| Message |
Greg, Where did you get this information? I don't agree with most of what you have said here. First, there are dozens of friction products on the market most of which have lower torque than Feramic and higher torque than Organic. To say that Feramic is one step above Organic is very misinformed. Second, The last time I checked RPS was using a puck made by MIBA which is the same puck we use in our "B" series.
[ http://www.southbendclutch.com/images/3850dd.gif ] Although Ceramic material has good holding power, in my opinion Feramic is a far superior product because it does not glaze over like the Ceramic family of friction products. Because Feramic wears down, it is continually exposing new friction material keeping the torque at it's maximum. Not to mention not eating up the castings it runs against. We use the same button that RPS uses when building a clutch for track only. We use Feramic when the car is driven on the street and raced at the track. It is the perfect blend and the best friction material in its class. :If you want to drag race, I prefer the RPS MAX 6 puck.
:The Puck clutch will hold more power and the material RPS uses will also hold more power then Feramic.
:Feramic is one step above organic material in terms of grabbing power. Straight cindered Iron would hold more than the feramic, but would also chatter more.
:Straight Ceramic material holds even better than Cindered Iron, Yet again even less smooth.
:The RPS 6 puck Disc has a mixture of materials that makes it pretty hard to beat for a single disc clutch.
:The RPS has a fantastic mixture of cendered Iron ,ceramic, bronze, and other propritery materials to make it hold incredable power as well as be smooth.
:The local guys here that can not afford the Carbon Carbon run the RPS MAX 6 Puck and they can launch at 7000 RPM and the clutches hold up to that abuse.
|
 |
13:09:33 11/02/06
