>> > The difference between carbon and steel rotors actually isn't that big
>> > in reality. I don't know what regulations CART has regarding brakes,
>> > but they sure brake worse than the F1's(in the incar footage at
>> > Montreal the champcars braked at the 200 sign before the chicane,
>> > whereas the F1's at about 130-150m). If champcars are bound to have
>> > standardized brakes it's probably there the difference lies, that and
>> > the extra 200kg. Otherwise you make brakes that fully use the traction
>> > of the tyres at any time, be it carbon or steel. The notion that you
>> > would have lots longer brake distances just because you change to
>> > steel discs is just a pipe dream.
>In fact the last time steel brakes were tried (as far as I know) was in
>1999 by Zanardi/Williams and they found they actually offered slightly
>more stopping power than carbon. Williams still prefered carbon due
>to the reduction in unsprung mass and rotational inertia however.
that it was on the request on Zanardi's part, because he couldn't get
to terms with the carbon-carbon brakes.
Later though, I found out that Federal-Mogul had initiated tests with
Williams for research purposes. One of the things that they found out
was, as you said, it had actually a little bit more peak friction than
carbon-carbon.
One other reason to ease off the brakes is how the carbon brakes work.
With constant braking pressure the friction increases, with rising
heat, so to keep constant friction(for non-aero vehicles like MotoGP
bikes) you have to ease off.
Regarding locking wheels, I have no idea really. But the downforce is
what, like 2 times the weight, 3 maybe... So that would mean it would
(simplified, not counting weightshift)equal a 2 ton car with fat
sticky tyres. Like I said, I don't know, but my feeling is that it
woudn't be impossible to make brakes efficient enough to exceed those
traction limits.