A couple things I need to address.
-- Off topic section --
Robo, I'm not even "toned up" to tone down. Dude's been uppity about his experience and would rather focus on debate terms than respond to points that are brought up. I will call that out regardless of who it is. Ok, fine, it was probably not a 100% fair comparison but only because GMT didn't derail to focus on debate terminology.
He did show the same habit of dismissing anyone else's views/thoughts/opinions when they didn't align with his... :dunno:
Nova, you need to stop coming at kwtoxman in a personal manner like this. He makes some valid points regarding debates like this. The main problems I have and the parts that cross the line into making this post more personal is calling him uppity and comparing him with GMT's behaviors.
Now, as I have done in the past I am not editing this post though some have called me to do so. My reasoning has always been to leave the offending post and issue a statement like this so the community at large can see examples of what NOT to do. Thus, this will remain unedited but any personal attacks from this point forward will be expunged from the thread. Let's be civil here people.
hear·say /ˈhirˌsā/ noun
information received from other people that one cannot adequately substantiate
A person can have 100 years experience in racing but until they have driven a car before and after a BBK upgrade their BBK "knowledge" is hearsay. I am certainly NOT saying their racing knowledge or car knowledge is not relevant, of course it is relevant! Of course their opinion is more informed because of their experiences. But if none of those experiences involve direct interaction with comparing the options at hand... :skep:
-- Back on topic --
As for your problem with him focusing on debate terminology, he's right. I'm a history major and we deal with things like this a lot when we do our research. If someone comes up and says to me "I heard Dr. P give a lecture on braking dynamics that says BBKs result in shorter stopping distance." we refer to that as a secondary source. This would be considered hearsay in a court of law but in a discussion like this the term secondary source would be a better term. If we're talking opinion or someone's personal experience with something, that is an anecdotal experience or evidence. I don't discount anecdotal evidence outright because often times some of the greatest discoveries happen out of personal experience (such as Isaac Newton's explanation on gravity sprouting from a falling apple...) but anecdotal evidence, to have any weight, must be backed with scientific research.
Now I was one here to propose that my personal experience showed that on a particular car on a particular road with particular tires braking in a particular fashion stopped quicker on a cold brake with a BBK than it had with the stock brake kit. Does this mean EVERY car with ANY tire on ANY road and braking in ANY manner will experience the same thing? No. Does this mean that with NEW OEM pads the factory brakes would still perform as poorly? No. Does this mean that other factors may or may not be at play here? No.
The problem is even with all the evidence I've seen here so far, I have yet to see a true scientific experiment that looks to remove ALL reasonable variables from the equation and focus JUST on the brake upgrade itself to prove or disprove with the most minimal of doubt that there is no or marginal benefit to stopping distance by upgrading our cars from OEM to BBK brakes.
Thus, in absence of such experiments, we have to rely on models and what we know about physics to determine a reasonable THEORY as to what we believe exchanging our OEM brakes with a BBK will give us. This is where science differs with debate. A debate will use scientific studies (and other facts and sources) to prove their side of the argument. Certain facts or studies may be omitted by one side of a debate if it doesn't forward their side of the argument. Science, on the other hand, uses experimentation to prove or disprove a theory. The goal of science is not to prove their theory is right and ignore any facts that may prove contrary, but rather to find the truth about whether what has been theorized works or doesn't. The goal of a debate is very different than the goal of a scientific study though in the real world the two often find themselves intertwined such as debate being used to scrutinize the scientific method used in the experimentation process...which is kind of what is happening here and why all the intertwining of terminology.
To get on topic, Some of the benefits the BBK gave to the Veloster I have are:
Better heat dissipation during hard driving. Whether or not better pads on the OEM system would have achieved similar results is unknown but we have seen those who track these cars experience brake fade with better pads on the OEM system who then have experienced substantially less fade by upgrading the FRONT brakes to a BBK setup. Rear brakes on these cars, even with OEM pads, are adequate even for track days.
Lighter weight. The BBK kit with the larger calipers and rotors actually freed up about 16 lbs per wheel in the front. This is un-sprung weight as well which helps to improve suspension performance. Rotating mass reduction is minimal since most of the weight savings comes from the caliper.
Appearance. The BBK kits look fantastic on the car compared to painted OEM. This is the only reason why the rear brakes were changed.
Better stopping distances. Like I said, I have experienced that I can brake later and harder while driving and autocrossing with these brakes even when fairly cold. Why? Can't tell you but that is what I experienced.
I still plan on going BBK on my car because of my experience. It may be overkill...is overkill unless I get the car on the track or do more than 3-4 laps in autocross...but my ONE experience has made me distrustful of the OEM system...that and the BBKs doo look amazing.