Post Number: 387
|Posted on Sunday, 20 September, 2015 - 03:28 pm: |
Well, since I've already gone down this rabbit hole, I might as well finish the job. Does anybody have a source for brake rotors or a substitution part?
Thanks for the help,
richard george yeaman
Post Number: 358
|Posted on Sunday, 20 September, 2015 - 08:13 pm: |
Hi Chris I replaced the rotors on SRH 19529 with second hand ones which were like new or Flying spares or Intro car for after market ones.
Post Number: 1675
|Posted on Monday, 21 September, 2015 - 02:31 am: |
I've done the same as you for various parts, but the real question for me is whether what FS or Introcar sells are commissioned in small runs by them or whether they've actually managed to identify a part that has the necessary specs that was meant for another vehicle and are repackaging that for sale (and it's no crime if they have).
I've now had SRH33576 for just short of ten years, and over that time it's become apparent that "official support" for these cars is very quickly diminishing. Companies like FS, Introcar, Bentley Zionsville (AKA Albers), and others are wonderful, but still require that one typically order a part from half a world away and wait for it to show up.
There really is great value in trying to find cross-references to commonly available parts that are made for much more common vehicles that perform the precise job we need them to do. Being able to go down to your local auto parts store and grab something "off the shelf" when you find you need it is not just really handy, but can make the difference between actually fixing something quickly and easily and needing to defer it.
I seem to recall, somewhere in the mists of memory, that someone did identify a functional replacement brake rotor that had a truck of some sort as its listed application. I can't seem to dig that information up right now and have tried. That's one of the reasons I try to snag this sort of stuff into my resources file the very moment I come upon it.
Post Number: 256
|Posted on Monday, 21 September, 2015 - 03:51 am: |
Brian ,I am unsure what the situation is in Aus or USA, but in the UK if the insurance companies can find a reason to reject a claim they will void the cover and potentially as an uninsured car it is destined for the crusher ! The use of parts not specified for a given application , especially safety related eg brake pads and rotors opens up a potential risk. Is it worth saving a few £ on parts to have a £12k car crushed ? A few years ago I was offered some rotors which were modified free because in the UK they were unsaleable , but advised not to fit them due to insurance reasons even though we all agreed they were superb.
Post Number: 1676
|Posted on Monday, 21 September, 2015 - 04:57 am: |
This conversation has taken place in these forums on multiple occasions. It appears that automotive laws and insurance customs in the UK and Australia are vastly different to those in the USA. It appears from what you and others have offered that detailed forensic analysis occurs for virtually any accident other than (and maybe including) a "fender bender" in these nations. That is not and has never been the custom in the United States.
Unless the insurance claim is based upon a report of a safety system failing there is generally nothing done at all by the insurance company. They take a quick look at the police report and talk to the insured. The focus is entirely on settling the claim, whether that involves declaring the car a total loss or determining the amount necessary to cover repairs.
In this case it's my opinion that the system in the USA is far more reasonable. Most insurance adjusters here would barely recognize a brake rotor (I'm stretching, but the drift is true) let alone whether it was an OEM part, aftermarket equivalent, or functional equivalent that has an application on other vehicles.
There is a general belief here that mechanics, both professional and DIY, commonly exhibit accurate judgment regarding whether a given part is suitable for a given application or what "usual maintenance" is actually required. Most people who work on cars will not knowingly do something that puts their lives, or those of their fellow motorists, in danger. It's not that this never happens, but it doesn't happen often enough to merit deep forensic analysis of the vast majority of automobile accidents.
I think by now that any regulars on this forum, be they active posters or reading lurkers, know precisely where I live, the Commonwealth of Virginia in the United States of America. All of what I write is based upon custom and law where I currently live or have lived elsewhere in the USA. I also believe that everyone reading knows that the implicit proviso, "Make sure this practice would be legally permissible in your venue," always applies to any online advice offered by anyone. If what someone offers as an option is not legal where you reside then you absolutely should not do it.
Robert Noel Reddington
Post Number: 523
|Posted on Monday, 21 September, 2015 - 06:11 am: |
If a rotor is used that is not for a Crewe car and it causes an accident then one is in trouble. If the rotor didn't cause the accident then no problem.
When inspecting cars after an accident the inspector will look for the cause they don't blame bits that didn't cause the accident.
I am afraid that these rotors are RR specific and there are no substitutes.
You must use the correct rotor. I know of no rotor that has that many bolts holding it to the hub. There are lots of dimensions to consider if trying to find a substitute.
Mr Chapman of Sidney I believe sells a modified version of this rotor which is better than RR Girling ones.
So 3 choices used genuine or Mr Chapman.
That is if the rotors are not suitable for skimming.
My car has vents.
Post Number: 336
|Posted on Monday, 21 September, 2015 - 07:37 am: |
"The focus is entirely on settling the claim."
Insurance companies are different over here. The focus is entirely on trying to wriggle out of settling the claim.
That's not to say that they will go over the car with a fine-tooth comb, but they will always look for a cheap way out.
Post Number: 1677
|Posted on Monday, 21 September, 2015 - 08:01 am: |
You'll notice I very strategically omitted "to the policyholder's satisfaction."
I have very seldom know of an instance where "some insistence from the policyholder" didn't have to be applied because the insurance company was trying to settle on the cheap.
What I was trying to convey, though, is that automobile insurance companies here in the US very seldom go into full-blown investigation and analysis mode. It seems to me, based on what's been said here, that both MOT and insurance investigation customs are much more stringent elsewhere.
Full-blown investigation mode is entered on these shores only when it appears that very big bucks are involved and when it would be in the insurance company's interest to either reject a claim or try to place blame on a person or entity other than the one they're covering.
Post Number: 257
|Posted on Monday, 21 September, 2015 - 08:33 am: |
For amusement: Insurance declarable alterations increasing premium, from personal experience:
1 Painting the roof of a Mini white, not body colour.
2 Fitting alloy wheels from a higher spec model to a basic spec mini.
3 Fitting an uprated cylinder head and exhaust to a mini requires an engineers report.
4 Fitting a rollover bar to an Austin Healey Frogeye Sprite- A safety precaution!, caused a severe increase in premium particularly to the young lady I sold the car to.( She could have reduced the premium by removing it, but sensibly her father insisted on keeping it.)
Post Number: 1742
|Posted on Monday, 21 September, 2015 - 08:42 am: |
Our accident investigation teams only get involved in fatal accidents - normal "every day" fender-benders are not investigated unless someone draws attention to a major vehicle design/assembly fault that justifies a recall to fix the problem.
Robert Chapman in Melbourne [not Sydney Bob - Melburnians definitely do not appreciate not being treated as equals] is a reputable supplier of R-R/B parts however I do not know if his "in-house" manufacturing includes disc rotors at present but I would expect him to do this if OEM items are no longer available. I would also expect Forum members Richrd Treacy and Paul Yorke would be active in supplying after-market replacements if this situation arises:
Robert Noel Reddington
Post Number: 525
|Posted on Monday, 21 September, 2015 - 10:44 am: |
I do apologise saying Sidney instead of Melbourne id a bit like confusing Manchester with Leeds.
In the UK cars are only checked in the advent of a fatal accident. Here it is important that the CORRECT cause is found. The deceased relations and friends must be told the correct cause. Assuming that because a tyre is defective therefore it must be cause would be a grave disservice to all envolved.
Most accidents are driver error.
Unlike aeroplanes a car can just pull over should something go wrong. Most drivers are aware enough when something is wrong to check it out. They may not know what is wrong. But know enough to take the car to the shop and drive accordingly or get the car recovered.
However there are idiots that carry on with metal to metal brakes.
The brakes on cars have developed many subtle safety features and total brake failure rarely happens. When it does the car gave warnings and the owner has ignored the signs.
I have seen cars where the pads are down to the steel backing which on some designs the pad can fall out and the pistons are touching the rotor yet the brakes still stop the car.
I have never had problems with insurance companies using spurious reasons for denying a claim. Insurance is a special sort of contract strickly governed by law. The reasons for denying a claim have to by law reasonable. Such as insuring a 3 litre car as a 1.5 litre car. But in any case the 3rd party claims have to be met by the insurance by law.
As Mr Vogel said thI'd had all been explained before.
I am chuffed at being made a Grandmaster.
Post Number: 518
|Posted on Tuesday, 22 September, 2015 - 01:32 am: |
Insurance in the USA will declare a vehicle a total loss if it has especially nice salvage value: pickup trucks come to mind.
Don't know about specialty cars like Rolls-Royce Silver Shadows and how they fare with the collector-car insurance companies: the high cost of hired repairs may send them to the total bin. Personally I would repair my car or have it repaired if possible, because it's more than a "car" so the money is not really the point, although it is an important consideration and I have my limits. Sometimes people want to get rid of a car anyway, so they will jump at a cash offer and say good riddance, especially on a marginal car or one with problems.
Far as the brake rotors: Rolls-Royce had their own way of doing a lot of things, and they used a lot of bought-out parts, but I have never seen a rotor mounted like these and I seriously doubt you will find this rotor on another car. Brake pads: yes. There were not any other cars in the UK or Europe this big and heavy which would need them anyway.
There is an outfit in Australia who offer new rotors and as I recall the price seemed reasonable, especially as one is unlikely to ever need more than one set. Is it named Chapman? Rotors are not especially complex or high-tech, cast and machine it; but they have to be pretty-much right.
Post Number: 388
|Posted on Tuesday, 22 September, 2015 - 01:42 am: |
I have the '66 cadaver car, which has four rotors. I have no idea what shape they are in, but I suspect they are fine.
Will the rotors from the '66 cadaver car fit the '72?
Are all four rotors identical, meaning will rear rotors fit the front?
Thanks for the help,
Post Number: 389
|Posted on Tuesday, 22 September, 2015 - 05:44 am: |
The answers are:
Yes, the 66 cadaver rotors will fit the '72, but is was close. During '72 the rotor design changed from solid to vented, and my chassis is pre-change. I could still have done it because the calipers are matched to the rotors, and I also have the calipers from the '66 cadaver car.
No. The bow and stern are not interchangeable for any year.
Post Number: 1743
|Posted on Tuesday, 22 September, 2015 - 08:38 am: |
Classic car insurance policies often allow "retention of the wreck" by the owner.
I am aware of many owners of R-R/B vehicles who have had their vehicle "written off" by their insurer keeping the wreck, getting the insurance payout and then taking the car to an independent restorer and having the car repaired with money left over.
I would always get an insurance policy that allows "wreck retention" for any classic or expensive vehicle as it gives you complete freedom of choice in deciding what can be done with the car.
Post Number: 1388
|Posted on Thursday, 24 September, 2015 - 08:05 am: |
Chris, if you're changing them because the surface is bad, they usually have enough and good enough metal to machine them.
Unless they have a stainless steel band around them. These are usually a sandwich of soft steel wire and steel friction material.
Have a look for "on car" disc skimming. Makes having good rear discs so much easier.
Post Number: 390
|Posted on Thursday, 24 September, 2015 - 12:28 pm: |
I don't need to replace the rotors on the '72 ... yet. Nor do I need to turn them; I think they are fine. We know there will come a time. I have the rotors from the '66 cadaver car, so I'm probably fine for the rest of my life, but we know that rotors wear and warp and eventually must be replaced. The rotors on my F-150 lasted about 100,000 miles, but they were subjected to hard use with occasional horse trailer duty.
Since I know this is going to happen, I want to get some now, because they are only going to become rarer and rarer. Even if I never use them, having them in inventory, so to speak, increases the resale value of the car. So, I seek a source.