Mythbusters test!!!

[bluemax1]

While watching Mythbusters today, I had an epiphany! Since there still seem to be questions/controversy over whether crossdrilled rotors provide any performance benefit at all, why not write in to Mythbusters and see if they'll test it on an episode and have them lay it to rest?

http://community.discovery.com/eve/f...m/f/9551919888

Since the Mythbusters program tends to decide what Myths to bust on-air based on either what interests them or what shows/generates a lot of interest from viewers, if you guys are interested in seeing this on Mythbusters, sign up for that forum and post in that thread I've begun. If there's a whole lot of interest from a bunch of people, we could see this settled on Mythbusters and maybe, just maybe, if it actually airs on a program like Mythbusters, we'll settle once and for all the whining about, "But Porsches/Ferraris/Whatever have them so they must be good".


Here's the thread you should post in if you'ld like to see Mythbusters testing it:

http://community.discovery.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/9551919888/m/1531915539

Or hey, maybe they'll prove ME wrong in what I've been stating all this time.

Here's a thread on BITOG where the topic was raised yet again:
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=1023543&fpart=1

For more informed reading, here's an older more detailed post of mine about crossdrilled rotors on another forum:
http://www.3si.org/forum/showpost.php?p=4055127&postcount=38


Max

 

[Auto-Union]

I don't think it'll fly.

 

[Shannow]

I'm sure Adam could design a rig testing whether the DO fly to bust some UFO myth

 

[Kestas]

If they can't fire a gun at it or blow it up, I don't think they'll test it.

 

[Curious Kid]

yeah, I though the test for the myth of a neglected water heater rocketing through the roof of a house which I saw last evening was neat. A 30 and 55 gallon heater launching over 250ft...a boom, steam trial and all.

Will never know unless one tries.

 

[Jethro]

Originally Posted By: Kestas
If they can't fire a gun at it or blow it up, I don't think they'll test it.


Yeah, they'll just let those other nerds on the show deal with it while they try to drown themselves or blow their faces off.

 

[bluemax1]

Consider that they conducted a test to see if a pickup gets better gas mileage with tailgate up, tailgate down, bed covered, tailgate removed or mesh tailgate.

How large of a percentage of total vehicles on the road do pickups consist of? AFAIK, there are aftermarket crossdrilled options for just about every vehicle that has disc brakes.


Max

 

[Master ACiD]

but most people don't have cross drilled rotors, and most people could care less.

ask a typical driver if they even know what cross drilled rotors ar,e they probably have no idea.

 

[Quattro Pete]

My guess is that they won't risk running a segment like this as they'd make a lot of enemies among companies manufacturing cross-drilled rotors, some of them very well-known such as Brembo.

If you notice the tests they carried out in the past, they rarely deal with matter that would cause a well-known company to suffer revenue loss.

I would love to see such test though. Perosnally, I think cross-drilled rotors are for looks only. I think companies should manufacture solid rotors that have a bunch of black dots painted on. This way they keep the mass needed for proper heat exchange, but from a few feet away, look like they're drilled. Just kidding...

 

[televascular]

Solid rotors, generally speaking, will perform better than drilled rotors. There's a reason why F1, WRC, and LeMans vehicles use solid rotors.

The supposed science of drilled rotors is that it "vents" the brake pads and increases surface area for heat transfer. The truth is, it is the mass of the metal than absorbs heat and transfers it to the air. Drilled rotors have less mass than equivalent solid rotors, so you can see how the physics work out.

 

[mechtech2]

Mythbusters can go either way with truth.
A classic example was their running or walking in the rain.
Which one gets you wetter in the same distance?
They found RUNNING! That makes no sense, and they and the experts admitted this.

 

[Vilan]

Sure it makes sense. The faster you go, the more water you run into since you travel through a larger area per unit time. See how much water hits your windshield when you're at a red light and then compare to full cruising speed. If it's still hard to tell, consider how much water you would hit if you were travelling at light speed. A lot more than if you weren't moving.

As to rotors, that reminds me of when I brought my Metro in for a brake job and they asked if I wanted regular or cross-drilled.

First thought: "Do they think I'm autocrossing in a Metro? Or some kind of Metro ricer?"

Second thought: "Somebody actually *makes* cross-drilled rotors for Metros?"

After a moment of being unsure what the funnier comment to make would be, he said "Actually, you probably can just stick with regular rotors." I agreed.

 

[benjamming]

The test was more if walking from say your office to your car (a fixed distance) caused you to get wetter than running.

Anyway, I do think that it would be a good idea for Mythbusters. It may be too technically involved and the audience would glaze over. Solve this by also testing a car after the pads are completely gone along with almost the entire rotors to see how the car would crash, etc.

 

[Vilan]

Ah OK. That one I'm not sure about. Does seem like running should be better.

Shows what I know.

 

[Kestas]

The way I solve problems like running in the rain and getting wet is to look at this problem "in absurdium". Take two extreme cases... running infinitely fast to your car, or taking an hour to get to your car. When running infinitely fast, you get wet only from the rain in the volume of air that you run through. When going slow, you get wet from that same rain plus additional rain that falls on top of you. Mythbusters were all wet on that one.

 

[bluemax1]

OT, but IIRC, they redid the running/walking in the rain experiment and in the 2nd go-around, they concluded that running was better.

I actually bought an SAE paper on the crossdrilled topic (interesting info although the testing could have been a little better), I just thought it would be an interesting one to see on Mythbusters.

Whoever mentioned potential loss of revenue for companies involved might possibly have a point I guess. It's not as if the companies involved are small ones selling an intake vortex generator to increase fuel mileage.


Max

 

[XS650]

Kestas, nice job of cutting through the [censored].