Turning Rotors: a case study...

diffusion, the migration of carbon atoms in the iron matrix, happens
well below red heat. but /significant/ diffusion, recrystallization,
graphite flake/nodule growth, or other phase changes, doesn't. and if
you're trying to argue that a brake disk is martensitic, you need to
think again.

if your gm disk warps in 15k, you need to consider other factors. for
honda, elastic distortion caused by incorrect wheel lug torquing has a
huge influence. but if it's the disk alone, things like bad
post-casting heat treatments, uneven material thickness, etc. can
influence whether a disk stays true at high temperatures. the most
likely item is cutting corners on heat treatment and reducing heat soak
time.

my money's on incorrect lug torquing.

i was a vehicle mechanic for 5 years and also have a materials degree.
is that good enough?

 

==============================================================
TOPIC: Turning Rotors: a case study...
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.autos.honda/browse_thread/thread/19594af6aa37ae67
==============================================================

In two messages you wrote that "centering" the disks is
important, and if this is not done properly it will give
"inconsistent results." This is what I was responding
to. Can you read? The relevant excerpts are right here.
(I had written "coaxiality" when I meant centricity. I
have corrected this already.)

Correcting you, I wrote, "Relevant is that the machined
surface and the mounting surface are perpendicular to
the axis." Can you read? You do not "need to read around
a bit more," it's right here.

Pulsing "because of momentum differences due to the
mass of the caliper vs. the piston," and "the mass on
each side is the same and there's little net effect."
Rubbish!

 

Apparently not - it hasn't helped you to do the job correctly. Like I said
before, there's one in every group. Although Dave Kelsen may once again take
issue with that.

 

karl wrote:

really? why? i'd love to see your explanation.

 

so why don't you make a technical rebuttal? share your superior
knowledge.

 

It took you 12 days to come up with your lame-ass text book reply. Yet you
still don't get it - you're trying to argue a point that many people have
already demonstrated to you that you are wrong about. I can't be bothered to
repeat their - and my - valid examples and explanations. Perhaps if you took
the time to review the threads in this post and you might begin to
understand what I mean. I doubt it, but you never know. As I said, you ARE
the one.

 

karl wrote:

Karl - he's not worth the time or effort to try and discuss this with. But I
think you already know this ;-)

doug