Bob_H

Well, mainly because noone has asked about afterdarktuning before - hence it wouldn't really be covered in a search. But I appreciate the friendly jab. -Bob

BTW, In case it wasn't clear, it is a Skyline RB26dett setup. It just came from a Stager car. No difference. -Bob

Yes, I still have mine. It's not free, but won't cost you much. It is not light, so shipping might be expensive. I can get it as far south as 2 hours north of Atlanta to make it somewhat cheaper. The diff has about 12k miles on it and is out of a 2000 Stager RS with the R-33 driveline,(RB26). $150 plus shipping. -Bob

Don't forget the stock R-33 RB26 had a 4.11 diff. I think you will be fine. -Bob

Alex, I don't think they have done any 240Z's yet. I know they have done some RB20 and 25 240sx's. And I think they might be working on one RB26 conversion. It is not bolt in like the 240sx, so I don't know if they can make it work or not,(i.e. they have no experience in it). Assuming they can do it correctly, not a bad price in my opinion. However, look at the cost of the upgraded parts not included such as brakes and suspension. Also, what do they include with the swap, fuel pump? fuel lines? Radiator? intercooler? piping? Exhaust? Ask those important questions. They can't use the stock fuel lines. They will have to fabricate some kind of fuel tank, use an aftermarket fuel cell, or modify the stock tank. What about engine managment? Will it be stock ECU, aftermarket ECU, etc..? For a fully running car with everything I listed done, 10.5 is a good deal. Do they realize they need to fabricate an oil pan and pickup tube? -Bob

Dan, nice one. John, I'll reitterate. Rear brakes vs front brakes is a poor comparsion. They are doing anywhere from 10-30% of the work, depending on the setup of the Z. As such, they are not required to do nearly the work of the fronts. But as I recall, you are using Mike's front setup with outlaw calipers and should have a 1/4 inch front bracket. Or did you design your own front bracket as well? I'd love to discuss that and how it works in relation to this bracket but I think the rear bracket is a misleading example. Dan, how about plugging in the variables into your fancy programs at work? Its not like your really doing any work now anyways! You have the dimensions or can get them from Juan. I'm sure he would welcome the analysis. I for one would love to see if 3/8 makes any difference at all since this clearly has been a "lively" discussion to say the least. That indicates to me that it is an issue many people are concerned about. I'll bribe you - some kinda trade/money for the 15's of mine. -Bob

Well put. I put " just new rod bearings might be enough to fix the issue depending on how bad the problem is.", but didn't elaborate. I.E. that was a best case scenario. I agree with you 100% and I'm glad you elaborated. -Bob

I agree, that sounds just like some shot rod bearings. The puzzling part is the ringing noise at the end. Have him check the starter carefully. It might not be fully disengaging and might sound like that. Did he check the engine before he put it in? If it is a bottom end problem, just new rod bearings might be enough to fix the issue depending on how bad the problem is. Re-sizeing the rods are usually a serious issue. -Bob

And here was his second post. Before I put it, realize there was some spirited discussion in this thread, and as such is the nature of corner-carvers.com. If someone can't back up what they say, they usually get slammed. That is part of the reason I am so unwilling to accept blanket statements that "something is ok" with no real data or proof to back it up. Eventually some people came back with some personal experience or data, but didn't provide it first time around. Just food for thought that might keep these discussions from going so long for no good reason. Here is the second post: All this makes for some interesting thinking and for the computer jockies and slide rule junkies just one more thing to sink your teeth into. I freely admit to not having the gifted engineering background of some here, but I'll rely on 18 years of racing work to point me in the right direction. And I'm open to mistakes, so feel free to point them out. The first brake kits I produced ten years ago now were based on my four years with Bondurant as the shop manager and when I left I was repeatedly asked to 'build me some of those SHO brakes!' so I did. Now to ease the minds of the nay sayers, I'd like to point out that I did not design this mod but rather refine it. The original kits on them had aluminum 1/4" caliper brackets (gads!) and we soon updated them to steel. As was the case with the Mustang kits at the time too. Now who did this SHO kit and had the stupidity to do so? That would be Roush Racing in Lavonia MI. Hmm, seems they've designed and built a couple of cars like this before and I'd say they have a feel for what works and what doesn't. In fact the alum brackets were not so much the problem with the kits but the constant sawing on them by fitting and removing the bolt as well as the rotor warpage problems at times ( an entrely different thread!) we opted for steel brackets. For years now I've produced dozens, no hundreds, of kits with 1/4 brackets that are just fine. Now I'm not foolish enough to suggest that thicker can't be any better nor that you shouldn't consider it. But it's not at the front of my mind when working on new ones. What is you ask? Well, in additon to the bracket thickness, I take into account the bolt mount offset, the weight of the car (did you know that may radial calipers mount on only two 3/8 studs? E-gads!) and I also look at the platform overlap of the bracket to the spindle. In addition to all of this, one might also do well to consider the strength of the parts being bolted to the bracket or even the spindle itself! Some cars have ears that are much weaker than the bracket when it comes right down to it. And some caliipers have mounting ears of marginal strength. What's the weakest point for the deflection to begin? I look at all of this and make an educated desision on what works best and how. The Focus kit above has a massive platform to knuckle ratio and I can assure you that the bracket is not his weak point. The larger kits use the thicker bracket as the holes have greater offset. And as I said the lack of spacers makes it an easier fit. The fitting of spacers can only add to the potential for twist as the platform is reduced and the leverage effected by it. Mr Prestons comments here only show his lack of information on such things and having never dealt with them first hand. Dude. The thought of 5/16 material is a great one, but having looked for it, you'll be hard pressed to find it. The statement of simply fitting an alternative hat is so simplistic that I should have thought of it. What do we now do about ball joint clearance, wheel to caliper clearance, not to mention the offsets available? Hmmm, seems custom hats are the only alternative. And like any good business the need for cross over applications can be a plus (like keeping costs down) so there may be comprmises in some areas. Many, many companies such as Coleman and Bicknell sell brackets for caliper mounting that are 1/4 thick and are either weld on or even bolt on. Some of them make ME nervous! Thus as in the case of Roush and others it's unjust to make blanket statements that don't cover all aspects of whys and hows. I'd never say that one should not consider making home made brackets of the thickest material you can, but then if you plan to purchase from someone who sells complete kits at least review the produt and evaluate it fairly. You might even ask if they can do up custom brackets for a kit. In most cases I think you'll find the overall product exceeds the needs of many who purchase it. And here is Jack Hidley's response when I posted the final design of the bracket,(this bodes well for you Juan). Remember, he is the one who said 1/4 in would be inadequate and showed the Mustang data that they would bend: The rear brakes on a Mustang are a pretty extreme example. The bolt circle that the caliper bracket mounts to on the differential housing is small. This leaves a large unsupported span between the base of the bracket and where the caliper attaches. This leads to more potential flex. The caliper is laterally offset from the axle tube also. This exerts even more torque on the bracket. The photos of the Datsun brackets above make it look about 400% less demanding than a Mustang application. But then again increasing the thickness 25% results in a 250% increase in stiffness....hmmm. So no real engineering evaluation, but some good support in the end. I still personally believe the thicker 3/8 inch is a better choice and I'm glad to see you will switch to that when the first set is sold out. As was pointed out in Todd TCE's first post about the eclipse brakes, the 1/4 was fine, but the 3/8 was better in the more demanding environment. Again, for 50-80% of the buyers, the 1/4 will be more than adequate. But for folks like me, it will be a limiting factor. Juan, thanks for being open minded about this discussion and not getting into the dirt with negatives and such. I think you will do great as a Z company and should be around for a while. -Bob

Ok, this is a longer post, but has what I feel is some good feedback from an aftermarket brake kit maker. There are two posts from the same guy, Todd TCE. In the first, he shows how a thicker bracket can be better and why. In the second, he shows how a kit he has sold many of uses 1/4 in and why it is ok. Good reading. Again, this thread can be found here: http://forums.corner-carvers.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=118464#post118464 And here is the first post,(second will be in the next message): I'll add from my experience. The use of the 1/4" brackets may or may not be up to the task. When brake torque is applied the bracket will tend to twist at some point. But, that point may be well under the load which is being asked to generate i.e. normal street dirving would likley be just fine, but extremet track use may exert more load than intended. Having built (and still using some) kits with 1/4 plate (laser cut- CNC is too expensive!) the key is the location of the holes and how it is placed to the caliper. When bolting the braket to the spindle if the holes are in a line with those of both the spindle as well as the caliper the twist is greatly redued or nonexistant. But if the caliper is fittied with an offset pattern whereas the bracket has a significant arc the thicker the plate the better. How do I know? I did the original Eclipse kits with 1/4 and have since gone to thicker 3/8. Both proved ok for street use, but the thicker bracket was the ticket for harder use. Some of the current kits still use the 1/4 bracket including the Impala and Contour. Both of these are built in such a manner as the holes are in line with one another. The thicker the bracket the better is hard to argue against. Some times fit isssues dictiate otherwise however. I now choose to go 3/8 when I can unless the design doesn't need it IMHO, or fitting the thicker part is just not possible. As for pad taper, I'd say some of the wear may be from the brackets, but most taper on fixed calipers is simply from heat. The outer dia of the rotor runs sig hotter then the minor and thus burns through pad material faster. I've personally seen Wilwood pad test data (yes, Raybestos) and this is common on many brands of calipers. Just my .02

I assume that means you now also have a working oil pan? This stupid,(not really), Carrier Qualification stuff is taking all my time. We head out to the boat on Thursday to try and see if I can land this beast with an 80 foot wingspan in a 100 foot wide landing area at over 100 mph.... I love my job! -Bob

You missed me on this one. First, the original post about honda brakes was deleted and I cannot find it anymore, therefore we may be taking this out of context. Assuming the same braking force created by the caliper, the 12 inch rotor is capable of creating more braking force,(torque), to the wheel. Its called leverage. You may be talking about something else and I am not seeing it. I think what you are assuming is for a given braking force at the tire, the 9 inch setup is required to create more torque on the rotor than a 12 inch setup on the outside radius of the rotor - to which I agree. We would have to apply more force in the caliper to create that higher force/torque. The 12 inch setup will in theory give you a higher braking force,(depends on tire type, coeff. of friction to the ground, and normal force on the tire). So still, for a given force in the caliper, the 12 inch setup will exert more torque to the tire, and that was my point, just maybe not worded well. Brake torque is generally refering to what the tire sees. I believe we are talking about the same thing, just in different ways. The real question is what impact does it have on the brakcet? For the same braking force,(to the tire), it would be less. But the 12 inch setup is capable of more overall, so we are increasing the forces involved. To what extent? That is beyond our simple math and analysis, hence my comment that to compare a 9 inch stock setup to a 12x1.25 inch setup is not a good comparsion. -Bob

Thanks James. You helped me with an idea I was working through. BTW, I think that was the drag car that used the HKS manual clutch adjuster,(for the front to rear distribution). Remember that when I show the final of my project.... -Bob

Another option is a larger diameter clutch master cylinder....Don't know what models have a larger diameter though. You might consider posting your entire setup on skylinesdownunder and seeing if anyone else is running an OS twin plate on their RB25. -Bob

Brad, Go on over to skylinesdownunder.com and post a question asking what size clutch master cylinder a 95 RB25 has? (or whatever year your motor or tranny was - 98?). I'll need to know as well. -Bob

Thure, there are two ways he can approach making a thicker bracket. One would be what you mentioned,(which involves two changes - one to the bracket and one to the hub adapter, but makes a simpler bracket). The other is to mill an offset bracket. For that solution, the bracket would be thicker overall, but would keep the caliper relation to the rotor the same. The resistance to bending and twisting would increase even though there would be areas only .25 inch thick. It would also mean a more complex part to machine. edit, I'm an internet retard. I missed Juan's post where it said he was going to change the thickness of the adapter. Oops. BTW Juan, do you have a different thickness adapter for the 240 style hub vs the 280 style hub? Or do you specify a certain year? I didn't see that on your website, and may have missed it. Arizona Z does specify a certain year as a reference. And just one note Thure, leaf springs are Spring steel, where the brackets will be mild steel. I don't know the difference in strenght, but I would gather spring steel is much stiffer as I know it is much harder to cut and drill. Juan, if you can provide a CAD type diagram of the part, or even just a drawing with the dimensions, I'll see what I can do to give you a design to consider for an offset bracket or possibly an analysis. Something else to consider in the next batch is where the holes are. You can position the caliper anywhere on the rotor,(within reason) That means you can move the caliper around to change the relationship between the holes to make a stronger bracket. Something to consider. We might be able to talk Dan into doing an analysis if I promise him another 10 hp from his current 255rwhp.... Actually, I know Dan is looking for an aftermarket brake setup... -Bob

Sentence was removed refering to you. At no time did I not applaud him for bringing this to market. At no time did I say he was stupid for taking a risk and bring this kit to market. Never. This is a discussion forum. As such, we all should entertain discussion. By its nature, not everyone will agree. Why does everyone automatically assume that means I don't support him or applaud him introducing more to the Z car community? I even said as much in more than one of my posts. Should we all then bow down to everyone who brings a Z product to market? In some respect, yes. Yes because they are taking a chance on an unknown marketplace and a financial gamble in that respect. Yes because it makes our cars better in the long run. Yes because it promotes options for all of us. You are included in this with your suspension offerings,(although not any longer with the sale to Ross). In other respects, no. No because sometimes there are better ways to make something. No because sometimes things are not well thought out and can be better. No because it keeps us honest and sometimes safe. Honestly, why does this need to become a me vs Juan or anyone else. This should be about the product and how we can help Juan make it better, if required.... I don't have the resources or time to engineer products for our Z, so I am thrilled that there are those out there that will. However, if I can help make their product a better one, why not? I'm sure it will work, even if it has deficiences,(if it even has any). However, if we can suggest or come to a better product/solution in the end which requires very little if any extra money from the developers, why not incorperate it? At no time have I said absolutely it is inadequate. What I have repeatedly said is I personally don't see that it is adequate. I was looking for some equations, CAD analysis, etc.. to show where I was wrong. All I recieved in response was "It will be fine" with nothing to support that statement. Thure did provide some math,(thank you for that) but he was assuming only tension, which unfortuantly is not accurate. I myself didn't know that as evidence by my second or third post. But how could we model it? That is anyones guess. I aplogize for the direct comments to Mike. -Bob

on second edit, realize all the you's are general in nature and are not refering to any one person in particular. I put a name if I am refering to a post in particular. Sorry, that is sometimes not clear.... (sentence removed because it was inapproprate) I invite all of you to go back and read this tread from the beginning and see just how "attacking" and "slamming" we are to Juan and the kit. It is healthy concern and was worded as such. First, I do not, and will not ever follow the "they do it, so it must be ok" philosophy. Drax240z put it well when he said many of these companies don't have an engineer to back up their designs. I may call Stoptech and pick their brain as they are one of the few companies I know that employs an engineer. And to claim that I do not appreciate Juan or anyone else in the Z car communitys efforts is a direct insult and not even close to the truth. If you read carefully that should be clear. Just because I or someone questions a design does not automatically mean we don't appreciate what they do or what if offers. However, to make an upgraded brake setup, which will clearly see more brake torque and force than the stock setup, and yet utilize a thinner peice of material than the stock mounting ears does not point to good logic, no matter who uses it. That is why I said 3/8 is really the min. thickness it should be. This setup will likely see nearly twice the force of the stock setup. The actual end design of the bracket will make a large difference in exactly how much it will deflect or if it will at all. This is a near and dear issue to my heart as I am very, very hard on brakes with my track time. As such, I tend to find the weak spots very quickly. And I don't want to find that weak spot going into turn 1 at VIR at nearly 150 mph. It is sad how everyone automatically assumes I or others are out to slam the Z car vendors, or show how poor their product is. Come on guys. Anyone consider for even just one moment that I want him to suceed more than any of you? Anyone consider that I might be trying to save someones beautiful car from hitting somthing when the brakes fail? To sit here and make blanket "It will be adequate" statements is just plain irresponsible esp. considering you have absolutely NO idea what the final design will be with respect to the location of the holes,(which has one of the larger impacts on if the bracket will bend or not). ALL you know is the thickness of the material. I don't think he even said what type of steel he was using,(again, that makes a difference). And there is no such animal as Grade A steel. You ever notice that most of the aftermarket brake kits that do utilize the 1/4 inch steel all have the holes in line with the stock holes, so as to minimize any extra forces introduced into the bracket? Juan's initial prototype clearly did not follow that trend. And Arizona Z cars brackets are Aluminum to the best of my knowledge and may not be a direct or good comparison. And let me address a few other points. We cannont say the bracket he is designing will be stronger than the mounting ears on the caliper unless we know the specification of the caliper material and the type of steel he is using. Again, I feel it is irresponsible for us, any of us, to say it is ok or not w/o actual figures to back it up. That is why I have asked this as a question all along. Yet many of you come to the defense of the product saying it is ok and it will do fine without many of the critical dimensions and locations that will clearly impact the overall performance of this bracket. What type of steel, where are the holes, where are they in relation to the stock mounting points, etc... All that has been provided is it will be 1/4 inch steel CNC or Laser cut. Thats it. And since it wasn't clear in my first post where I quoted Jack from Maximum motorsports here is the link to that thread: http://www.corner-carvers.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=10621 You will notice I provided the approx. weight of the car, approx. tire size and what I felt was the important info. I did not take his quote out of context, but Mike you may have misunderstood my take on the weight issue. Jack knew I was talking about a mid 2000 lb car. And not may 240Z's are at 2400 with a driver in it. Mine was 2300 with no gas and no driver. With me and a full tank of gas, mine was closer to 2500. There are not many 2400 lb Z's with a driver onboard. I would say most 70-78z's sit about 2500-2900 with a driver and gas. Nor are there many 3500 lb mustangs with no driver on board. Yes, the Mustangs are about 3000-3500 loaded for the applications he was testing Vs. about 2500-3000 for the Z's. He merely showed that as a comparison and a reference. Everyone, please look at the global view here. I very much want Juan to succeed in his venture. If I had known Mikes,(Gibson, fonebooth) brackets were that thin, I would have brought forth the same questions. And I for one really don't like the Outlaw calipers as many of them only have bolts going from one side to the other to provide the rigidity in the caliper. That is why I have stayed away from Mike's brakes. I have explored just about every aftermarket brake option for our Z's and am very worried about the design. If I can find the weakness in the BMW M Coupes brakes, I'm sure I will find the weakness in any aftermarket Z setup unfortunately. If I can avoid that, I will. These are very real concerns, and I can't for the life of me understand why some of you insist the product is ok w/o more knowlege and insist we are attacking Juan's intent and goal. Read three times, then respond. I am guilty of this at times as well. As such I tend to re-read a lot more than before to better understand what someone is asking. -Bob

Damon, Two things. Where are you located, and how much do you have budgeted for the motor,(and the total swap)? I know someone who can get you a RB25 and may have some in stock. I would expect him to be on the slightly higher side of prices, but he only stocks low mileage complete motors and trannys. Both Brad and I got our RB26's from him. -Bob Edit, I see you are in Missouri,(I assume I have Mo correct?). The guy I am refering to is in Nevada and teaches in Japan.

Not to pick on you in particular, but I take strong offense to that general statement when it is applied to brakes that are sold to the public. You are not trying to increase the horsepower of your engine, or put a better seat in your car. You are changing the one thing that has the largest impact on your safety in the car. Therefore anyone designing a brake kit should be held to a higher standard than a backyard engineering degree or second hand information. Not only that but Juan will be legally liable for his work. Juan, you are taking this the wrong way and this is taking a bad turn. It is not about you or what you have sold in the past. It is all about the sound engineering of this brake kit you have chosen to sell. I think it should be clear I am not basing my opinions on the design of the prototype bracket but on your final thickness. Here is a response from Jack Hidley of Maximum Motorsports. Maximum Motorsport is a aftermarket Mustang company,(among other things), who primarily deals in upgraded suspension for the Mustangs, esp. heavy duty ones for racing. Are you seeing what he is saying? He is saying make a thicker bracket, say .5 inch, and mill the mounting areas down to fit the thickness you are limited to with the spacer. This gives the bracket more resistance to twisting moments and makes it stronger. It will make the part more expensive to make... Please don't think this is an issue of it being fine if I like it or not. It is all about safety. I am not putting you down, so please don't take it that way. I am trying to point out the deficiences in your design and avoid future problems so you are still around as a Z car aftermarket company. That is in everyones interest. Whether you chose to believe it or not, your responses to me affect those who are looking to buy your product. Again, it is not my goal to smear your reputation or show that your company is junk, but to ensure the kit you offer is safe to a higher standard than other aftermarket items such as intakes/hoods/etc.. You should also be concerned about the flex Jack Hidley mentioned because this is a high performance brake system that you are offering as a good track alternative. With the flex Jack mentioned,(which he has measured), you are reducing the performance of your kit. Not something you want. And let me bring up one important point in this discussion that I forgot until now,(those engineering classes are coming back). The bracket will never be in pure tension. Because the caliper is offset from the bracket, it will always, again always, be creating a moment about the two bolts that attaches it to the spindle. It is a force,(the braking), at a distance,(the center of the rotor to the center of the bracket, say 1.5 inches). Therefore this bracket will see not only tension, but bending and twisting. As such, it will deform the contact the caliper makes with the rotor. Now repeat that many, many times over, and the calculations are not so simple anymore. Thure, not to take away from your calculations, but they are just too simple for the complex brake system. Again, you are assuming only tension, which if it were true, and your figures were correct, might be a good assumption. However, there is bending, twisting, and tension,(as well as some areas of compression). It is not a simple math excercise, but a involved CAD analysis. Accurately modeling the forces involved is what makes this so hard. Therefore, the minimum thickness I would personally accept is the thickness of the stock spindle brake mounting point, which for our cars is 3/8 of an inch or thereabouts. Again, this is not a personal attack on you Juan, or an attack on the integrity of your company. You have just stepped up to the plate to offer an aftermarket brake kit, and I, as well as others, feel you should be held to the higher standard since it is the brakes, not a bling bling carbon fiber hood. -Bob

Alright, no more nice guy here. stop making absolute statements w/o math or engineering to back it up. A general statement such as: First, what weight was used. A 240z with no driver can be 2200 lbs. A 280z with two passengers and a v8 can be over 3000 lbs. So what did you use for your calculations or comparisions? And to say another kit uses aluminum and since this one is using steel that it is "ok" is a farce at best. What thickness aluminum vs the .25 inch steel? Do you have the relative strenghts of the two materials? And there is a difference in types of aluminum, so which type did they use? I may be coming down hard on you and Juan, but you are taking peoples lives in your hands when you sell them a brake kit and I believe you should be held to a higher standard than, "this high performance shop said it was ok" and "it is perfectly adequate for this size of car and weight". Those are very general arguments that hold zero water when the foot hits the pedal,(pun intended). The more I hear Juan and you responsd with the why and how of the kit, the more scared I am for those purchasing it. You are liable if one of the "kits" fails due to poor engineering so you should be even more worried about it than me. It is better to be way overengineered than under engineered. I will continue to push this till satisfactory answers are put out, by you or someone else. I would rather be considered the ass and save someones butt than be polite and have someones brakes fail someday. -Bob

You know, looking at your stock mock-up with the prototype bracket, I couldn't help but notice that with the thin bracket, the caliper is centered on the rotor. Now, when you up that bracket thickness to the .25 inch, the caliper will move.......but unfortunatly you have already made the spacers for the rotor... I'm not liking what I'm seeing. Let me know what I am missing. Your initial cc.com response is not good btw. -Bob

I think a Honda anything is a very poor comparison to a 12x1.25 inch rotor. The difference in brake torque created by a 12 inch rotor vs a 9 inch or 10 inch rotor on a honda is significant. And to assume shear only assumes the caliper is exactly centered over the rotor. if it is the least bit off center, you are can create a bending moment in the bracket. Remember, it is a bad idea to use stock OEM smaller brakes as a comparison. You need to be looking at other aftermarket 12 inch rotor setups for a good idea of what is required. I'll tell you what, I'll post over on corner-carvers.com to see what some of the engineers there say. Big thing to consider, whatever thickness you choose, ensure there is no sharp curves or corners. -Bob edit speeling...

I just don't agree. What you have told us is that by second hand info and an application that doesn't have to repeatedly and abusively use its brakes brought you to .25 inch thickness for the brackets. I feel very, very strongly about brakes and how anyone who designs a kit for public consumption should have the proper engineering behind it. A "he said and they used it" just doesn't cut it for me and makes me very nervous. Let me expand. A mudbogger is used for short sprints of a few seconds. It is not critical that it stop every min. for an hours on end, or even the 30-40 some odd times you hit the brakes in a normal trip to the store. Think about just what a Mud bogger is used for and how often it acutally stops.... Now put those brakes on a car used at track events. Now the stress goes up significantly. I think your idea is great, but the excecution leaves me very nervous. I suggest you look into what AP, Brembo, Baer and other big name brake companies are using for their adapter thickness. I'd be willing to bet you will see it closer to .5 inch or larger... I'll get Dan to weigh in on this as he is an engineer who does stress analysis for a living. -Bob

Ok, I might be missing something really big, but when I looked at your site I got really scared with this: .25 inch thick steel to hold the caliper?!?! Front brakes mounts see a lot of stress, and I for one am very concerned with a 1/4 inch thick caliper adapter. Someone like Dan can chime in with some stress analysis, but I'd bet good money 1/4 inch steel is very inadequate for the forces it will see. Am I missing something? -Bob