i think that all rotors have stamped on them a minimum thickness. i believe that is the point at which that rotor can no longer be cut. however, isn't there a measurement at which a rotor is unsafe? i thought that was called the discard thickness but it seems some people use it as the cut number. so do rotors have a number at which that can no longer be safely used in a vehicle?
rotors : min thickness vs discard thickness
- Thread starter mikeinaustin
- Start date
- Status
I think minimum thickness is just that. If its under minimum thickness, discard.
Last edited:
Once the rotor is machined to the minimum thickness it is no longer useable once it begins to act up again (pulsating, pitting, etc).
That's not the best sentence in the world but you get the point.
That's not the best sentence in the world but you get the point.
Last edited:
Throt, you are implying that if a rotor is under the min. thickness that as long as it doesn't 'act up', it is still safe to drive. but it seems to me that there has to be a value at which it could fail (because of heat, etc) and must be replaced. That value should be a known thing. right?
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: mikeinaustin
Throt, you are implying that if a rotor is under the min. thickness that as long as it doesn't 'act up', it is still safe to drive. but it seems to me that there has to be a value at which it could fail (because of heat, etc) and must be replaced. That value should be a known thing. right?
Yes, I assume there is a specific value for the failure point. However, the distance between "Minimum Thickness" and "Failure Point" is far beyond the useful life of the rotor.
Throt, you are implying that if a rotor is under the min. thickness that as long as it doesn't 'act up', it is still safe to drive. but it seems to me that there has to be a value at which it could fail (because of heat, etc) and must be replaced. That value should be a known thing. right?
Yes, I assume there is a specific value for the failure point. However, the distance between "Minimum Thickness" and "Failure Point" is far beyond the useful life of the rotor.
and that is my point, it seems to me that this failure point number must be published somewhere. i thought it was called the discard value, but am not sure anymore.
i raise this issue because my bmw dealer is refusing to replace my rotors even though they are below the min. number stamped on the rotor. they acknowledge this and also acknowledge that i am still under their maint. contract. however, they claim that bmw will not replace rotors, even those below the stamped value, as long as the pads are above their minimum value. in other words, to get rotors replaced by bmw, both the pads and the rotors must be below their min. value.
Originally Posted By: mikeinaustin
and that is my point, it seems to me that this failure point number must be published somewhere. i thought it was called the discard value, but am not sure anymore.
Minimum and discard are one in same(well discard is .001" less in thickness than minimum)... As far as failure point depending on load, towing, etc it could vary on same vehicle... Mostly it's a safe point the rotor can still dissipate heat, and not a strength issue...
and that is my point, it seems to me that this failure point number must be published somewhere. i thought it was called the discard value, but am not sure anymore.
Minimum and discard are one in same(well discard is .001" less in thickness than minimum)... As far as failure point depending on load, towing, etc it could vary on same vehicle... Mostly it's a safe point the rotor can still dissipate heat, and not a strength issue...
Originally Posted By: mikeinaustin
i raise this issue because my bmw dealer is refusing to replace my rotors even though they are below the min. number stamped on the rotor. they acknowledge this and also acknowledge that i am still under their maint. contract. however, they claim that bmw will not replace rotors, even those below the stamped value, as long as the pads are above their minimum value. in other words, to get rotors replaced by bmw, both the pads and the rotors must be below their min. value.
If you pay for it then they will replace it when it's near(but above) minimum thickness, but BMW pays for it so BMW will try not to.
i raise this issue because my bmw dealer is refusing to replace my rotors even though they are below the min. number stamped on the rotor. they acknowledge this and also acknowledge that i am still under their maint. contract. however, they claim that bmw will not replace rotors, even those below the stamped value, as long as the pads are above their minimum value. in other words, to get rotors replaced by bmw, both the pads and the rotors must be below their min. value.
If you pay for it then they will replace it when it's near(but above) minimum thickness, but BMW pays for it so BMW will try not to.
Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR
If you pay for it then they will replace it when it's near(but above) minimum thickness, but BMW pays for it so BMW will try not to.
A lot of things are like that with slime bag dealers. But its criminal not to take care of a safety issue like this.
If you pay for it then they will replace it when it's near(but above) minimum thickness, but BMW pays for it so BMW will try not to.
A lot of things are like that with slime bag dealers. But its criminal not to take care of a safety issue like this.
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2010
- Messages
- 9,807
The OEM rotors on my FX4 cannot "legally" be turned according to two local Ford dealers as they are not made with any extra material to allow for turning. I am on my second set and am about to install a third, but they will not be OEMs.
Their refusing to pay in hopes you will pick up the tab.
If there are under a maintenance contract and don't do it then they are taking on liability if you get into an accident and you could sue them. Might make them aware of this liability.
If there are under a maintenance contract and don't do it then they are taking on liability if you get into an accident and you could sue them. Might make them aware of this liability.
I'm shocked and surprised that the makers of the "Ultimate Driving Machine" would be so heartless. After all, they ARE a charity, right? BTW what's this doing in an oil forum?
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: 2010_FX4
The OEM rotors on my FX4 cannot "legally" be turned according to two local Ford dealers as they are not made with any extra material to allow for turning. I am on my second set and am about to install a third, but they will not be OEMs.
Well your situation further raises the question of when rotors are inherently unsafe due to thickness. If your rotors are basically already at the min.new, then how far below before they will fail safety inspection and/or become unsafe for use? I have heard that it is 0.8 below stamped #.
The OEM rotors on my FX4 cannot "legally" be turned according to two local Ford dealers as they are not made with any extra material to allow for turning. I am on my second set and am about to install a third, but they will not be OEMs.
Well your situation further raises the question of when rotors are inherently unsafe due to thickness. If your rotors are basically already at the min.new, then how far below before they will fail safety inspection and/or become unsafe for use? I have heard that it is 0.8 below stamped #.
Originally Posted By: HerrStig
I'm shocked and surprised that the makers of the "Ultimate Driving Machine" would be so heartless. After all, they ARE a charity, right? BTW what's this doing in an oil forum?
Maybe he was using 5W-20 instead of specked 0W-40??
No doubt would cause additional wear...
I'm shocked and surprised that the makers of the "Ultimate Driving Machine" would be so heartless. After all, they ARE a charity, right? BTW what's this doing in an oil forum?
Maybe he was using 5W-20 instead of specked 0W-40??
No doubt would cause additional wear...
Originally Posted By: TFB1
Originally Posted By: HerrStig
I'm shocked and surprised that the makers of the "Ultimate Driving Machine" would be so heartless. After all, they ARE a charity, right? BTW what's this doing in an oil forum?
Maybe he was using 5W-20 instead of specked 0W-40??
No doubt would cause additional wear...
I knew a guy who oiled the brakes on the car his ex got in the divorce. As Paul Simon said "there were some hard feelings there".
Originally Posted By: HerrStig
I'm shocked and surprised that the makers of the "Ultimate Driving Machine" would be so heartless. After all, they ARE a charity, right? BTW what's this doing in an oil forum?
Maybe he was using 5W-20 instead of specked 0W-40??
No doubt would cause additional wear...
I knew a guy who oiled the brakes on the car his ex got in the divorce. As Paul Simon said "there were some hard feelings there".
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: spk2000
Their refusing to pay in hopes you will pick up the tab.
If there are under a maintenance contract and don't do it then they are taking on liability if you get into an accident and you could sue them. Might make them aware of this liability.
Exactly, I would ask them to put into writing that they are not going to a replace a safety related components that are worn beyond specifications under their maintenance plan.
Their refusing to pay in hopes you will pick up the tab.
If there are under a maintenance contract and don't do it then they are taking on liability if you get into an accident and you could sue them. Might make them aware of this liability.
Exactly, I would ask them to put into writing that they are not going to a replace a safety related components that are worn beyond specifications under their maintenance plan.
Originally Posted By: javacontour
Originally Posted By: spk2000
Their refusing to pay in hopes you will pick up the tab.
If there are under a maintenance contract and don't do it then they are taking on liability if you get into an accident and you could sue them. Might make them aware of this liability.
Exactly, I would ask them to put into writing that they are not going to a replace a safety related components that are worn beyond specifications under their maintenance plan.
That, of course, means YOU acknowledge you are continuing to drive a car with unsafe brakes because of a "contract dispute". You can't have it both ways.
Originally Posted By: spk2000
Their refusing to pay in hopes you will pick up the tab.
If there are under a maintenance contract and don't do it then they are taking on liability if you get into an accident and you could sue them. Might make them aware of this liability.
Exactly, I would ask them to put into writing that they are not going to a replace a safety related components that are worn beyond specifications under their maintenance plan.
That, of course, means YOU acknowledge you are continuing to drive a car with unsafe brakes because of a "contract dispute". You can't have it both ways.
Originally Posted By: HerrStig
Originally Posted By: javacontour
Originally Posted By: spk2000
Their refusing to pay in hopes you will pick up the tab.
If there are under a maintenance contract and don't do it then they are taking on liability if you get into an accident and you could sue them. Might make them aware of this liability.
Exactly, I would ask them to put into writing that they are not going to a replace a safety related components that are worn beyond specifications under their maintenance plan.
That, of course, means YOU acknowledge you are continuing to drive a car with unsafe brakes because of a "contract dispute". You can't have it both ways.
You are not a very logical or critical thinker. The dealership are the experts on the car and they blessed it. If something happens they will be very sueable.
The users knowledge of the issue does not release the dealer from liability.
Originally Posted By: javacontour
Originally Posted By: spk2000
Their refusing to pay in hopes you will pick up the tab.
If there are under a maintenance contract and don't do it then they are taking on liability if you get into an accident and you could sue them. Might make them aware of this liability.
Exactly, I would ask them to put into writing that they are not going to a replace a safety related components that are worn beyond specifications under their maintenance plan.
That, of course, means YOU acknowledge you are continuing to drive a car with unsafe brakes because of a "contract dispute". You can't have it both ways.
You are not a very logical or critical thinker. The dealership are the experts on the car and they blessed it. If something happens they will be very sueable.
The users knowledge of the issue does not release the dealer from liability.
- Status
Similar threads
