> discover that the prohibition is to not turn the
> rotor IF it is below the
> specified minimum thickness (or in the case of drum
Indeed. In my mythical mystical journey through Budd
Brakes, in converting them to use Supra rotors, the
1967 FSM that I own specifically denotes the minimum
allowable thickness for the rotor.
> Somewhat off the point, but I strongly recommend
> that old car folks DO NOT
> turn their drums or rotors unless there is an
> ABSOLUTE necessity to do so.
Again, I concur. Shoes/pads are cheap and rebondable,
discs/drums are NOT cheap, NOT easy to come by, and
often NOT replaceable.
> rotor/drum somewhere to warn the brake shop. No
> professional brake shop
> will turn a drum or rotor below that minimum, lest
> he open himself up to a
> monstrous liability/lawsuit, and, at least in CA,
When I first got my '67 and HAD to get the rotors
turned (since the grooves in them were monstrous and
not acceptable whatsoever) the garage turned them
quite a bit. In fact, when I put a vernier on them
afterwards, I discovered they were indeed below the
minimum allowable. I did the stupid thing and drove
on them for 5000 miles, incident free, thankfully.
I'm sure the "minimum" thickness is saftey-factored,
but, not having been present (nor even born!) in 1967
when the engineers were figuring out that saftey
factor, I wouldn't hazard to guess how much of one
there is.
=====
--Mike Pittinaro
Piles of pitted chrome
Hubcaps along the floorboard
My junkyard-bedroom
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax
http://taxes.yahoo.com/
Back to the Home of the Forward Look Network