New owner. Brakes question

33 posts / 0 new
Last post
East Kent AR
East Kent AR's picture
Offline
Last seen: 8 hours 40 min ago
Joined: 08/12/2014

I would also check the pistons in the callipers to ensure one or more is not seized.

Piers

Piers Rendell
East Kent AR
eastkent@caterhamlotus7.club
 

 

john milner
john milner's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 days 16 hours ago
Joined: 17/04/2014

Mintex 1144 on mine caused a lot of dust. I cannot be certain but the dust possibly led to a caliper seizing.They also make a horrible squealing noise if not used heavily regularly. The sound is similar to metal on metal and goes away for a while with a bit of heavy braking. I am a light braker so not much point for people like me.

They might mess up an insurance claim as they are not equivalent to the originals and are lightweight track only pads.

Roger Ford
Roger Ford's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 days 15 hours ago
Joined: 17/04/2014

Pretty sure 1144 are approved for road use. Mintex say they are "Regulation 90 approved where required" whatever that means. The 1155s are described as off-road use only.  Are you sure the sound you mention isn't just rust on the disks due to non-use for a short while?

Edit: ECE Regulation 90 appears to be the current EU standard for road-going brake pads.

john milner
john milner's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 days 16 hours ago
Joined: 17/04/2014

Mintex 1144  are defined as road/track by the manufacturer and are generally considered to be an upgrade and therefore are not a direct replacement so fall outside of type approval equivalency regulations. The breaking in requires a session of heavy braking from relatively high speeds so is not a thing that a regular road user would do. The issue is more to do with what Caterham have officially tested rather than what Mintex, a retailer or forum may say.

Regulation 90 is an EU law. Basically meeting it means they can be used on a road car if that car's original pads were to the same or very similar slightly lower spec. This does not help matters as they are fitted to improve braking and not just as a straight swap. Whether or not UK law exactly follows EU regulations I do not know although I would guess that the UK has something similar. Regardless it is very likely that using them is something an insurer should be notified of. The insurer may say no as they could introduce an untested imbalance to the braking system.

During my Mintex period I was covering 6-8,000 miles a year spread across the full 12 months. I am not a polisher and will only wash a car once or twice a year so that may aggravate the dusting problem. Standard pads produce little dust for me but the 1144's gave the wheels a dusting of what looked like soot.

The squeal was embarrassing and similar to having worn away all of the friction material. The squeal could be easily overcome by heavier braking at the next couple of junctions.

Roger Ford
Roger Ford's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 days 15 hours ago
Joined: 17/04/2014

Do "type approval regulations" apply to Caterhams in the UK? Does it vary if they are home-built versus factory build?

john milner
john milner's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 days 16 hours ago
Joined: 17/04/2014

I don't know but the SVA & MOT will have a brake test and too much of an imbalance will be a fail. My assumption is that any imbalance is usually within tolerance as I did pass at least one MOT with 1144's.

Macca99
Macca99's picture
Offline
Last seen: 18 hours 37 min ago
Joined: 17/04/2014

When I changed to 1144 on the front (to stop the rears locking first) they squealed a lot when cold. This has been cured by chamfering the edges and slots. MOT just passed with no problem as well.

john milner
john milner's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 days 16 hours ago
Joined: 17/04/2014

Interesting. I assumed that heavy braking cleaned the discs or put heat into the friction material. Perhaps they just fit better when heated up.

Drumster
Drumster's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 hours 54 min ago
Joined: 17/04/2014

I've been using Mintex 1144 for 16 years (c.40,000 miles) for road, track & hillclimbs and have never noticed excessive dust or any squealing but then I did follow the bedding in procedure as recommended by Mintex. I changed from EBC Greenstuff which (from memory) produced a lot more dust.

IMO the bedding in procedure is hardly onerous; 3-4 light applications from 30-0mph and 6-7 steady applications from 70-30mph and leave to cool completely. Then will then work well from cold.

Surely it's a simple case of when buying a product follow the manufacturers guidelines....

 

Member since March 1998

john milner
john milner's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 days 16 hours ago
Joined: 17/04/2014

I did all the stuff on the leaflet. They worked well apart from the squeal and dust. Perhaps mine were faulty but at least one other person in this thread had a squeal until the pads were modified.

Regular road brakes do not require bedding in. I can't remember exactly what the leaflet said but it did involve driving at increasingly higher speeds and braking harder each time. Driving to a 70 mph dual carriageway on dodgy brakes before braking 70-30 is not a good idea and would have an insurance company refusing any claim.

Perhaps a call by a few Mintex 1144 owners to their insurers with full disclosure could clarify this matter.

Owner: "Hi Mr Insurer, I have a Caterham and I would like to fit brake pads that do not work properly until I have spent 10 minutes bedding them in on my nearest dual carriageway that has a 70 mph speed limit which is 15 miles from where I live. Also the pads are not a standard fitment so will not be type approved and although will most likely improve braking performance I have no way of proving it apart from an advert and what some bloke down the pub says. Is there a problem with any of this?"