarket rotor craze in the late 90s with the Titanium rotors. Those sucked horribly. Thats why I dont sell them anymore.

Man up and realize your product sucks, and stop selling it. Sure, stock rotors are heavy, but they work and wont kill you from a failure.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

*i don't sell to the US...*



chequamagon said:


> Oh I get it Nino -
> 
> Once you realize most people think your product sucks, just bring up the fact that another competing product sucks worse, and maybe sales will continue. Hmm, good strategy.
> 
> ...


man, realize it please that i don't sell these rotors to the US as theres MANY places that carry them cheaper.
it's not about selling - it's about lightweight itmes that actually perform.

and i placed this article here because some of you guys try to offend me over and over again because i am obviously telling the truth about lightweight rotors. see Notubes, see Hope floatings where you can find long threads about people having problems with BUT you guys always say i tell lies about the competition....forget it! i just repeat the facts. there's many, many places where you can get these rotors. it's about telling my fellow weight-weenies what works and what doesn't.

i am a hardcore V.-braker anyway. i hate discs!!! i still am happy using v-brakes on my race-bike. but i do care about light weight and items that perform. only on my winterbike i have discbrakes and i was in no way just happy with them. only my search for improvement has made me happy and i try to share my knowledge with the guys out there.

you can get Alligator rotors everywhere and also EBC gold pads! that's what i see as a perfect match with much improved performance over stock components at lower weight.

it's as easy as that.


----------



## DeeEight (Jan 13, 2004)

Oh hi Tim.... didn't realize this is what you changed your handle to until now.


----------



## Jerk_Chicken (Oct 13, 2005)

Nino,

If you're selling stuff, how come you don't pay mtbr for classified ads like other vendors do, or set up an e-storefront?


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

*read again...*



Jerk_Chicken said:


> Nino,
> 
> If you're selling stuff, how come you don't pay mtbr for classified ads like other vendors do, or set up an e-storefront?


read again:
i don't sell since they aren't even made yet! i just showed prototypes that i am currently testing. i have no problem to place an add but at the moment there is no 140 rotor available, ok?


----------



## Jerk_Chicken (Oct 13, 2005)

For that particular product, but you sell a variety of products, as indicated in your sig.


----------



## DeeEight (Jan 13, 2004)

He's pulling a stan right now, or actually repeating his bit with the eclipse tubeless... he's using this forum as free advertising of a product he's thinking of carrying, and also at the same time testing the waters as it were to see if there's adequate demand for such a product. Basically he lacks the inate intuition that really successful businesspeople have and can't decide to take a chance on a product on his own or not, before ordering a bunch and then selling them.

Hell, even when he does get them in I bet he'll still tell people to PM him instead of buying the classified ad.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

*so what?*



Jerk_Chicken said:


> For that particular product, but you sell a variety of products, as indicated in your sig.


so everyone that sells something has to place an ad before having the right to post???

@D8:
i show parts of interest. you on the other hand haven't contributed to this board anything useful for a loooong time as far as i can remember. if this forum is your only way to comunicate with other people at least try to be nice or do so with interesting additions to given threads...i really respect you as a guy with good knowledge but your constant comments on this and that get annoying.


----------



## Jerk_Chicken (Oct 13, 2005)

No, but you are selling items and I've caught you several times lying about competing products and posted about it, as others have as well. The particular case was about the Hope rotors.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

*sorry -*



Jerk_Chicken said:


> No, but you are selling items and I've caught you several times lying about competing products and posted about it, as others have as well. The particular case was about the Hope rotors.


i just repeat what i read in other forums from users of such rotors. i didn't take those pictures with guys having to shave their brakes or frames to make the rotors fit...i just tell that Hopes are not troublefree as many have had their fare share of problems with them. just a couple of days ago there was another thread in the german WW forum:
http://www.mtb-news.de/forum/showthread.php?t=301912

don't try to prove me wrong when i can clearly show you that it's you...

some people have to dremel their brakes to make the rotors fit - nice
several guys report on constant rattling noise
lod knacking sounds (when rotors get hot)
overheating up to the point the brakes failed completely
several warranty issues with repeatedly changed rotors and finally a refund...

i see - they are indeed troublefree

and best of all:
they are even heavier than standard rotors in some cases!!! at least the bigger 180mm is no lightweight at all: 148g vs. 115g of the Alligator....hmmm.


----------



## Jerk_Chicken (Oct 13, 2005)

Yeah, Hope should make their rotors work for every single caliper combination out there. Nice. 

They sure do work well on their own brakes!

As far as weight goes, the 2-piece is to reduce weight, but primarily for prevention of warpage.

I think you're spinning this and twisting the reality in your favor. One of the hardest things to work compatibility of are disc brakes. So many different variations between all the manufacturers and how they are designing their equipment. Those folks chose to use 2 piece rotors, they had fitment issues, and they didn't work. If they had chosen to go with a proven fit, then there would be no issue, plain and simple. It doesn't make the Hope rotors a bad product. They should have bought the one piece if they wanted it. And yes, I grinded my rear adapter for clearance because I had a spherical mount adapter spacer. I'm sure Hope figured that I'd use a double adapter. Oddly enough, my gf's adapter works fine-no spacer. Certain other brands, such as Hayes, posed no trouble.

I note how you are now omitting your previous claim about their rotors being less than the stated thickness, since you were pointed out as being incorrect and not having any evidence of it.


...and mine, all six of them, have been trouble free. They "tick" at a low volume when cooling at a stop. Nothing disconcerting at all. It's their function. No vibrations, no warpage, no rattling, nothing. If the brakes overheated, then they need different brakes. That's an outrageous comment there. I have even posted a fair experience with using a Maggie Rotor on the Mini and left it there over the 2 piece of the same size. I never overheated the Mini, however.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

*oh...a step backwards?*



Jerk_Chicken said:


> Yeah, Hope should make their rotors work for every single caliper combination out there. Nice.
> 
> They sure do work well on their own brakes!
> 
> ...


did understand right that even you had to dremel to make these rotors fit???

and you were telling us about how troublefree these are up until now?


----------



## Jerk_Chicken (Oct 13, 2005)

You might have to read closer. And there was no setup trouble on my gf's bike, whatsoever. Grinding a non-standard adapter is not setup trouble. Fortunately, I've been wrenching for years, so I could work a resolution, or I could have just purchased another adapter and been done with it. This is not a revelation; I have mentioned this in the previous thread where you were shown to be less than honest while plugging your products using false comparative advertising.

I'm sure Hayes knew I was going to use their cylindrical adapter spacer with a Hope rotor while Hope knew I was going to use my rotor with Hayes' cylindrical adapter spacer. Funny thing is it works quite well with Formula, Hayes, Hope, and Avid adapters on my two bikes.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

*funny indeed...*



Jerk_Chicken said:


> You might have to read closer. And there was no setup trouble on my gf's bike, whatsoever. Grinding a non-standard adapter is not setup trouble. Fortunately, I've been wrenching for years, so I could work a resolution, or I could have just purchased another adapter and been done with it. This is not a revelation; I have mentioned this in the previous thread where you were shown to be less than honest while plugging your products using false comparative advertising.
> 
> I'm sure Hayes knew I was going to use their cylindrical adapter spacer with a Hope rotor while Hope knew I was going to use my rotor with Hayes' cylindrical adapter spacer. Funny thing is it works quite well with Formula, Hayes, Hope, and Avid adapters on my two bikes.


no further comment needed.


----------



## Jerk_Chicken (Oct 13, 2005)

Remember when you told the world about the undersized Hope rotors and several, including myself, refuted that? What happened there?


----------



## chequamagon (Oct 4, 2006)

uh huh, sure, whatever Nino.

keep slamming the competition to raise sales. Your slams are unfounded.

I ride Hope floaters, weigh 250 lbs, and have never had any issue (with Magura Martas and Avid Juicys)


----------



## DeeEight (Jan 13, 2004)

nino said:


> i show parts of interest. you on the other hand haven't contributed to this board anything useful for a loooong time as far as i can remember.


Because this board isn't really deserving of a lot of my attention anymore. I'm also not limited to just selling parts anymore, i prefer doing custom complete builds now and I don't post those for sale on mtbr at all. What I do post in parts are mostly vintage items as there's a more appreciative audience for those and I PAY for the classified ads to sell them. Also I tend to participate and contribute regularly to the vintage bikes forum because it is more enjoyable there as the mod actually does enforce the mtbr forum rules about ads even subtle attempts at them like all your "PM me" messages and your signature line. If Rumpfy was the mod in here as well, you'd quickly find a lot of your posts getting deleted.


----------



## plussa (Jul 12, 2005)

The 183mm Hope floating rotor is still lighter than the stock 185mm Avid Polygon rotor. The 2 mm difference in size doesn't mean anything.

Using Hope rotors also solves the well-known stuttering issues with with polygon rotors.

Yes, I had to file the front adapter a bit but so what, it only took a couple minutes.
No Dremel needed. At least the rotors have power and pads last like they should. And they look like a thousand bucks...


----------



## Axis II (May 10, 2004)

*Must be a slow Monday.......*

You cannot kill Nino. You cannot reason with him. Your taunts simply make him stronger. As long as people are willing to give Nino $$ he will be here filling up virtual space with outlandish claims and product plugs and the occasional nugget of usefull info. Just call him an obscene name and get on with your day- it's important to take care of yourself.


----------



## Jerk_Chicken (Oct 13, 2005)

Here's the non-standard Hayes spacer adapter I use. For the record, it protrudes past every adapter I've tried it on, to varying degrees.


----------



## DeeEight (Jan 13, 2004)

I wonder if nino has aspergers. It would explain a lot.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

*correct...*



Axis II said:


> You cannot kill Nino. You cannot reason with him.


correct - when you talk sh!t you won't be able to...


----------



## DeeEight (Jan 13, 2004)

well considering how much sh!t you spew, you must be gobbling it up like the rest of us do meat and potatoes.


----------



## Ausable (Jan 7, 2006)

Cheers! said:


> I thought the force due to friction was Ff=Fn*Un
> 
> where Fn = normal applied force (in this case the clamping pressure produced by hydraulic pressure)
> where Un = coefficient of friction (in this case pad material and rotor material)
> ...


It's been a long time since I got my engineering degree, but I think you are off track with this formula. :nono: :nono: :nono: The total braking force is Ff=Fn*Un*A where A is the pad/rotor interface area. 
Thus the braking surface, not changing the other factors, has a direct correlation to the braking force. That's why , if the same conditions will apply, a lightweight, cut-out rotor as the Alligartor will delive less braking force than a standard rotor. 
To get the same braking force as with a standard rotor, you should apply more pressure and generate more heat, overheating the braking fluid in long, steep downhills. Probably as some riders (myself included) have pointed out, this effect is not evident in standard cross country use or even downhill, if using mega-oversized rotors.

fab


----------



## Cheers! (Jun 26, 2006)

:nono: :nono: :nono: I think you should have your engineering license revoked for saying that and be forced to take 1st year kinematics and dynamics again.

I hate quoting wikipedia, but all my text books are at the office.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friction

Area has nothing to do with force due to friction.

I'll scan in an excerpt from one of my many physics text books. Tomorrow (thanksgiving here in Canada today).

I too took engineering and graduating less than 4 years ago. Engineering Physics at Queen's University in Ontario Canada.

----edit-----

Here I found a more respectful website site. Boston University. Physics department 1st year kinematics and dynamics course.
http://physics.bu.edu/~duffy/py105/Friction.html


----------



## DeeEight (Jan 13, 2004)

Ok while yer at it consider why in every motorsports application where MORE braking power is a concern, the goal is always to go with more pad contact area (performance motorcycles routinely have disc brakes where a third of the rotor surface is covered by the pads).


----------



## Jerk_Chicken (Oct 13, 2005)

Cheers! said:


> :nono: :nono: :nono: I think you should have your engineering license revoked for saying that and be forced to take 1st year kinematics and dynamics again.
> 
> I hate quoting wikipedia, but all my text books are at the office.
> 
> ...


So surface area has nothing to do with it?

This is becoming comical. I guess all the automotive applications where they're trying to figure out how to stuff a larger pad in a smaller area is all wrong. There are lots of factors that affect braking, not only the surface area.


----------



## chequamagon (Oct 4, 2006)

nino said:


> did understand right that even you had to dremel to make these rotors fit???
> 
> and you were telling us about how troublefree these are up until now?


So again, I ask of you Nino: It is cool to dremel the disc tabs off of your frame and the insides of your chainrings, but it is not cool to dremel the inside of your adaptor to make it fit right?

I dont seem to understand your double-standard...... Unless there is sales of a competing product involved.... oh wait, thats right....


----------



## chequamagon (Oct 4, 2006)

nino said:


> correct - when you talk sh!t you won't be able to...


you... you..... YOU POO POO HEAD!!!


----------



## Axis II (May 10, 2004)

DeeEight said:


> I wonder if nino has aspergers. It would explain a lot.


No. My assesment is Narcissistic Personality Disorder. This is an Axis II or personality disorder. Axis II disorders are generally unamenable to treatment- as we witness here on a daily occurance.

*Diagnostic criteria for 301.81 Narcissistic Personality Disorder*

A pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration, and lack of empathy, beginning by early adulthood and present in avariety of contexts, as indicated by five (or more) of the following:

1. has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements)

2. is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love

3. believes that he or she is "special" and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions) 
requires excessive admiration

4. has a sense of entitlement, i.e., unreasonable expectations of especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations

5. is interpersonally exploitative, i.e., takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends

6. lacks empathy: is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others

7. is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him or her 
shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes


----------



## dusthuffer (Nov 30, 2006)

Nino, do you race xc yourself or just recreational rider?
Someone with riding your components race? I ask this question because racing is very tough on components, and can tell difference if component really performs or not. So just a small question.


----------



## DeeEight (Jan 13, 2004)

He used to brag about how thomas frischknecht was riding a bunch of his parts including the eclipse tubeless system and how it was so much better than stan's.


----------



## dusthuffer (Nov 30, 2006)

DeeEight said:


> He used to brag about how thomas frischknecht was riding a bunch of his parts including the eclipse tubeless system and how it was so much better than stan's.


no dis-respect but I would rather here from the person himself as he seems quite dedicated to mountain biking


----------



## Cheers! (Jun 26, 2006)

frictional force is proportional to the applied normal force and is independent of the contact area. 

What we are analyzing here is kinetic friction (sliding friction) between the brake pads and the brake rotor. Normal force is applied via the hydraulic pressure that presses the pads against the rotor. There are only two things for you to consider

1.) Normal applied force
2.) coefficient of friction

let's look at #1. Consider that the two surfaces at their microscopic levels. The normal forces applied creates a bonding between the atoms of the brake pad and the atoms of the brake rotor. This bond is stronger as the force applied goes up.

For #2 we look it accounts for the number of contact points between the two surfaces. This is what the coefficient of friction is. 

Hence Force of Friction = (coefficient of friction)(Normal force applied)

The surface area in essence is already considered in the Normal force applied. So when you push down on your brake pad the normal force is distributed across the surface that makes contact with the rotor. The density of the contact points is uniform across the brake pads so that means the formation of contact points depends on the normal force per unit area.

Normal Force = Normal force over area * area 
Normal Force = (N/A)*A

A larger contact area would give you more contact points (atomic wise), but each contact point would get less force. In other words since the force applied equals force divided by the area of contact, it works out that the increase in friction generating area is exactly offset by the reduction in force applied on each contact point. 

If you are still doubtful do an experiment. This is the exact demonstration my high school teacher did for me back in grade 11. 

Take a brick and place it lengthwise on your table. Tie a string through one of it's holes. Take a fish scale and hook it to the end of the string and pull it in such a way that the string is parallel to the table. Record down the force you are pulling with once the brick moves.

Now take the same brick and place it with it's smallest face contacting the table. Retie the string near the center of gravity of the brick. Use the same fish scale and pull the same. 

You will note that the force required to pull the brick regardless of if it's on its biggest face versus its smallest face is the same. 

Still in doubt? What do you want? Do you want me to scan in a page from a text book? Will a scanned page from a published text book be more credible for you? 

This is physics. There is nothing to dispute about it. What you observer today is the same as what Newton observed centuries ago.


----------



## Cheers! (Jun 26, 2006)

As to why in motorsports application they go with bigger brakes w/ more contact area is because they need more heat sink capacity to avoid the brakes from overheating. Once overheating occurs you lose hydraulic pressure because the fluid boils creating gas pockets, Gas can compress and hence you can no longer achieve the same normal force on the brake pads as when the fluid did not have gases in it. Also when you get your pads so hot you experience pad fade. When the pad starts to off gas and it's coefficient of friction changes because the material (sintered carbon dust and copper, or ceramic, or organic) is way outside it's operational requirements.

The brake rotor not only acts as a surface for the brake pads to grab to create friction, but serves a 2nd roll of removing heat from pad and the piston of the caliper. That is why you see motorsports going to bigger brakes. 

I came from motorsports. I raced Formula SAE. I also raced the Canadian equivalent to NASA HPDE (SOLO1 time trial racing). There was a company called Ntech. I found it when I was watching How it's made on discovery channel when they aired how are brakes made. The company Ntech try to develop a caliper that went all the way around the disc. Making essentially a full face caliper. The company couldn't make it work and has since gone out of business.


----------



## chequamagon (Oct 4, 2006)

Cheers! said:


> This is physics. There is nothing to dispute about it.


shut up and help us bash Nino.


----------



## Cheers! (Jun 26, 2006)

chequamagon said:


> shut up and help us bash Nino.


I have nothing against nino. I do not like that he in-directly advertises on the forum with products he sells. I don't like how he has "<---- PM me I sell lightweight parts" in his signature. But I do like how he posts pictures of parts on a scale, and posts tidbits of information of new products I have no heard of or would not otherwise have considered. This is not my problem, and should be a problem for the moderators or admin of this forum.



Jerk_Chicken said:


> So surface area has nothing to do with it?
> 
> This is becoming comical. I guess all the automotive applications where they're trying to figure out how to stuff a larger pad in a smaller area is all wrong. There are lots of factors that affect braking, not only the surface area.


What I have beef about is when someone tells me my statements are comical. What I find comical is how people get away with making false statements based on poor common sense and trying to use "motorsports" as an example or excuse of why something aught to be.


----------



## Axis II (May 10, 2004)

Cheers! said:


> As to why in motorsports application they go with bigger brakes w/ more contact area is because they need more heat sink capacity to avoid the brakes from overheating. Once overheating occurs you lose hydraulic pressure because the fluid boils creating gas pockets, Gas can compress and hence you can no longer achieve the same normal force on the brake pads as when the fluid did not have gases in it. Also when you get your pads so hot you experience pad fade. When the pad starts to off gas and it's coefficient of friction changes because the material (sintered carbon dust and copper, or ceramic, or organic) is way outside it's operational requirements.
> 
> The brake rotor not only acts as a surface for the brake pads to grab to create friction, but serves a 2nd roll of removing heat from pad and the piston of the caliper. That is why you see motorsports going to bigger brakes.
> 
> I came from motorsports. I raced Formula SAE. I also raced the Canadian equivalent to NASA HPDE (SOLO1 time trial racing). There was a company called Ntech. I found it when I was watching How it's made on discovery channel when they aired how are brakes made. The company Ntech try to develop a caliper that went all the way around the disc. Making essentially a full face caliper. The company couldn't make it work and has since gone out of business.


You are missing the whole spirit of this thread. Shut up and bash Nino.


----------



## Jerk_Chicken (Oct 13, 2005)

Ok, then where is the coefficient of friction based from?


----------



## Cheers! (Jun 26, 2006)

Coefficient of friction is determined by experiment/test. All the values that are referenced in the back of text books are obtained by sliding two surfaces together and accuately measuring the force required to get it moving, and the force required to keep it moving. The earlier determines the static coefficient of friction, and the later determines the kinetic coefficient of friction

Typical devices can be a pin sliding on a surface usually inside an environmental chamber.


----------



## Ausable (Jan 7, 2006)

> Cheers! said:
> 
> 
> > This is physics. There is nothing to dispute about it. What you observer today is the same as what Newton observed centuries ago.


Ok then, I just needed an excuse to quit my engineering job and start up a ginaecologist studio, and you just gave me a valid one! ::thumbsup: 
Thinking about it, the result of coefficient of friction*Normal Force*Area is not a force!

To go back to the topic of this tread, how come this diminutive, minute rotor is endorsed by someone who ever complains about the lack of power of discs and known to run a huge 180mm rotor on a 7Kg race bike? Times are changing!


----------



## DeeEight (Jan 13, 2004)

Ausable said:


> To go back to the topic of this tread, how come this diminutive, minute rotor is endorsed by someone who ever complains about the lack of power of discs and known to run a huge 180mm rotor on a 7Kg race bike? Times are changing!


Because he's going to be selling it and has a vested interest in it. Duh!


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

*lucky those who can actually read...*



Ausable said:


> To go back to the topic of this tread, how come this diminutive, minute rotor is endorsed by someone who ever complains about the lack of power of discs and known to run a huge 180mm rotor on a 7Kg race bike? Times are changing!


lucky those who can actually read...
http://forums.mtbr.com/showpost.php?p=3474903&postcount=1

@D8:
no, you can't buy it!

oh - yes i still love my V-brakes - thanks you


----------



## ginsu2k (Jul 28, 2006)

Cheers! said:


> The density of the contact points is uniform across the brake pads


Technically, this is an assumption you make based on the idea that the brake pad is infinitely rigid. Unfortunately, this is not true and pad warping has a very large effect on braking performance (mostly in automotive applications).

Also, if you follow motorsports, there is a recent trend toward multiple brake pads instead of just one (i.e. one pad for each piston in a multi-piston caliper). This is for several reasons, mostly to do with pad warping, but they have also learned that the increased number of edges has also increased the 'bite' of the pads, or initial feel.

Also, your analysis only applies for 'infinitely rigid' materials. If your brake pad were a visco-elastic material like rubber you would get greater than 1.0 coefficient of friction, where other factors like mechanical interlocking and chemical adhesion come into play.

Cheers, your analysis has been really good, I only make these counter-points because technically they are true, but thanks for raising the game here on this forum. Alot of people don't like to have these technical discussions, but us engineers thrive on them.


----------



## JaLove (Dec 24, 2006)

Beyond the BS, when will these rotors be available to the public for purchase? I've heard that they work great with XTR brakes, which I'm planning to run next spring. Thanks.


----------



## sxotty (Nov 4, 2005)

Cheers was right, but that means the answer is in the material.

If you want better braking in motor sports the first thing is the tire not the brake. A decent brake can lock a tire up, but if the tire just slides you don't slow down as fast (since the static coefficient of friction is higher).

With all this weight savings stuff, a you have to wonder though what the best solution is.

Smaller rotors mean less of a lever arm for the frictional force on the brake rotor surface. That means you need to provide more normal force to the rotor.

At least the force on the frame for the mountings should stay constant though b/c as the lever arm decreases the force increases at the same rate so you won't snap the mounts by using a smaller or larger rotor though you might break your adapter.


----------



## JaLove (Dec 24, 2006)

Nino--Since you seem to be around, any updates on these 140mm rotors? I have the new '08 XT brakes ready to be mounted on one of my bikes for this spring and I was interested in trying these out (160/140). 

Anyone with the Shimano discs running these rotors? Everyone seems to have a different long-term opinion!

Are the 140mm rotors available for sale yet?


----------



## bobbyOCR (Feb 11, 2007)

I also want a pair. 150g + 60g for adapters makes it a respectably light centrelock pair.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

*soon available...*



JaLove said:


> Nino--Since you seem to be around, any updates on these 140mm rotors? I have the new '08 XT brakes ready to be mounted on one of my bikes for this spring and I was interested in trying these out (160/140).
> 
> Anyone with the Shimano discs running these rotors? Everyone seems to have a different long-term opinion!
> 
> Are the 140mm rotors available for sale yet?


i should get them soon.


----------



## Jerk_Chicken (Oct 13, 2005)

Aren't they already available through places like ebay and Pricepoint?


----------



## imtb (Jan 15, 2004)

would xtr calipers work with the 140 rotors?


----------



## DeeEight (Jan 13, 2004)

Shimano offers a 140mm XTR rotor now so one would assume so.


----------



## petercarm (Nov 5, 2007)

On the engineering side of things, the ideal of frictional force being proportional to normal applied force is not strictly true.

Most materials show a reduction in coefficient of friction as the normal force increases. This comes about because the microscopic processes that bring about friction in the first place are not uniform at all applied contact forces.

The short answer is that braking with a massively reduced contact area will be worse than with a normal type disk. Therefore it is right and appropriate to carry on bashing Nino - someone who ought to realise that claiming his compromised weight-weenied disk brakes are just about as good as v-brakes is not really going to get hardened MTBRers reaching for their wallets.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

petercarm said:


> On the engineering side of things, the ideal of frictional force being proportional to normal applied force is not strictly true.
> 
> Most materials show a reduction in coefficient of friction as the normal force increases. This comes about because the microscopic processes that bring about friction in the first place are not uniform at all applied contact forces.
> 
> The short answer is that braking with a massively reduced contact area will be worse than with a normal type disk. Therefore it is right and appropriate to carry on bashing Nino - someone who ought to realise that claiming his compromised weight-weenied disk brakes are just about as good as v-brakes is not really going to get hardened MTBRers reaching for their wallets.


dream on

maybe you are one of those who doesn't know how to brake anyway. some of those who could put their feet on the ground - yes, a high-heels have less contact area than military boots


----------



## spaniardclimber (May 9, 2005)

DeeEight said:


> Shimano offers a 140mm XTR rotor now so one would assume so.


I read somewhere that a 160mm front IS caliper could be used as a 140mm rear
Edited: I wrote 'rotor' instead of 'caliper'


----------



## imtb (Jan 15, 2004)

How do these compare to the Hope 140rotors. Has anyone tired the140hopes with xtr.


----------



## tolleyman (Mar 5, 2006)

I run 140 Hope on the rear with Martas, and have no complaints, I really can't tell the difference in performance from the 160. I only use it for XC race and some training, I'm in Virginia where its relatively flat too.


----------



## grawbass (Aug 23, 2004)

spaniardclimber said:


> I read somewhere that a 160mm front IS rotor could be used as a 140mm rear


Close. Front IS adaptor not rotor.


----------



## Ultra Magnus (Jan 13, 2004)

petercarm said:


> On the engineering side of things, the ideal of frictional force being proportional to normal applied force is not strictly true.
> 
> Most materials show a reduction in coefficient of friction as the normal force increases. This comes about because the microscopic processes that bring about friction in the first place are not uniform at all applied contact forces.
> 
> The short answer is that braking with a massively reduced contact area will be worse than with a normal type disk. Therefore it is right and appropriate to carry on bashing Nino - someone who ought to realise that claiming his compromised weight-weenied disk brakes are just about as good as v-brakes is not really going to get hardened MTBRers reaching for their wallets.


I've read something similar regarding not brakes, but tires. If the applied force * coefficient of friction were true, then it would make no sense to run bigger tires on a race car, nor would a lighter car corner better. But we ALL know bigger tires have more grip (on pavement, smooth dry pavement, like a brake pad on a rotor) than smaller tires. The article very clearly explained how as weight goes up (Fn), the increase in grip (Ff) does not increase linear-ly. That's why light weight cars corner better than heavy ones, bigger tires than small ones, etc... Then you get light cars with big tires + downforce... yeah... That's where it's at...

BM


----------



## DeeEight (Jan 13, 2004)

spaniardclimber said:


> I read somewhere that a 160mm front IS rotor could be used as a 140mm rear


Front 160mm I.S. adapters can be used on the rear with 140mm rotors.


----------



## Padre (Jan 6, 2004)

2 of my wife's bikes have the Avid 140mm out back. I just installed a Stan's Aluminum 140mm on her 3rd bike a few days ago. 38grams for the rotor. It came slightly bent with the rotor bolt holes too small for bolts. After some "tuning" the rotor is installed and rubbing veeery slightly. Power seems okay for now. Oh yes, all bikes are running Oro Puro's.

Nino, I hope the tolerances on your rotors will be better. Also, cost on the Stan's Rotor was about $78USD. I'm wondering if your rotor will be in that range.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

Padre said:


> 2 of my wife's bikes have the Avid 140mm out back. I just installed a Stan's Aluminum 140mm on her 3rd bike a few days ago. 38grams for the rotor. It came slightly bent with the rotor bolt holes too small for bolts. After some "tuning" the rotor is installed and rubbing veeery slightly. Power seems okay for now. Oh yes, all bikes are running Oro Puro's.
> 
> Nino, I hope the tolerances on your rotors will be better. Also, cost on the Stan's Rotor was about $78USD. I'm wondering if your rotor will be in that range.


definitely no fitting problems, definitely better performance and definitely MUCH cheaper than 78$


----------



## tehan (Jan 22, 2007)

have You seen this?

it seems that 185mm floating weights 110g soo it's 5g less than alligators 180mm nino


----------



## DeeEight (Jan 13, 2004)

Yes but as we keep pointing out, Nino doesn't SEEEELLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL those floating rotors so... they suck.


----------



## tehan (Jan 22, 2007)

ha ha  good posting
but it's interesting that he shows us these 180mm hope rotor in at 148g and here we have 110g with the same rotor. Soo who knows what is going on????
They looks identicaly soo where is the catch?


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

tehan said:


> ha ha  good posting
> but it's interesting that he shows us these 180mm hope rotor in at 148g and here we have 110g with the same rotor. Soo who knows what is going on????
> They looks identicaly soo where is the catch?


well - it's not my scale so i didn't manipulate anything. i got the picture from a german weight-weenie forum

it's a nice thing when weight-weenies show parts on scales:
http://www.fotos.light-bikes.de/main.php?g2_itemId=8505&g2_page=2


----------



## tehan (Jan 22, 2007)

yes I know, but on these thread wchich link you gave 2 sites before (on german forum) this person claims that 110g is real weight for 180 and shows this photo which i plased above. Soo what is goin on, i don't know german well soo wcho tell me why there is such diference in weight?


----------



## BlownCivic (Sep 12, 2006)

You guys are comparing apples and oranges. There are 2 versions of both the 160 and the 185mm floating rotors. I have a pair of 78g 160mm floating rotors. They are the ones from the Mono Mini PRO brakeset, and are thinner steel. The regular floating 160mm rotor is around 90g (Weight Weenies shows it as 90g, but I've seen it at 92g.).


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

BlownCivic said:


> You guys are comparing apples and oranges. There are 2 versions of both the 160 and the 185mm floating rotors. I have a pair of 78g 160mm floating rotors. They are the ones from the Mono Mini PRO brakeset, and are thinner steel. The regular floating 160mm rotor is around 90g (Weight Weenies shows it as 90g, but I've seen it at 92g.).


ahh - then that's the one which has just about 1,5 or 1,6mm thick material where the pad rubs....cool !

with these you buy a disc with a thickness others are rated worn and belong to trash

so i'd rather get some serrated, run them for a couple thousand miles and enjoy that they get lighter as well over the years from beeing worn

@D8:
i would have no problem selling the floatings cheap as well but i don't sell parts that i can't stand behind.


----------



## DeeEight (Jan 13, 2004)

nino said:


> @D8:
> i would have no problem selling the floatings cheap as well but i don't sell parts that i can't stand behind.


ROTFLMSWAO !

That's priceless.... god I'm tempted to use it for my sig line...


----------



## saga (Feb 12, 2005)

nino I wanted to buy some hope floating rotors but thanks as I'll now know to stay clear of them.


----------



## tehan (Jan 22, 2007)

soo nino sell me cheap 2 floating rotors... if You CAN


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

tehan said:


> soo nino sell me cheap 2 floating rotors... if You CAN


no problem, i can get them cheap...but i don't want to.


----------



## tehan (Jan 22, 2007)

I really want to buy. 
I also have a 2 bugatti in my garage but don't want to show, soo they will never be ridden, it's a pity but thats a life


----------



## A-Hol (Dec 31, 2005)

Available yet?


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

A-Hol said:


> Available yet?


i expect them shortly...


----------



## Nyquist (May 12, 2005)

tehan said:


> have You seen this?
> 
> it seems that 185mm floating weights 110g soo it's 5g less than alligators 180mm nino


I'm pretty sure that reads 170, not 110. I have one of those rotors, and theres no way in hell it's only 110g.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

Nyquist said:


> I'm pretty sure that reads 170, not 110. I have one of those rotors, and theres no way in hell it's only 110g.


you are right!!!


----------



## LJJ (Nov 4, 2007)

nino said:


> i mounted my 140mm rotors to my rear by using a 160mm front adapter. works perfect. and that adapter saved another 2g...
> 
> the rotor seems so small it almost seems there is none at all
> 
> BUT the power is here. after just a few hundred meters the power came on strong. i really can't tell the difference to the 160mm i had before. also continous braking didn't seem to do any bad. we will see once i hit real trails.maybe i'll do a downhill on a paved road with continous braking just to see what the limit might be...i'll let you guys know. but for now it's all good-very good:thumbsup:


Hi Nino - is there a 160mm version available in this pattern ? I use Avids and the A2Z Alligators don't really lose too much weight for the cost. If there is a 160, how much does it weighand where can I buy one ?? (I'm in UK)

Cheers
LJJ


----------



## DeeEight (Jan 13, 2004)

LJJ said:


> is there a 160mm version available in this pattern ?


In what pattern?! His rotors are the alligator pattern in a smaller diameter.

http://www.pricepoint.com/detail/16...Disc/Alligator-Serration-Disc-Brake-Rotor.htm


----------

