Drilled/slotted rotors don't improve brake performance. At one time, when friction compounds did a lot of outgassing when they got hot, yeah, they were useful. With the compounds in use today, drilled/slotted rotors just give them more places to start forming cracks when they get hot.

Just upgrading to a higher quality pad will improve brake performance.

I am also not sure the one-ton wheel cylinder upgrade will really BE an upgrade, as you already have a 3/4 ton truck....... you should already have larger wheel cylinders. Something to investigate though.

The newer 3/4 tons have the dual piston calipers. (starting in 98???) That would indeed be an upgrade, though I think the rotors are the same size. (not completely sure on that.)

 

I haven't tried them out yet, but these high zoot brake pads are on my todo list. (Looks like Circle Track Supply is having X-Cart problems at the moment. Imagine that. X-Cart sucks but not in a good way. Maybe by the time you get to it the link will be working again.) The same site has rear shoes made of the same stuff. When the rotors I've got get tired I'm going to upgrade to the SSBC slotted widgets. I haven't selected calipers yet, but when I do I'm going to go for the most rigid mufkers I can find. Might be those that come in the SSBC Big Brake kit, might not be...

If you're going to be upgrading brake parts, don't forget to upgrade the flexible brake lines to high quality braided lines. The factory bits are just barely good enough when new, and if your existing lines are factory original they're almost certainly swelling under pressure.

 

me and Unreg discussed brakes once long ago.. I thought I could hold my own, but turns out I was wrong.. Dude knows his business...

those slotted rotors sure look cool.. they also reduce weight.. If you shave off 16oz per rotor, that accounts for 16 pounds of rotational weight across the chassis.. attacking the center of rotation with ANY weight reduction is a good thing, and those 16lbs's would be noticeable believe it or not.. and, that brings me to th eonly real thing of quality I can add to this thread:

those meats on your rig, dude.. they look good.. they are likely pretty nice to have when you encounter a sharply angled 2' deep ditch in the trail.. and, they are likely pretty beneficial when a 10" stump appears dead center of a track.. In tacky mud, I bet they skim right over the top.. I could go on and on with reasons it's nice to have all that meat, but each and every example is going to be scenario specific, and those scenario's don't jump up in your face very often...

those things weigh.. that makes them harder to stop when they are rolling- to the point that the scenario you described (running eighty, sharp bend, steep drop, pucker factor) those meats, under considerable hydro pressure, will say "eff it, I'm locking"... that's a massive pucker factor- 'specially with weight behind you and four screaming voices..

next issue: the rolling surface is too far from the center of rotation and clamps.. think leverage.. I don't know the math behind it (I bet Unreg does; he's smart like that), but the further you move out the harder it is to stop that roll.. Point I'm making, is if you beef those axles and put the top available parts on it- with those skins, I bet you only achieve stock braking capacity on loose surfaces.. That's a lot of work for just a little payout..

You know these things Ugly.. I know you do.. Maybe, you should hear someone else say it though....... reduce those tires sizes and weight.. get a chainsaw, shovel, and axe for those 'not very often' scenario's, and increase your braking capacity hugely by simply reducing tire size/weight..

I don't mean to come off smartass.. I really don't.. but that is the only way, in my opinion, you will ever achieve braking with that rig that surpasses 'okay'..

 

The whole 17" wheel requirement is a factor for me. Mostly just timing though but I just shelled out some greenbacks on some new rubber and I'm cheap

HeyYou, if it's the case I do already have the biggest Dodge rear wheel cylinders, I understand there is still a possibility of using an even larger 1 ton Chevy wheel cylinder being usable.

UnregisteredUser, They sure make those pads sound cool and I really was liking the marketing pitch and then I scrolled down....cough cough. Whoa! I hope that price includes enough pads to do two wheels. Not saying it's a show stopper but man that''s hard core.

 

The real reason the phat tires are on there is the sand, beach, dunes, wherever. We don't have to park in RV city when we visit places. We travel into the dunes and setup camp, unload the bikes in privacy. Priceless! Not to say I don't hit the woods too. The sand is a lot of fun and we love it. Pizza cutters and campers in the dunes can be a real headache. I even have the 35" balloons on my cargo trailer. Laugh if you will. We rollin!

Drew, as I read it, your description of the mechanics involved sounds accurate to me. Maybe I am not making my complaint clear:

To briefly summarize my understanding of the mechanics involved in my understanding of my perceived issue and hopefully be a bit more clear: The goal of braking is negative G's. In a panic stop the more negative G's the better as long as you don't die from compression or something. The negative G's a braking system can provide up to the point where traction is longer possible (per given tire/road surface interface physics with respect to weather conditions, etc.) are usable in the well trained pilots hands. Obviously negative G capabilities beyond the level of the traction aren't useable in panic stop situations since breaking traction actually lowers coefficient of friction and therefore lowers achievable negative G's.

My situation is that I don't believe my brakes are capable of enough force to come anywhere near the maximum G levels possible as defined by the tire/road friction interface in the conditions I'm using the rig. In other words I can't skid or anything even close. Not that I want to skid, mind you, but I could certainly be using all the brake performance up to the point of skidding I can get when there is a rapidly approaching cliff to be avoided.

Drew your opinion is always welcome buddy. No hard feelings. I appreciate a straight shooter.

The point is: I'm not willing to give up my tires. I already came down from the 36's , dropping considerable rotational inertia in the process. The performance big tires offer is much too valuable. Considering there are apparently brake upgrades which will (per my debatable understanding of the physics) improve performance in the way I seek to improve it I'm hoping it won't be necessary to give them up. Chainsaws, winches, shovels, etc, some of which are actually useful in the dunes () are all tools in the toolbox. Bigger brakes would allow me to keep the exceedingly handy tool -large tires- in there too.

 

It isn't just the weight though, it's how far the weight is from center of rotation. Also, the x16 factor is highly optimistic, for an interesting read, have a look Here. He does some neat gyrations with math, but, without getting REALLY complicated, even assuming that ALL of the weight is at maximum radius from the point of rotation, the worst case scenario is x2.

Reducing the weight of your rotors by one pound, given that they are closest to the center of rotation, would not yield any noticeable improvement in braking/acceleration. You would just have less material to dissipate heat. If you were looking at an all-out racing vehicle, then the rule of "every little bit helps" comes into play. But, for our trucks, the expense of the neato rotors compared to the benefit, just ain't there.

 

Wow. Thanks for the flowers, man. I appreciate it.

... and vent gas pressure, too, which is the big win. Even if someone invents pads that outgas nothing at all no matter how hot they get, atmospheric air reaches the pad/rotor interface via those superfine grooves that all rotors develop over time. Once there at that heat producing interface, that gas expands and seeks to push the pad away from the rotor. Add in some slots, and each time one sweeps the area of the rotor it vents that pressure. Mo betta braking results.

Just so it's said: Reducing unsprung rotating mass is good, but we're talking highway trucks here so let's not get silly and start thinking about crack prone drilled rotors. Drilled rotors and off-roading don't mix, anyway. Imagine sandy mud or small pebbles going round and round in those holes. Bye-bye folding money.

 

I've always read rotational weight is x4.. the area i gleaned this from is not auto's, though.. it's mountain biking.. when YOU are responsible for the torque, you REALLY notice the strain.. I can tell you the difference in weight to almost the gram.. when racing, I remove everything rotational that's not required to allow more torque to the terra..

bigger wheel size (26" or 29") is beneficial in more than one way.. the 6r's allow for MUCH faster acceleration.. they are good in stop and go racing or runs without straights.. they are also MUCH stronger- they are used on downhill runs because of the abuse.. the 9r's are great for maintaining speed once you get it.. they are also much easier to roll over small stuff on the trail- like limbs and stumps.. the math is simple: the approach angle is drastically reduced with larger diameter wheels.. the same holds true with truck wheels- gear ratio be damned, with a bigger diameter wheel, the ANGLE OF APPROACH is reduced, and it takes less umph to go over.. I can use much less travel suspension with the 9r's than the 6r's- because of this, which further helps because my power is heading to the ground instead of bobbing the bike..

when you're charging down a trail, and realize you don't have the speed to clear a significant gap jump, those brakes become your best friends.. I run 203mm discs on the front of my rig, which dissipates heat faster let there be no doubt, but the real win is the distance from the hub.. that leverage is absolute magic..

the same holds true with any wheel i suppose, right?

 

On bike wheels, most of the weight IS concentrated at the periphery of the radius. very little is anywhere in between. If you wanted to get REALLY picky about such things, you would need to break out with your integral calculus, and figger weight as a factor of distance from center of rotation. I REALLY don't feel like getting that weird, and it has been a decade or two since I have had to deal with calculus on ANY scale.... Here is another article that says pretty much the same thing as the first one I linked to, this one actually dealing with bicycle wheels.

You are correct that larger diameter rotors make for more effective brakes. One of the reasons it is so popular on the F body's (camaro's, and firebirds) to upgrade the tiny 10" front rotors.... yeah, they sucked from the factory, premium pads help, but, not as much as an upgrade to 12" rotors. (1LE, police option brakes)

 

You don't need 17" wheels. The only 2nd Gen Rams that came with 17"s were the Off-Road 1500's. You can switch to dual piston calipers with your 16" wheels.