Do drilled rotors measurably improve braking?

Downeaster

Everything in XS
Top Contributor
Messages
3,007
Reaction score
18,809
Points
513
Location
Downeast Maine
I posted about my little stupid attack on another board and immediately got inundated with comments about how drilled rotors do NOTHING to improve braking, increase pad wear and lead to cracked rotors.

I know it looks really cool, and that alone is probably worth the effort but I wondered if anybody has done a 5-twins type investigation into whether or not there is any quantifiable improvement in braking.
 
I think the idea on drilled brake rotors is to lower weight and speed up cooling time (And looks cool)... which seems to be better than stock and perhaps there's a small improvement on stopping if the pads don't get as hot...but I'm guessing pretty negligible.

I think the size of the MC and SS brake lines have more of an impact on stopping improvement. But I'd still drill them out...or rather, get the XS performance rotor (from Mikes) and really save on weight (Looks better too).
 
I drilled my rotors, to see if there was improvement in braking to be found. Honestly I could not feel any improvement. Maybe there was some, but so small as I could not detect it. More pad wear...................no I don't see that.

I used cross drilled rotors on a previous car that I had, and I also could not see any improvement.

I think many of these "improvement" are things carried over from real world racing . If you're racing at Daytona Speedway or LeMans in France, then every tiny improvement can make the difference to winning or losing. The clever marketing guys see an opportunity to make money, as witness the fact that every novice that buys an XS650, immediately throws out the airbox and puts pod filters on.

IMHO, cross drilled rotors, straight pipes, pod filters, etc, while they probably make a difference in racing applications, really offer no benefit for street use, but they sure do boost the profit margin of aftermarket sellers.

Most guys just want that "racing" look, even if its not reality.
 
RG, I suspect you've pretty well nailed it.

I don't believe I'll bother drilling the rear, but I must say the front LOOKS pretty cool! :bike:
 
XS1100 special. and xj1100 rotors are; slotted, thinner, bolt on and can be picked up for a song if you are patient. I will use the rotor from either side...
 
wet braking is where they usually become much better. my old GL1000 has decent brakes stock, but in solid form, they are downright frightening when wet. Throw some holes in there, and most of the braking is restored. weight savings are negligible. looks are certainly there. if you're scared of cracks in the rotor of decreased pad life, then chamfer both sides of the holes...

brakes won't be noticeably better until you start changing friction material.
 
wet braking is where they usually become much better. my old GL1000 has decent brakes stock, but in solid form, they are downright frightening when wet. Throw some holes in there, and most of the braking is restored. weight savings are negligible. looks are certainly there. if you're scared of cracks in the rotor of decreased pad life, then chamfer both sides of the holes...

brakes won't be noticeably better until you start changing friction material.

That GL1000 must have had a design problem or the pads were bad. I've driven bikes with solid discs and cars/trucks with solid discs through hours in rain storms, and have not detected any large loss of braking.

The holes are not to be chamfered, as its the sharp edges that help to clean the surface of the pads. Again this is mostly a racing thing, and likely undetectable with street use.
 
That GL1000 must have had a design problem or the pads were bad. I've driven bikes with solid discs and cars/trucks with solid discs through hours in rain storms, and have not detected any large loss of braking.

The holes are not to be chamfered, as its the sharp edges that help to clean the surface of the pads. Again this is mostly a racing thing, and likely undetectable with street use.

I agree, friction material is more important. Racing use is different and a different discussion. On the road as a pleasure or commuter, no functional difference, but drilled do looks better. This is automotive but it is still solid vs x-drilled and equally valid in terms of performance.

http://automotivethinker.com/brakes-2/rotors-blank-vs-cross-drilled-vs-slotted-and-warping/
 
RG, I suspect you've pretty well nailed it.

I don't believe I'll bother drilling the rear, but I must say the front LOOKS pretty cool! :bike:

Yes indeed, its all about LOOKS isn't it! I enjoy looking at my front and rear discs, with all the holes, as it just screams out racing...............racing..............racing! I know the holes don't make me stop any better. They may help clean the pads, but is the difference detectable..................I just don't know.

Its the same reason many of the bike manufacturers put dual discs on the front of crotch rockets. Those light weight bikes would stop extremely well with just one disc (with 4 piston caliper), but adding that extra disc says that the rider is riding a serious "racing" bike. The manufacturer can up the price, so its easy profit.
 
I agree, friction material is more important. Racing use is different and a different discussion. On the road as a pleasure or commuter, no functional difference, but drilled do looks better. This is automotive but it is still solid vs x-drilled and equally valid in terms of performance.

http://automotivethinker.com/brakes-2/rotors-blank-vs-cross-drilled-vs-slotted-and-warping/

That's a good article for sure! Like the article says, when someone pays big bucks for a Ferrari or Posche or Corvette, they want to see those rotors full of holes. You would never be able to convince the owner of the "performance" car, that they would have better braking if the disc was solid. Its good marketing by the manufacturer, and they love to make money.

Friction material can make a big difference, but the type of pads must be paired with the correct material in the disc. Aggressive pads such as semi-metallic give great braking, but will cause a lot of wear on discs that are not hard enough.
 
Yup did a one item at a time front brake upgrade on the 79 restomod. The first thing that made a difference was the vesrah pads that 650 central sells, (not just any old Vesrah pad)
Then a 10mm MC and a teflon brake line.
 
if you're scared of cracks in the rotor of decreased pad life, then chamfer both sides of the holes...

brakes won't be noticeably better until you start changing friction material.

Agreed, I think its mainly for racing where every oz. makes a difference, but as for messing with your pads, wanna said it best.
 
well retired gentlemen does have a point about sharper holes aiding in keeping the pads clean. even if you don't chamfer them, a quick hit with the deburr tool is beneficial.
 
wet braking is where they usually become much better.
I'll agree with this. But I won't say the Harley vs the XS or the BMW vs the XS.
Two XS's both with stock m/c's one drilled rotor the other solid.
The solid has a momentary mush/squish/sponginess till the water is displaced.
I've never attempted to measure the the time or distance. The drilled rotor doesn't have this feeling.

The above link mentions this (first bullet under food for thought) and I will disagree with the author that it is so insignificant. It could be that second or that 5 feet that saves you from hitting that deer/car or child that has run into the road.

Of course most folks wouldn't let their kids float leaves, sticks, or other improvised boats in rain water runoff.
Let alone inflate a tube for them to float the deeper parts. Much to dangerous. . . .
to let imaginations run free.

This discussion of drilled vs non-drilled could become a "which oil is best" fiasco.
I'll cast my vote for "ride it the way you like it".

Downeaster I doubt it will ever become an issue for you but I have an extra rotor if you want to go back to solid. Even swap.
 
Benefits and drawbacks of drilled/slotted rotors, from the perspective of an automotive professional; I'm a professor of Automotive Technology at a junior college, a former Ford Service Training Instructor and field service rep, a former Ford Senior Master Technician, have some engineering background, and all around tinkerer of things that go.

Here's what I know to be accurate about drilled/slotted rotors; the depression features in the friction surface serve to increase effective surface area, which directly correlates into the components ability to surrender heat to the surrounding air. Under normal braking, this effect is negligible, as the mass of the rotor is capable of absorbing the heat from friction at a rate greater than the heat is generated. Under severe/extended braking, the rotor's mass will reach maximum heat saturation more quickly than it can be surrendered. By drilling/slotting the rotor, the surface area exposed to ambient air is increased, which promotes energy release from the rotor to the air. While drilling/slotting does somewhat reduce the mass, and therefore reduces the heat saturation point, if the holes/slots are correctly sized and spaced, the increase in heat transfer to ambient air is much greater than the loss of mass.

In severe braking applications, holes/slots will permit rapid venting of gasses generated by the friction material. These gasses are proven to build pressure between the friction material and surface, and push-back the friction material, reducing friction and degrading brake feel (spongy pedal/lever) during the outgas event. Holes/slots give the gasses an escape route, and help the friction material stay in contact with the surface.

In wet situations, solid rotors can maintain a thin film of water on the surface, reducing initial brake friction. A few hundred milliseconds after application, that film will be removed, but this a noticeable delay to most. Drilled/slotted rotors significantly reduce the effect of water on the surface during initial application.

Holes drilled completely thru the friction surface can promote cracking of the rotor IF it is heavily heat cycled. Most street driven vehicles will not see this type of heat loading. Dimpling or slotting removes the cracking failure, but does not add as much surface area, so the rate of heat transfer is reduced.

Drilling/slotting also contributes to some brake noise, primarily a "wire brush" type sound, that some find objectionable.

The benefits and drawbacks, as stated, are accurate to the best of my knowledge. The real discussion is as to whether or not the individual rider wants/needs the benefits, and are they willing to live with the drawbacks. Most of use don't really NEED drilled rotors, but they sure look cool! :)
 
I love these threads where folks that have tried many different ideas come together to tell what they've tried, what worked best for them, what they like and what they might do differently next time, etc. Good brakes are so critical to safe operation that it seems like the wealth of info on this site could be brought together in a "brake guide", sort of like the carb guide. Just from my recollection of what I've read on this site about brakes over the last several years, it seems like general agreement on at least a rough order of "must do's" would be possible - for instance, clean m/c's and calipers, quality pads, good lines, proper bleeding, well-matched m/c and caliper bore diameters, with appropriate "how to's", pic's, parts sources - then add info/examples of popular upgrades such as non-stock m/c's, calipers, rotors. Just a thought - :bike:
 
Anybody whos ridden a heavy ass bike like a 900/1000 kawasaki hard will tell you the second rotor makes a hell of a differance in stopping power,not to mention it also helps hold the front end down if youre heavy on the throttle coming off of a light.:laugh:
drilling the rotors on a dual disc bike can make a hell of a differance weight wise depending on how its done,dual disc rotors can also be thinner than singles to reduce weight.
I prefer the smaller 1/8" holes myself over the 1/4"-3/8" cheese grater holes that do nothing but tear up bads and reduce surface area of rotors for pads to grab.
An other thing that people seem to forger is that the brakes will only work as good as the tires touching the road,If the tires lock up and skid all the brakes in the world are of little use.:wink2:
Another thing Ive considered trying over the years on a kaw anyway is to use the smaller diameter dual kz650 rotors on a kz900/1000 front wheel since they use the same hub.
It would give you more surface area over a single larger 900/1000 rotor plus it would benefit from the 2 calipers still,but I dont think 2 drilled 650 rotors would weigh more than a single 900/1000 undrilled rotor.
It would just be a matter of using the right caliper brackets,or just use the complete 650 front end since theyre the same diameter legs,just 1/2" shorter upper tubes.
 
Last edited:
48a27863d10b72683899fb3643274e0e.jpg


A friend drilled this one for me. I can't imagine how long it took him to do it but I hope he was on the clock at work at the time. I really can't tell the difference other than its pretty and adds detail to my bike
 
Back
Top