Obviously as opposed to the conventional position.

Ive seen this a few times, particularly on saphs, whats the benefit of doing this? Just out of interest.

 

im guessing you reduce the risk of the breaklines fouling the wheel or disk... plus you wouldnt get a build up of mud and dirt from dirty water dropping onto the calliper from the disk during rain...

 

because the mounting holes are there.

 

no such thing as a 'convential position'

they can be wherever you want, but obviously access for the fluid pipe and handbrake cable is important, and the bleed nipple location

 

correct

 

 

was just thinking that too

 

 

I think his conventional was referring to most cars, where caliper is at the back and upright

I've noticed the fronts on normal cars are at front, performance cars at rear.
Always wondered if there was a reason for it.

 

Moments

 

it's the ease of routing the handbrake cable as well

 

under the axel would be best....

 

under the Axel F?

 

 

it makes a big differance were its mounted ,stops the car liftin or divin when brakin dependin on were it is carnt remember which way round it is tho

 

lower C of G

think f40...

 

graham c explain how that works please

 

Their is only reason for optimising brake caliper position and thats weight distribution and centre of gravity, and as Alex says if you think ultimate position its either centre opposing (fronts mounted at the back of the disc, rears mounted at the front of the disc) or a lower position...the position has nothing whatsoever to do with suspension characteristics....

 

If that were true, wouldn't pushbikes have the front brakes at the back of the wheel, to stop people going over the handlebars?

 

why does the position of the caliper matter in relation to the stopping power?

i can understand the unsprung wieght arguement because putting it in a different place can move the c of g etc but if that was the case why don't every manufacturer put their calipers at the top/bottom?

 

i've just had another thought, was don't they put the disc into the rim of the wheel and mount the caliper there, better stopping with a bigger disc and the brakes are acting on the wheel that needs to be stopped rather than on the hub and waiting for the hub to take all the streesses and strains

 

its down 2 unspung weigth i think heigh performanc cars are all way mounted in a differant place than a normal car you dont wont the front of you car liftin when brackin hard 4 a corner do you

 

Are you on something pal? lol

 

Non performance cars pitch/dive like fuckers under heavy braking though, don't lift

 

why would the front of the car lift under braking?
all the weight gets transfered to the front so the front makes like a nacho and dips
the more it dips the more grip you have at the forn, the bigger th ebrakes the more you can brake

if anything, the bigger th ebrake son the rear would make oyu lose contorl of the car when braking hard as it makes the rears unpredicatable

 

Indeed, know all about that.
Driven lorries with fucked load sensors, so when empty any rain or mud, and rears lock as soon as you touch the brakes, and just drags the arse along

Bit mind boggling parts of this thread

 

The position of the Front Caliper is very heavily influenced by the position of the steering arm on the hub assembly / Knuckle, (they both can't occupy the same space), which determins where the rack is, which is influenced by the orientation of the engine.

For example, Transverse engine = steering rack rear of the front axle line (it can't go forward, the sump / gearbox is in the way, therefore steering arm on the hub is rear of the axle line, caliper usually has to be forward.

Inline engine = Rack usually forward of the axle line, gearbox in the way to the rear this time, steering arm forward of axle line, caliper to the rear.

Try converting a car from front wheel drive, transverse engine, to rear wheel drive inline engine and it becomes glaringly obvious..

.