Mintex 1144

[Colin Lindsay]

3 hours ago, Paul H said:

The Mintex 1144 brake pads arrived today . Will I be breaking the law 😱😱

Paul 

Depends on what that warning actually means and why it's necessary, but if it comes down to the wire and you have an accident on the road, Insurance may refuse to pay out.

[dougbgt6]

1 hour ago, Colin Lindsay said:

Insurance may refuse to pay out.

We take it on trust that they are 1144s just because it says so on the box! As Pete says, how are they going to know? 

db

[JohnD]

.That must have been on Mintex 1144 products since 2011, since there are posts about it on the bulletin boards of  many marques since at least that far back

But almost as many recommend them for track AND road use, when Mintex's 'cooking' pad material is 1109.   The question is, if you fit a pad material that will not fade as it overheats, will it underperform when cold, as road brakes usually are, especcially starting off from a rest.      Mintex describe 1144 as "the material for fast road use as well as light competition" (my underline) and they offer a chart of wear and friction, vs temperature:

Red is the Coeff.of Friction, Yellow the wear rate, and for 1144 you can see that both are flat, from 100 to 300C.

 

Their 1166 material is for " purely competition use only" and I use their 1155, which has the same description, but I find it is not  inferior even when stone cold.   

John

 

[Paul H]

10 minutes ago, dougbgt6 said:

We take it on trust that they are 1144s just because it says so on the box! As Pete says, how are they going to know? 

db

Each pad is marked 

Paul 

[JohnD]

Anyone who can fake brake shoes can print fake lettering.

[Pete Lewis]

any insurance behavior should be pleased they are not green stuff  which from  my experience with a good few has no stopping power .and if you have a valuation you should list any modifications and the insurance cover then accepts this .

Pete

[Colin Lindsay]

24 minutes ago, dougbgt6 said:

We take it on trust that they are 1144s just because it says so on the box! As Pete says, how are they going to know? 

db

Okay - worst case scenario - there's a serious accident using those pads. Every part of the vehicle is checked for wear and suitability of fitted parts. The pad company - Mintex - is absolved as they say they're not for road use, so you can't sue them for damages.

Damages then come back to the Insurance company of the guilty party. Are they going to pay put? No, because the vehicle had been fitted with incorrect brake pads which are clearly marked: 'not for road use'. As with all things, everybody does it, who's going to know... it's fine until something goes wrong. You can argue in courts or with Insurance Legal Teams until you're blue in the face, but if that's what it says, that's what the legal powers-that-be hold as gospel until you can prove otherwise.

 

[Pete Lewis]

so my accepted  insurance valuation says  M1144 pads  fitted with stag calipers and discs   and they accept this 

so  then whos carrying the can 

Pete

[Colin Lindsay]

15 minutes ago, Pete Lewis said:

so my accepted  insurance valuation says  M1144 pads  fitted with stag calipers and discs   and they accept this 

so  then whos carrying the can 

Pete

That comes back to the original question - WHY does it say that on that particular box when everywhere else says they're for fast road or trackday use? What's the difference that makes those the exception? I've just searched for that phrase and found an almost identical debate going on in a Mini forum:

https://www.theminiforum.co.uk/forums/topic/207094-m1144s-not-for-use-on-public-highways/page-3

According to those guys, these pads are either very old, pre-1999, or imports that don't carry the E number for the EU / UK market which should be on the back. It's an interesting topic... more detective work needed.

[thescrapman]

I am pretty sure my 1144 are not marked as such, need to go and look.

Anyway, it is only marked on the box and not the pads, so throw box away and deny you fitted them, saying they were fitted when you purchased the car.

Who strips a car they have just purchased and checks every component is E-marked.

Though thinking about it the E-marking only applies to cars newer than ours.

[Pete Lewis]

E marks   now everyone will be out examining the light bulbs 

if they are out lasted originals   they wont be legal , by next month they just might be   EEEEE  

Oh and we need to add   Seat Belts 

Pete

[Paul H]

From the Internet 

https://www.lotus7.club/forum/techtalk/mintex-1144-pads-road-legal

Paul

 

[Clive]

To put this in perspective, I think this is "construction and use" stuff and is meant for modern vehicles and E marks. So ours are early enough.

Just like LED bulbs, which do not meet C+U regs. But as many LED bulbs are better at their job (some are woeful, ebay is hopeless), an insurance company would be hard pressed to suggest they contributed to an accident (LED headlight bulbs may be more of an issue)

If you wanted to have the correct pads fitted, you need to go back to good old asbestos pads. The modern pad material  has a very poor coefficient of friction, but the Mintex 1144 pads are broadly similar to asbestos pads in performance. That means your insurance should be invalidated if you use anything except asbestos/1144/ds2500 pads? on the basis yout brakes do not work as designed?

[Pete Lewis]

will there be a discussion on fitting non OEM braided brake hoses 

aftermarket steering wheels ,  

changing the seats

fitting radial tyres not the OE  crossplies 

this is all a bit "£$£$%^&

worry about the real problems like you dont need an MOT  

all insurance ask is you keep your car roadworthy and safe ......

Pete

[JohnD]

I'm no Europhobe, but the UK has a unique priviledge in the amount and degree of modification we may do to the classic cars that we drive on public roads.     In Europe they must follow rules similar to those for Historic racing, under Appendix K regulations.   Original or pattern parts, engines, brakes etc.etc.      

[Bfg]

1 hour ago, clive said:

To put this in perspective, I think this is "construction and use" stuff and is meant for modern vehicles and E marks. So ours are early enough.

Just like LED bulbs, which do not meet C+U regs. But as many LED bulbs are better at their job (some are woeful, ebay is hopeless), an insurance company would be hard pressed to suggest they contributed to an accident (LED headlight bulbs may be more of an issue)

Vehicle regulations have been in place for many years, for example my 1948 motorcycle was built without a rear brake light.  In or about 1949 the law changed and brake lights were compulsory, and any motor vehicle used on British roads were required to have them fitted and working, even if they weren't originally.  Construction and Use regulations were introduced to ensure that vehicles were built to approved standards, not only on the road but also in the event of many sorts of accident.  And MOT's were introduced to ensure the growing number of road vehicles were maintained to a safe standard.  British Standards together with the motor industry set the standards, and they of course recognised that a part fitted to one vehicle might not work so well in another.  Things like lamps being manufactured by non-vehicle making companies (the likes of Lucas, Wipac, Dunlop, and a million others) were assigned marks and approval numbers ..after the product or part had been tested.  This was to ensure that things like bulbs didn't burst into flames ! ..and their reflectors or lenses didn't melt from the heat of the bulb, or splinter and hurt people in an accident.  And of course each of those manufacturers were liable for the safety and quality of their products.  As indeed is any retailer who tries to sells non-approved parts.  In short, the regulations are there for our, and of course pedestrian's safety.  Why disregard them ? 

If a brake pad material is not approved for road use, it may well be because it doesn't work reliably when cold.  According to the scrutineer that may be acceptable on a racing track and for experienced drivers, but when your wife or child drives your car and the brakes are cold and don't work well - then you are responsible for the vehicle and their safety.  No ?   This is irrespective of what an insurance assessor might decide ..because by then the incident and damage has happened. 

 

[Pete Lewis]

safety should and must be uppermost in anyone's decision to change any component 

the lack of MOT for a 3rd party to check the basics are sound 

no mot allows those who devise to dodge the MOT to flaunt the safety of these simple checks 

if the  pad box was not labelled as not for road use we would have no calms or arguments for or against 

green stuff has no adverse marking  but they wont stop the car    where does this all end 

pretty much any classic you care to check will have some no original component used   even the oil .

keeping things  original is a brave idea but out of shelf life new old stock doesnt means its safe 

again if your valuation certificate spells out the modifications you make and the insurance accepts this they can hardly wriggle away from any claim as they have said   YES

 

Pete

 

 

 

[Clive]

56 minutes ago, Bfg said:

 

If a brake pad material is not approved for road use, it may well be because it doesn't work reliably when cold.  According to the scrutineer that may be acceptable on a racing track and for experienced drivers, but when your wife or child drives your car and the brakes are cold and don't work well - then you are responsible for the vehicle and their safety.  No ?   This is irrespective of what an insurance assessor might decide ..because by then the incident and damage has happened. 

 

My point is that the majority of brake pads sold for "our " cars have a different material spec to original, with a much lower coefficient of friction. I suspect they have gained blanket approval as mos cars have huge servo's etc, so material is less of an issue. But trust me, "white box" pads are terrible, and scary in use. Fit the so called "unapproved" stuff and they work as the Triumph factory expected. The difference really is night and day. asbestos pads are excellent, 1144s just about as good. DS2500 are better than "white box" pads when cold, and just superb when hot. None are inferior when cold. White box pads are the ones that need to be outlawed. Just like so many substandard parts sold for our cars.

[JohnD]

"the majority of brake pads sold for "our " cars have a different material spec to original, with a much lower coefficient of friction."   Really, Clive?

In the US, brake pads are marked with a code that indicates how agressive they are, and this article from The Brake Report .  https://thebrakereport.com/disc-brake-pad-friction-codes-explained/

  The article discusses what the codes mean, and explains that the mu (μ) , the coefficient of friction, ranges from Zero (no friction at all) to 1, where there can be no movement between the surfaces, and says "30 years ago, street brake pads were lucky to see the high 0.20s. Today, even OEM pads are well into the 0.30s, top-tier performance street pads in the 0.40 to 0.45 range, and some race cars in the high 0.60s or even more."

When it says "thirty years ago" it means before asbestos was banned, in 1999.   Since then, tribology  has advanced, and modern brake material is significantl;y superior to the old, asbestos stuff.       But of course only buying from a trusted supplier can guarantee that such standards are maintained.

John

[Colin Lindsay]

30 minutes ago, JohnD said:

But of course only buying from a trusted supplier can guarantee that such standards are maintained.

John

I'm not making light of a serious event, but I've got the feeling that whoever put the cladding on Grenfell was saying: "Go on ahead, put it on, it's been fine up until now, who'll ever know..."

It's only when things go wrong that everyone starts to ask: why?

[Clive]

3 hours ago, JohnD said:

"the majority of brake pads sold for "our " cars have a different material spec to original, with a much lower coefficient of friction."   Really, Clive?

In the US, brake pads are marked with a code that indicates how agressive they are, and this article from The Brake Report .  https://thebrakereport.com/disc-brake-pad-friction-codes-explained/

  The article discusses what the codes mean, and explains that the mu (μ) , the coefficient of friction, ranges from Zero (no friction at all) to 1, where there can be no movement between the surfaces, and says "30 years ago, street brake pads were lucky to see the high 0.20s. Today, even OEM pads are well into the 0.30s, top-tier performance street pads in the 0.40 to 0.45 range, and some race cars in the high 0.60s or even more."

When it says "thirty years ago" it means before asbestos was banned, in 1999.   Since then, tribology  has advanced, and modern brake material is significantl;y superior to the old, asbestos stuff.       But of course only buying from a trusted supplier can guarantee that such standards are maintained.

John

My posterior can assure you Girling NOS asbestos pads are better in the cold than 1144 and more so the DS2500. But compared to std Mintex material, all are far superior. White box pads are unlikely to have much in the way of traceability to source, and less chance of a proper spec sheet. 

If you want a laugh, just try some £10 brake pads, then 1144 to compare. Then you will understand. The comparison the asbestos pads you will need to trust me (though I do have a set you are welcome to test)

Remember asbestos is a wonder material with one major flaw. If took about 20 years for Artex to formulate a replacement that worked nearly as well. I suspect pipe insulation and so on is a similar story. 

And remember the article you linked to refers to OEM pads. It does not mention aftermarket stuff. 

[JohnD]

As I have a Tapley Brake Tester, I'll be glad to accept your offer!

Tested on my modern, it gets 95%, but that's a Citroen, that notoriously h as a fierce servo assist ( but nowadays controllable).    A Triumph comparison would be most interesting!

[Clive]

5 minutes ago, JohnD said:

As I have a Tapley Brake Tester, I'll be glad to accept your offer!

Tested on my modern, it gets 95%, but that's a Citroen, that notoriously h as a fierce servo assist ( but nowadays controllable).    A Triumph comparison would be most interesting!

Hmm, have to think of a suitable test. Will you be at the TRR/TSSC bash? not much happening prior. I may make enquiries about a local tester. I don't posses any std pads at all. (not after previous experiences).

On second thoughts, I wonder if there is a phone app? My gearbox is off at BGH, they did say I would get it back before christmas.... but once it is back/refitted I could swap pads about. I can even "turn" my rear brakes down with my balance valve, that would take those out of the equation. I will have great difficulty doing very hot testing, but I think we are really talking about road use anyway.

[Nick Jones]

When I first out my Vitesse on the road it had real Lockheed asbestos pads and the brakes were great. They wore out.

They were replaced with modern non-asbestos motor factors pads listed for it. They were about as much use as greased weetabix. I bought some Ferodo branded ones. No better. I overhauled the calipers (they were fine anyway). No better. I bought some Green stuff ones and new discs. They were worse. The car was scary to drive. Brake pedal and steering wheel bendingly scary. I was on the point of throwing in the towel and fitting a servo.

Then I discovered M1144. Suddenly I had brakes again. Even from stone cold.

I have no idea why anyone thinks M1144 would be in anyway inferior to the horrible tat masquerading as brake pads that are otherwise sold as fit for purpose.

I have also used Ferodo DS2500. Roughly equivalent to M1155. They have a bit less cold bite, but are still better than the standard tat and are bloody brilliant from vaguely warm to smoking hot whereas is it possible to fade the 1144s.

1144s are a great general purpose road pad.

[PeteH]

Tongue in cheek!!!!. (obviously!) = More distance between yourself and vehicle in front. Job sorted?, brown trouser avoidance. Reminds me of using the underground (Transit) in H-K. "mind the gap" (in cantonese).😇

Now to be serious. I did not know there was a real issue with brake pads?. My understanding was they must be equal to the O-E. to be legally sold ?

Edit: fitting a Servo, only makes the effort of the driver`s leg less uncomfortable?. but does nothing for the end braking effect surely?. That is down to the friction (co-eficient?) between pad/disk.

Pete