# Safety issue: Does ECS Tuning want you to know about this?



## esoxlucios (Sep 17, 2009)

*In March of 2008, I purchased and installed the Stage 2v2 kit, which was advertised as, "Designed to last a lifetime"










As part of the kit, I declined the Hawk HPS pads, and asked my sales rep to include some soft organic or ceramic pads — I wanted to change pads, not rotors.

For over a year, my car sat inside at Imola Motorsports (that story is another thread). That means this brake kit has been thorugh 4½ years of use —about 31K miles— in Minnesota weather. The rotors are still nearly 26mm thick, hardly any wear, and although the zinc-coating did nothing to prevent rust, they're still in decent shape! Great news, right? 

The problem is, the alleged 7075 aluminum hats are corroding, possibly leading to a catastrophic failure during hard braking, which could kill people on the road, including the driver.

I noticed this as "cracks" appearing on the outer edges of the hat. I took a small precision screwdriver and inserted it into the cracks, and large chucks (several millimeters thick) of aluminum broke free, revealing that the cracks were filled with a white powder. Doubtless, this is aluminum oxide or some other byproduct of oxidation. Why? I have wheel adapter/spacers made from 6065 that were installed in March of 2008 that have no corrosion whatever, and these ECS Tuning hats are "hard anodized," they claim.

The answer is simple: manufacturing and assembly defect. Aluminum and iron should never be allowed to come into contact in a corrosive environment without a gasket material separating them. Failure to isolate the metals from each other results in preferential cathodic corrosion.

All metals have a property called nobility, the measure of a metal's resistance to corrosion when in contact with another metal. A greater relative difference in nobility between the two metals in contact indicates a greater corrosion potential. The table below ranks the several common metals in increasing nobility, called the galvanic number.

1. Aluminum 
2. Zinc 
3. Steel 
4. Iron 
5. Stainless Steel - Active 
6. Tin 
7. Lead 
8. Copper 
9. Stainless Steel - Passive​
When dissimilar metals (like Al and Fe) are in contact with one another in the presence of an electrolyte (water and salt, which is used in the entire northern half of the United States, to whom ECS Tuning sells its parts), galvanic action occurs, resulting in the deterioration of the metal with the lower galvanic number. Even moisture from the air may contain enough acid to cause to act as an electrolyte.

So, how does ECS Tuning take care of its customers? Well, first, it sold a kit to hundreds (thousands?) of customers, with no way to purchase friction ring replacements except through ECS Tuning. You can't get these rotors serviced anywhere, and you can't buy them from TireRack or NAPA. In fact, it appears that Coleman makes the rotors in Wisconsin, then sends them to Source Machine in Minnesota, where they are machined, drilled, slotted, and imprinted with ECS Tuning labels, then shipped to Ohio, where they the rotors and hats are assembled, and then sold to you for about $850 (just the rotors & hats). That's fine. Except that Chris Van Hauter just informed me that you can no longer get these parts serviced, because, "This kit was discontinued due to low demand so replacement parts are also obsolete." So guess what you can do with your fancy BBK when the rotors wear out (or the hats corrode away before the rotors wear out)? Hope you kept your Audi TT or VW Mk4 calipers! Keep this in mind if you're looking at their Stage 5 kit (currently available).

Now, how does ECS Tuning handle the issue of negligent manufacture and assembly (the failure to isolate the aluminum and iron, which we now know is common knowledge to anyone in the automotive industry)? Here is Chris' response:

I would bet that the corrosion and flaking that you are experiencing on those hats is due to the ill effects of Mother Nature. Seeing as you live in a high snowfall area, Things such as salt can corrode the coating and metal. We have the same issues here in Ohio with corrosion to the underbodies of our vehicles as well as rotor hubs, wheel hubs, etc. Something like this would not necessarily constitute a defect with the product, That is why it is not covered.​
Actually, it is a defect. Under the law, it's known as a breach of the warranty of merchantability and also "Strict Products Liability." If someone got hurt because of a manufacturing defect, then all the manufacturers, suppliers, and retailers responsible for inserting the product "into the stream of commerce" would be strictly liable for the injuries caused thereby.

ECS handled this not by honoring the warranty, but by selling me a completely new hat & rotor kit, which Chris alleged was the last one in existence. Now that I have it, I have to disassemble it, and put gaskets in to separate the aluminum from the iron.

Now, this is what the rotor hat is supposed to look like:











Below are some photos I've taken of one of the rotor hats (this has happened to both of them). Notice it's not round? That's some of the corrosion that I chipped off with a screwdriver. I sanded some of the anodizing off the front and back to reveal the cracks. The dark lines running parallel to the outer edge of the rotor hat are cracks which I have not yet chipped off with a screwdriver. Some of the cracks extend right up to the rotor bobbin hole, and the cracks go all the way through from the front to the back of the hat. Most of these cracks are hidden from the naked eye.

IF YOU LIVE IN A HUMID OR WINTER CLIMATE, AND YOU PURCHASED A BBK LIKE THIS ONE, PLEASE INSPECT YOUR ROTOR HATS.
































































































































































































































*


----------



## 20v master (May 7, 2009)

You really love car modding, don't you? opcorn: Sucks about your troubles, but those rotors were way overpriced anyways.


----------



## TheDeckMan (Sep 26, 2004)

Seen lots of problems with them. Seen studs pull out of the crappy aluminum adapters, bolts get loose and or break from thermal expansion. 

Personally, I would never use aluminum adapters on a perpendicular style mounting.


----------



## lite1979 (Sep 9, 2005)

Reminds me of when I used to mess with the crank gears on my BMX. The inner part was always fastened well to the crank, but the outer part was held in by five lousy allen screws which were way to easy to strip (even for a 12-year-old). Mo' pieces = mo' problems. Sorry to hear that part is NLA!


----------



## PLAYED TT (Oct 17, 2010)

I hate to admit it but ECS has no idea about 80% of what they talk about. When aluminum comes into direct contact with ANY METAL with the exclusion of manganese and zinc it becomes a natural anode. Its the same principal that the US Navy uses to keep the hull of ships from rusting (although I believe they use a small current). The aluminum sacrifices itself to protect the other (in this case steel) metal. Simply painting the two surfaces could stop this and OP I highly suggest you dont trust the anodizing as a true protective coating. It is at most there for good looks. But to anyone who has this kit simply washing your car could cause this if you let the water sit. And OP the white stuff that fell off wasnt the protective aluminum oxide layer. It was what was left from the chemical reaction between the two metals. My best guess is it was the other alloyed metals(which in 7075 would be zinc manganese and copper). All I know is its good you pulled them off because by the looks they were bad. 
Now as to why the 6061 doesnt react as much is due to their chemical compositions. Without going to deep 7075 is better for high strength situations and is more susceptible to the corrosion. I'm assuming ECS chose this because the thickness of that part is so thin, HOWEVER they should have seen this coming and rather than making it look pretty with anodizing they should have coated it to prevent this phenomena mentioned above. 
If they however chose to say you are in the wrong and not them please refer them to the American Welding Society aluminum and aluminum alloys chapter, page 97, subsection Corrosion Resistance. Maybe they will realize they are at fault for such an silly overlooked "noob" mistake


----------



## esoxlucios (Sep 17, 2009)

PLAYED TT said:


> Now as to why the 6065 doesn't react as much is due to their chemical compositions. Without going to deep 7075 is better for high strength situations and is more susceptible to the corrosion.


The T6065 Hub adapters I have —installed at the same time as the ECS rotors— has *no* coating of any kind (bare aluminum ), and is sandwiched in-between the ECS hats (T7075 alum. alloy) and alum. alloy wheels. Hence, zero corrosion when exposed to the same elements of "Mother nature" (cited by Chris at ECS Tuning) in the same area for the same length of time.


----------



## PLAYED TT (Oct 17, 2010)

esoxlucios said:


> The T6065 Hub adapters I have —installed at the same time as the ECS rotors— has *no* coating of any kind (bare aluminum ), and is sandwiched in-between the ECS hats (T7075 alum. alloy) and alum. alloy wheels. Hence, zero corrosion when exposed to the same elements of "Mother nature" (cited by Chris at ECS Tuning) in the same area for the same length of time.


Yes but only knowing the grade can take us so far. There are many processes that can be done to it after the fact that can affect the corrosion resistance. 6xxx series aluminum can be treat heated to make it stronger as well as being aged or artificially aged. These are designated by T1-T6 I believe. So only going by the base composition is what I made that reference upon.


----------



## TheDeckMan (Sep 26, 2004)

I hate floating rotor setups. FYI hats an all hardware need to be replaced every time the rotor is replaced. I cannot remember the torque specs for the 993 Turbo hats, think its around 72 in/lbs. The 993 hats are steel, not aluminum. Reason ECS went with aluminum is that it is easy to machine.


----------



## warranty225cpe (Dec 3, 2008)

DeckManDubs said:


> I hate floating rotor setups. FYI hats an all hardware need to be replaced every time the rotor is replaced. I cannot remember the torque specs for the 993 Turbo hats, think its around 72 in/lbs. The 993 hats are steel, not aluminum. Reason ECS went with aluminum is that it is easy to machine.


Maybe take your new hats and have some machined. Titanium?


----------



## esoxlucios (Sep 17, 2009)

warranty225cpe said:


> Maybe take your new hats and have some machined. Titanium?


Bill at Diversified Cryogenics (a/k/a Frozen Rotors) said he could have Coleman fab them out of steel for about $250 (for the pair). I am going to ask about stainless.


----------



## PLAYED TT (Oct 17, 2010)

esoxlucios said:


> Bill at Diversified Cryogenics (a/k/a Frozen Rotors) said he could have Coleman fab them out of steel for about $250 (for the pair). I am going to ask about stainless.


In all honesty I would do that. Your best bet isn't to run the risk of them being ruined again. As for ECS this negligence proves their ethics. If anything they need to be recalled or every buyer needs to be informed. I suspect lawsuits if any uninformed buyers start having accidents from them coming apart. And because in the end they approved them for sale (whether proper long term tests were completed or not) they could go under overnight.


----------



## warranty225cpe (Dec 3, 2008)

esoxlucios said:


> Bill at Diversified Cryogenics (a/k/a Frozen Rotors) said he could have Coleman fab them out of steel for about $250 (for the pair). I am going to ask about stainless.


Do us all a favor and make a bunch of them. When my zimmerman rotors go, Ill likely be buying 2 piece


----------



## 20v master (May 7, 2009)

PLAYED TT said:


> I suspect lawsuits if any uninformed buyers start having accidents from them coming apart. And because in the end they approved them for sale (whether proper long term tests were completed or not) they could go under overnight.


"All parts are intended for off road use only and may not be legal depending on local laws to use on public roads" or something or another like that. You wouldn't get very far...


----------



## esoxlucios (Sep 17, 2009)

20v master said:


> "All parts are intended for off road use only and may not be legal depending on local laws to use on public roads" or something or another like that. You wouldn't get very far...


I know a little something about this, and I respectfully disagree. A retailer or manufacturer can't simply sell a product that he knows or reasonably should know will be used for a particular purpose (on road) and then get out of liability with a boiler-plate disclaimer like the one you mention above. Moreover, such a disclaimer does not limit ECS's liability under "strict products liability," which affords protection not only for the buyer, but for all others who are injured, even if they are not in privity of contract. So, for example, if you buy a lawnmower, which is defectively made without a rock guard, and a rock flies out and hits your neighbor, your neighbor may have a claim against the retailer, distributor, and manufacturer of the lawn mower, even `though he didn't buy it.

The only defense ECS might try to assert is "assumption of the risk," but this only applies when one intentionally encounters a *known* risk. In this case, ECS advertised the product as "designed to last a lifetime." I was unaware that they joined two dissimilar metals (aluminum and iron) without a gasket, and I am not a metallurgist (only a car enthusiast). I was unaware that the rotor assemblies would be unsafe to use in nothernn climates for more than one or two years, and reasonably believed they would outlast the OEM assembly. In light of the fact that the rotor hats didn't even outlast the rotors and began corroding long before 31K miles, apparently they're using a monarch butterfly as the measuring life. My incandescent turn signal bulbs have a longer lifespan than the ECS big brake assembly. Again, this is an issue of a breach of the warranty of merchantability (which warrants that a product is fit for its ordinary use and purpose, and which accompanies all products unless that warranty is expressly disclaimed).


----------



## esoxlucios (Sep 17, 2009)

PLAYED TT said:


> In all honesty I would do that. Your best bet isn't to run the risk of them being ruined again. As for ECS this negligence proves their ethics. If anything they need to be recalled or every buyer needs to be informed. I suspect lawsuits if any uninformed buyers start having accidents from them coming apart. And because in the end they approved them for sale (whether proper long term tests were completed or not) they could go under overnight.


They not only approved them for sale, they assembled them there in Ohio. This may mean that ECS has sole liability, because the manufacturers (Source Machine in Minnesota and whoever casts the rotors (probably Coleman in Wisconsin or some vendor in China)) had no role in the assembly process.


----------



## warranty225cpe (Dec 3, 2008)

20v master said:


> "All parts are intended for off road use only and may not be legal depending on local laws to use on public roads" or something or another like that. You wouldn't get very far...


Not once was the "legality of use" mentioned. Your talking out of your ass :laugh:



esoxlucios said:


> I know a little something about this, and I respectfully disagree. A retailer or manufacturer can't simply sell a product that he knows or reasonably should know will be used for a particular purpose (on road) and then get out of liability with a boiler-plate disclaimer like the one you mention above. Moreover, such a disclaimer does not limit ECS's liability under "strict products liability," which affords protection not only for the buyer, but for all others who are injured, even if they are not in privity of contract. So, for example, if you buy a lawnmower, which is defectively made without a rock guard, and a rock flies out and hits your neighbor, your neighbor may have a claim against the retailer, distributor, and manufacturer of the lawn mower, even `though he didn't buy it.
> 
> The only defense ECS might try to assert is "assumption of the risk," but this only applies when one intentionally encounters a *known* risk. In this case, ECS advertised the product as "designed to last a lifetime." I was unaware that they joined two dissimilar metals (aluminum and iron) without a gasket, and I am not a metallurgist (only a car enthusiast). I was unaware that the rotor assemblies would be unsafe to use in nothernn climates for more than one or two years, and reasonably believed they would outlast the OEM assembly. In light of the fact that the rotor hats didn't even outlast the rotors and began corroding long before 31K miles, apparently they're using a monarch butterfly as the measuring life. My incandescent turn signal bulbs have a longer lifespan than the ECS big brake assembly. Again, this is an issue of a breach of the warranty of merchantability (which warrants that a product is fit for its ordinary use and purpose, and which accompanies all products unless that warranty is expressly disclaimed).


ECS should be running off a batch of these at the machine shop out of steel. There really isnt much that would save them if this saw litigation.


----------



## TheDeckMan (Sep 26, 2004)

warranty225cpe said:


> Maybe take your new hats and have some machined. Titanium?


Could be done, but considering what the Boxster adapters are ending up costing.....You could replace drilled rotors every track day for years without ever coming close to the costs.

I normally get 4-6 days out of a set of Brembo or Zimmerman rotors. They are a consumable item and cheap enough for the reliability and ease of change outs.



esoxlucios said:


> Bill at Diversified Cryogenics (a/k/a Frozen Rotors) said he could have Coleman fab them out of steel for about $250 (for the pair). I am going to ask about stainless.


Make sure you get a couple made. Every time the rotor wears out the rotor and hat needs to be replaced together with new ones. One of my instructors had one come apart on his car under full breaking and he almost slammed into a wall at 130! Not something I ever want to experience. 



PLAYED TT said:


> In all honesty I would do that. Your best bet isn't to run the risk of them being ruined again. As for ECS this negligence proves their ethics. If anything they need to be recalled or every buyer needs to be informed. I suspect lawsuits if any uninformed buyers start having accidents from them coming apart. And because in the end they approved them for sale (whether proper long term tests were completed or not) they could go under overnight.


This is the tricky part with companies that create parts for a market without heavy testing experience and without providing explicit install/maintenance guidelines.



20v master said:


> "All parts are intended for off road use only and may not be legal depending on local laws to use on public roads" or something or another like that. You wouldn't get very far...


A B.S line from so many companies that makes me sick. If your going to design something for street and track, do it right.




esoxlucios said:


> The only defense ECS might try to assert is "assumption of the risk," but this only applies when one intentionally encounters a *known* risk. In this case, ECS advertised the product as "designed to last a lifetime." I was unaware that they joined two dissimilar metals (aluminum and iron) without a gasket, and I am not a metallurgist (only a car enthusiast). I was unaware that the rotor assemblies would be unsafe to use in nothernn climates for more than one or two years, and reasonably believed they would outlast the OEM assembly. In light of the fact that the rotor hats didn't even outlast the rotors and began corroding long before 31K miles, apparently they're using a monarch butterfly as the measuring life. My incandescent turn signal bulbs have a longer lifespan than the ECS big brake assembly. Again, this is an issue of a breach of the warranty of merchantability (which warrants that a product is fit for its ordinary use and purpose, and which accompanies all products unless that warranty is expressly disclaimed).


Designed to last a life time on brake components has to be the dumbest thing I have ever heard. Calipers/pads/lines and even hubs wear out. Nothing lasts forever or is 100% bullet proof.


----------



## esoxlucios (Sep 17, 2009)

DeckManDubs said:


> Designed to last a life time on brake components has to be the dumbest thing I have ever heard. Calipers/pads/lines and even hubs wear out. Nothing lasts forever or is 100% bullet proof.


Here's that quote from one of the original versions of the ad (back when I bought the kit). They have since amended the ad to take this language out (probably after receiving notice from me). Hey, Todd McKenney? Reading this? You still represent ECS Tuning?


----------



## TheDeckMan (Sep 26, 2004)

Hard Anodize 4140 Steel :bs:


----------



## 20v master (May 7, 2009)

warranty225cpe said:


> Not once was the "legality of use" mentioned. Your talking out of your ass :laugh:
> 
> 
> 
> ECS should be running off a batch of these at the machine shop out of steel. There really isnt much that would save them *if* this saw litigation.


And if you'RE using it on a public road, then they won't be liable for damages for something that they will claim isn't intended for such use. You only talk out of your ass, I'm used to it. :laugh: So you're a lawyer now? Has anyone begun a suit? :crickets:


----------



## 20v master (May 7, 2009)

DeckManDubs said:


> A B.S line from so many companies that makes me sick. If your going to design something for street and track, do it right.


Yes, but doesn't escape the fact that legal system in the U.S. would allow it to stand up. It's just like the Moss Magnuson Act BS. Yeah, the dealer can't deny coverage for aftermarket stuff, but they sure can make it difficult on you.


----------



## esoxlucios (Sep 17, 2009)

20v master said:


> And if you'RE using it on a public road, then they won't be liable for damages for something that they will claim isn't intended for such use. You only talk out of your ass, I'm used to it. :laugh: So you're a lawyer now? Has anyone begun a suit? :crickets:


Actually, I submitted a demand notice via e-mail to ECS Tuning last night, and notified them of my intent to bring suit based on a warranty breach theory. I am waiting to hear back. If the demand is not met within a reasonable period of time, I will bring the suit in small claims court in Minnesota. I have not yet given thought to a class action on the matter, although one of my colleagues specializes in safety class action suits, and, although there haven't yet been any injuries (that I am aware of), I plan to ask him to look into this matter.


----------



## warranty225cpe (Dec 3, 2008)

20v master said:


> And if you'RE using it on a public road, then they won't be liable for damages for something that they will claim isn't intended for such use. You only talk out of your ass, I'm used to it. :laugh: So you're a lawyer now? Has anyone begun a suit? :crickets:


LOl, because you know me SO well.. I wish herpes upon you and your family. :wave:

Dont be shy next time your in town. Id love to discuss our differences in person :heart:


----------



## warranty225cpe (Dec 3, 2008)

esoxlucios said:


> Actually, I submitted a demand notice via e-mail to ECS Tuning last night, and notified them of my intent to bring suit based on a warranty breach theory. I am waiting to hear back. If the demand is not met within a reasonable period of time, I will bring the suit in small claims court in Minnesota. I have not yet given thought to a class action on the matter, although one of my colleagues specializes in safety class action suits, and, although there haven't yet been any injuries (that I am aware of), I plan to ask him to look into this matter.


Make sure you spell check or the troll will get you :laugh:


----------



## 20v master (May 7, 2009)

esoxlucios said:


> Actually, I submitted a demand notice via e-mail to ECS Tuning last night, and notified them of my intent to bring suit based on a warranty breach theory. I am waiting to hear back. If the demand is not met within a reasonable period of time, I will bring the suit in small claims court in Minnesota. I have not yet given thought to a class action on the matter, although one of my colleagues specializes in safety class action suits, and, although there haven't yet been any injuries (that I am aware of), I plan to ask him to look into this matter.


Small claims? For a pair of rotors? :banghead: So you'll have had a lawsuit against Imola and now ECS too? Maybe modding cars isn't your thing. Good luck with your settlements. 



warranty225cpe said:


> LOl, because you know me SO well.. I wish herpes upon you and your family. :wave:
> 
> Dont be shy next time your in town. Id love to discuss our differences in person :heart:


Oh look, another insinuation of violence, but you left out the "angry typing" and gif. What next, a brag about your confirmed kills? How many other wishes of yours don't come true? I'd guess a lot. :laugh: And it wasn't being shy, you're simply just not as important (read: not worth the time) to me as you think you are. :heart:


----------



## 20v master (May 7, 2009)

warranty225cpe said:


> Make sure you spell check or the troll will get you :laugh:


Spell check doesn't get "your" and "you're." Somehow, neither do you, sort of like you don't understand the meaning of troll. I don't intentionally try to instigate rage in you, it just happens naturally. :laugh: 

Since we're on the subject, how do you know if the Defcon inserts I sent you were clear annodized? Do you think there is galvanic corrosion going on in your control arms as we speak? Are you going to sue me for liability? :laugh:


----------



## esoxlucios (Sep 17, 2009)

20v master said:


> Small claims? For a pair of rotors? :banghead: So you'll have had a lawsuit against Imola and now ECS too? Maybe modding cars isn't your thing. Good luck with your settlements.


Good luck? Really? You don't sound like you're in a well-wishing mood. Ever.

Modding cars is my thing. Being sold junk parts or services for a premium price by vendors or shops that don't back up their claims is, however, not my thing.

A small claims case is a total investment of about 90 minutes, including drive time. I recovered almost $4K of my money from Imola. If I did things your way, however, I would have recovered nothing. I also succeeded in making a record and making a point that others (customers or shops) may have learned something from (yourself excluded, of course).


----------



## warranty225cpe (Dec 3, 2008)

20v master said:


> Spell check doesn't get "your" and "you're." Somehow, neither do you, sort of like you don't understand the meaning of troll. I don't intentionally try to instigate rage in you, it just happens naturally. :laugh:
> 
> Since we're on the subject, how do you know if the Defcon inserts I sent you were clear annodized? Do you think there is galvanic corrosion going on in your control arms as we speak? Are you going to sue me for liability? :laugh:


LOl, you mean the inserts you finally sent me after emailing and PMing you for over a month without a response? Those? The ones you told me you anodized "clear"? Yeah, I realized you were full of sh!t... And?


----------



## warranty225cpe (Dec 3, 2008)

esoxlucios said:


> Good luck? Really? You don't sound like you're in a well-wishing mood. Ever.
> 
> Modding cars is my thing. Being sold junk parts or services for a premium price by vendors or shops that don't back up their claims is, however, not my thing. A small claims case is a total investment of about 90 minutes, including drive time. I recovered almost $4K of my money from Imola. If we did things your way, however, I would have recovered nothing. I also succeeded in making a record and making a point that others (customers or shops) may have learned something from (yourself excluded, of course).


Dont mind him. He is plagued with d!ckheaditis. Hes bitter because nobody likes him. His attitude has netted him a great reputation as you can see. Maybe we should all pitch in and get him a hooker. Poor boy needs some :heart:

Some people will never learn that all the knowledge in the world wont help you if you are an insufferable @sshole:wave::laugh:


----------



## warranty225cpe (Dec 3, 2008)

esoxlucios said:


> Good luck? Really? You don't sound like you're in a well-wishing mood. Ever.
> 
> Modding cars is my thing. Being sold junk parts or services for a premium price by vendors or shops that don't back up their claims is, however, not my thing.
> 
> A small claims case is a total investment of about 90 minutes, including drive time. I recovered almost $4K of my money from Imola. If I did things your way, however, I would have recovered nothing. I also succeeded in making a record and making a point that others (customers or shops) may have learned something from (yourself excluded, of course).


Its not worth explaining to him why hes wrong or an @sshole. Didnt you know, he knows everything..? 

Adam, youre such a little bitch. I bet your vagina has a vagina:laugh:


----------



## esoxlucios (Sep 17, 2009)

20v master said:


> Small claims? For a pair of rotors? :banghead: So you'll have had a lawsuit against Imola and now ECS too? Maybe modding cars isn't your thing. Good luck with your settlements.


I'd like to also point out that, since I picked up this car in 2006, I've spent $35K in mods (excludes maintenance, painting, tires, _etc._). In that time, I've necessarily dealt with a lot of vendors, a lot of parts orders, and numerous shops. And the vast majority of those transactions went smoothly.

As with any big or continuing job, not everything does go smoothly. What separates the good vendors from the bad are those who stand behind their products and claims, and who take the effort to make things right, even when it means taking a part back or incurring a loss. Peloquin is such a vendor. ECS Tuning, conversely, is not such a vendor, in my experience. All they had to do was ask to see the rotor hats, draw an informed conclusion, offer to replace them, and assemble them in a manner that doesn't create an electro-chemical galvanic reaction that is guaranteed to self-destruct the product in less than 30K miles of ordinary use. The total loss, at their wholesale pricing, to rectify this situation, would only have been about $150-200. And I'm the petty jerk?


----------



## warranty225cpe (Dec 3, 2008)

esoxlucios said:


> I'd like to also point out that, since I picked up this car in 2006, I've spent $35K in mods (excludes maintenance, painting, tires, _etc._). In that time, I've necessarily dealt with a lot of vendors, a lot of parts orders, and numerous shops. And the vast majority of those transactions went smoothly.
> 
> As with any big or continuing job, not everything does go smoothly. What separates the good vendors from the bad are those who stand behind their products and claims, and who take the effort to make things right, even when it means taking a part back or incurring a loss. Peloquin is such a vendor. ECS Tuning, conversely, is not such a vendor, in my experience. All they had to do was ask to see the rotor hats, draw an informed conclusion, offer to replace them, and assemble them in a manner that doesn't create an electro-chemical galvanic reaction that is guaranteed to self-destruct the product in less than 30K miles of ordinary use. The total loss, at their wholesale pricing, to rectify this situation, would only have been about $150-200. And I'm the petty jerk?


Dont mind him. He gets off on thinking hes the smartest guy in the room. Talking down to people makes him feel good about himself.


----------



## ECS Tuning (Oct 2, 2006)

ECS Tuning has considered "esoxlucios" claim and has worked diligently to address his concerns. ECS Tuning values our reputation as a respected and trusted supplier and manufacturer of European automotive parts. As always, we have been responsive to reasonable concerns regarding our product lines.

If any other members have concerns or questions please contact ECS Tuning at 1.800.924.5172 or online at www.ecstuning.com.


----------



## PLAYED TT (Oct 17, 2010)

And once again everyone needs to fight :facepalm:. If only we could have one good thread not go to ****....people's safety>Internet egos


----------



## esoxlucios (Sep 17, 2009)

ECS Tuning said:


> ECS Tuning has considered "esoxlucios" claim and has worked diligently to address his concerns. ECS Tuning values our reputation as a respected and trusted supplier and manufacturer of European automotive parts. As always, we have been responsive to reasonable concerns regarding our product lines.
> 
> If any other members have concerns or questions please contact ECS Tuning at 1.800.924.5172 or online at www.ecstuning.com.


Yes, it's true, ECS Tuning "worked diligently to address [my] concerns." They sold me a replacement rotor and hat set and collected another $750 from me (I paid $1,600 for the kit only 31K miles ago).

If any other members have concerns or questions please contact ECS Tuning at 1.800.924.5172 or online at www.ecstuning.com, and please have your credit card out and at the ready.


----------



## TheDeckMan (Sep 26, 2004)

esoxlucios said:


> Yes, it's true, ECS Tuned "worked diligently to address [my] concerns." They sold me a replacement rotor and hat set and collected another $750 from me (I paid $1,600 for the kit only 31K miles ago).
> .


I would suggest perhaps switching to the stock rotors with the Boxsters :beer: 30-40k with good pads will not be an issue and no loose rotor issues.



PLAYED TT said:


> And once again everyone needs to fight :facepalm:. If only we could have one good thread not go to ****....people's safety>Internet egos


Agreed. Safety comes #1, this is an issue that people that are not involved in Motorsports should be aware of. 

Magnesium or steel hats would be preferred in my experience. But I'll take a solid rotor unless I am running Grand AM endurance racing. At which point the right materials are only a small price in the big picture. 

I hope everything gets resolved without issue :beer:


----------



## esoxlucios (Sep 17, 2009)

DeckManDubs said:


> I would suggest perhaps switching to the stock rotors with the Boxsters :beer: 30-40k with good pads will not be an issue and no loose rotor issues. . . I hope everything gets resolved without issue :beer:


Thanks.

AFAIK, the stock rotors won't work with these calipers at all. Not only different diameter rotors, but also different offset from the hub. I'd have to go back to OEM calipers, which means that I wasted $1,600 on ECS Tuning's "designed to last a lifetime" BBK (after only 31K miles). Likewise, I assume Porsche rotors won't fit either because of offset, bolt pattern, or both.

That's the whole point: not only has ECS put an product out there with a manufacturing defect that will ultimately lead to safety issues (failure of the rotor hat), but they also put a product out there that they implied would be supported indefinitely, and only five years later have abandoned. I.e., you cannot buy replacement friction rings any more —you'd have to have them custom-machined from Coleman or a Chinese vendor. 

Why would anyone buy their $1,700 Stage 5 kit (unless they planned to keep the car for less than a few years, and pass the problem on to the successor buyer)?

Regarding ECS Tuning's claim to a reputation as a trusted and reliable supplier, I think these facts speak for themselves.


----------



## warranty225cpe (Dec 3, 2008)

Anyone know if Willwood makes a stock sized rotor? Their rotors are pretty light weight, and would probably go well with a pair of boxster calipers.


Yup, around $1100 for the kit. Not sure on rotors alone. I'll probably pick these up when mine are done.


----------



## TheDeckMan (Sep 26, 2004)

esoxlucios said:


> Thanks.
> 
> AFAIK, the stock rotors won't work with these calipers at all. Not only different diameter rotors, but also different offset from the hub. I'd have to go back to OEM calipers, which means that I wasted $1,600 on ECS Tuning's "designed to last a lifetime" BBK (after only 31K miles). Likewise, I assume Porsche rotors won't fit either because of offset, bolt pattern, or both.


If the calipers are 986.351.421/422 then they will work with stock rotors, the carriers will most likely have to be changed to Neuspeed ones, which can be sourced from Four Seasons. 




warranty225cpe said:


> Anyone know if Willwood makes a stock sized rotor? Their rotors are pretty light weight, and would probably go well with a pair of boxster calipers.
> Yup, around $1100 for the kit. Not sure on rotors alone. I'll probably pick these up when mine are done.


Wilwood makes lots of different stuff. But for street use I would not use anything without seals, unless you dont mind regular rebuilds bi-annually. The savings from running a floating rotor is not really worth the $$$ in my experience at the track, more of causing more problems and increasing running costs for very little payback. The biggest advantage is the thermo control they aid in keeping your hubs and wheel bearings from seeing higher temps (Really only applies to intense track driving where rotor temps can regularly run 850*F+)


----------



## deepblueT (Jan 26, 2008)

if it helps for argument sake, i have had this kit (and the rear kit) for a number of years now, all but the last 2 months in the Pennsylvania climate, used on a daily driver...with little more than a rust ring where there shouldn't be one. no other signs of wear, stress, or decompisition to my materials....


----------



## exboy99 (May 14, 2002)

*what happened to Vortex?*

I thought I'd drop in and see what's happening and am like.... what?

this giant thread is all about a guy that doesn't like what he got from ECS
and how he's going to sue so he can stroke his ego? 

I get that you feel sore about it but modding/upgrading a car is not cheap
and your expectation that it could/should last forever is not reasonable.

I think your mistake was that you didn't spend time enjoying your car.... I have no idea really.

is this really what the message board has become? 

I'm going to keep browsing, maybe someone has a cool build going or something fun.


----------



## warranty225cpe (Dec 3, 2008)

exboy99 said:


> I thought I'd drop in and see what's happening and am like.... what?
> 
> this giant thread is all about a guy that doesn't like what he got from ECS
> and how he's going to sue so he can stroke his ego?
> ...


This was a claim by the manufacturer, not the OP. Sounds like you might be talking out of your ass like 20vDoucher.


----------



## Raek (Aug 1, 2003)

exboy99 said:


> I'm going to keep browsing, maybe someone has a cool build going or something fun.



Nah, it's mostly threads that start off promising, then end in a turbulent soup of vagina tears and bickering. Apparently, people have more time to berate each other and chest puff than they do to help each other in constructive ways.


----------



## 20v master (May 7, 2009)

warranty225cpe said:


> LOl, you mean the inserts you finally sent me after emailing and PMing you for over a month without a response? Those? The ones you told me you anodized "clear"? Yeah, I realized you were full of sh!t... And?


No, they were annodized clear, but if you really thought they weren't, you'd be whining about the safety concern they caused. 



warranty225cpe said:


> Dont mind him. He is plagued with d!ckheaditis. Hes bitter because nobody likes him. His attitude has netted him a great reputation as you can see. Maybe we should all pitch in and get him a hooker. Poor boy needs some :heart:
> 
> Some people will never learn that all the knowledge in the world wont help you if you are an insufferable @sshole:wave::laugh:


Last I checked, I don't need and haven't asked for your help, with anything. *Edit* Almost forgot, no hookers for me, my wife takes care of that department on the regular. 



warranty225cpe said:


> Its not worth explaining to him why hes wrong or an @sshole. Didnt you know, he knows everything..?
> 
> Adam, youre such a little bitch. I bet your vagina has a vagina:laugh:


I bet you think up these insults while you lay in bed at night. "Aha, that's a good one! I'll post it tomorrow!" 



warranty225cpe said:


> Dont mind him. He gets off on thinking hes the smartest guy in the room. Talking down to people makes him feel good about himself.


No, not really. I feel fine about myself whether you provide me with laughs or not. 



warranty225cpe said:


> This was a claim by the manufacturer, not the OP. Sounds like you might be talking out of your ass like 20vDoucher.


Three days later, and you're still ranting mad about my comments. Five posts about me, to me, and attempting to belittle me (which somehow, you still don't grasp that I don't care what you think) since I last posted.....I think I live in your head. Good thing there is plenty of room in there, and it's rent free! I did have a great weekend though. Apparently, you thought about me all weekend. :heart:



esoxlucios said:


> If I did things your way, however, I would have recovered nothing.


No, if you did it my way, you would have done it yourself, correctly, the first time. Then you went and repurchased another set of rotors knowing the issue that is a huge safety risk as you claim?  :facepalm:


----------



## warranty225cpe (Dec 3, 2008)

exboy99 said:


> I thought I'd drop in and see what's happening and am like.... what?
> 
> this giant thread is all about a guy that doesn't like what he got from ECS
> and how he's going to sue so he can stroke his ego?
> ...





20v master said:


> No, they were annodized clear, but if you really thought they weren't, you'd be whining about the safety concern they caused.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


LOl, nice dude. Quite a novel you've got there. Looks like you've put quite the effort into this. And *Im* preoccupied thinking about *you*? :laugh:

Douchebag


----------



## esoxlucios (Sep 17, 2009)

20v master said:


> . . . if you did it my way, you would have done it yourself, correctly, the first time. Then you went and repurchased another set of rotors knowing the issue that is a huge safety risk as you claim?  :facepalm:


Regarding the Imola disaster, you appear to have much more time on your hands than me. Whenever possible, I try to do my own work. The extent and complexity of that build was beyond my abilities, and I explained that to you in the other thread last year. You seem to be unable or unwilling to respect when someone knows their limitations.

Regarding the rotors purchased to replace the self-destructed ones: if you read the posts, you'd know that the primary defect is in the manufacture — the failure to isolate the aluminum from the iron with gaskets, and not likely an inherent safety defect in the design. This means only that I need to disassemble them, treat them, insert gaskets, and reassemble, and I should get more than 31K miles.


----------



## Marcus_Aurelius (Mar 1, 2012)

Raek said:


> Apparently, people have more time to berate each other and chest puff than they do to help each other in constructive ways.


But what to do when any technical, constructive help with no BS is viewed as showing "superiority"? I feel that everything posted in here nowadays need to be watered down, sugar coated, and posted in a selective fashion not to offend someone. I never felt before that I needed to sort through threads that I can post, help, or simply voice my opinion, but there has been a shift in membership and the MK forum mentality has taken over. This forum used to be a place where members knew each other by name, enjoyed technical discussions as well, and were all about these cars that we love and own with some level of respect. Unfortunately, now it's all about .....(insert your favorite non-offensive numb down talk and bickering about nonsense). Now back to regular scheduled programming!


----------



## warranty225cpe (Dec 3, 2008)

exboy99 said:


> I thought I'd drop in and see what's happening and am like.... what?
> 
> this giant thread is all about a guy that doesn't like what he got from ECS
> and how he's going to sue so he can stroke his ego?
> ...





Marcus_Aurelius said:


> But what to do when any technical, constructive help with no BS is viewed as showing "superiority"? I feel that everything posted in here nowadays need to be watered down, sugar coated, and posted in a selective fashion not to offend someone. I never felt before that I needed to sort through threads that I can post, help, or simply voice my opinion, but there has been a shift in membership and the MK forum mentality has taken over. This forum used to be a place where members knew each other by name, enjoyed technical discussions as well, and were all about these cars that we love and own with some level of respect. Unfortunately, now it's all about .....(insert your favorite non-offensive numb down talk and bickering about nonsense). Now back to regular scheduled programming!


Sorry Max. I hear where your coming from. I guess I just lack the ability to let D-bags like Adam talk down to people without saying something. Condescending pricks like him are only successful with that attitude in forums like this. Life would be too short for an idiot like that to talk that trash to people in person. Just sayin


----------



## esoxlucios (Sep 17, 2009)

exboy99 said:


> . . . modding/upgrading a car is not cheap
> and your expectation that it could/should last forever is not reasonable.


I've spent $35K and countless hours until 4am upgrading this car, and therefore have as much insight into how expensive as you or anyone else here might have.

When I pay $1,600 for a BBK, I don't expect it to last forever. I expect pads to wear out in maybe 40K miles, followed by rotors eventually — perhaps 50K, 70K, depending on the pads, assuming no track events. I expect calipers to need to be rebuilt — perhaps in 100K.

Above all, I expect the one non-wear item —the hats— to last longer than 20K miles; to last longer than a turn signal bulb.

And when they cannot outlast a turn signal bulb solely because the retailer who assembled them lacked the basic knowledge and foresight to properly assemble two dissimilar metals for use on an automotive application, I expect that reseller who collected that $1,600, who's still in business, and who's solvent, to do what's right and honor the warranty of merchantability, and to establish a reputation as an honorable merchant (other than posting to this thread a conclusory statement that it is a trusted and reliable retailer).

I think that's what is "reasonable."


----------



## rstolz (Jun 16, 2009)

"Designed for a Lifetime" is a marketing statement nothing more, no warranty implied.

same way VAG says their trans fluid is "lifetime." Without stating what the lifetime is, it's worthless gibberish. There are thousands of other similar references. 

The parts were manufactured just fine, the lack of a gasket is a missing component of the kit, not a manufacturing defect. Bad material selection is jsut that, still not a mfr defect.

Displays stupidity maybe and opened the door for possible customer complaints, but that doesn't make it a mfr defect. 

If I buy a piece of furniture and it requires screws to put together but they're not included I don't run off and claim a manufacturing defect for not including the screws... I swear a few times then drive to the hardware store.


----------



## esoxlucios (Sep 17, 2009)

rstolz said:


> "Designed for a Lifetime" is a marketing statement nothing more, no warranty implied.


I tend to agree. Courts call this "puffery." And, as explained above, I didn't expect every kit component to "last a lifetime." But when, taken as a whole, you combine this with ECSs' many other statements [in the BBK ads] about quality materials, designed and manufactured in-house, and other claims, they create an assertion of build quality and durability that creates a reasonable expectation on the customers' part that the product is superior to OEM and should last as least as long, and that it wasn't manufactured in such a way that it would self destruct under ordinary usage.

Do you really think it's reasonable that the hats lasted only about 20K miles?



rstolz said:


> The parts were manufactured just fine, the lack of a gasket is a missing component of the kit, not a manufacturing defect. Bad material selection is jsut that, still not a mfr defect..


This is an incorrect statement of the law. Bad materials section is a design defect, and arguably that's happened here (no defect if steel hats were specified). But the design defect could be overcome with a compensating control — isolation. The failure to do so was a manufacturing defect. The failure to advise consumers of this safety issue is a failure-to-warn defect under strict products liability.



rstolz said:


> If I buy a piece of furniture and it requires screws to put together but they're not included I don't run off and claim a manufacturing defect for not including the screws... I swear a few times then drive to the hardware store.


I disagree. Your analogy of missing screws in an Ikea furniture kit doesn't work well here. Consumers are not expected to be metallurgists and to disassemble and correctly reassemble brake rotor assemblies that have been ostensibly indexed and torqued at the "factory." Just to prove that point to you, alone, answer this, without looking up on the Internet: to join 7076 aluminum alloy (assuming ECS was being truthful) and cast iron, would you use a copper anti-seize on the gasket to help prevent galvanic corrosion, a nickel-based anti-seize, or no anti-seize? The answer requires a bit more knowledge then determining what size wood screws were omitted in your furniture kit. And, where would you get your gasket from? Auto Zone? Pep Boys? What's the part number? Don't have one? Okay, what might you make your gasket out of — that's dielectric, that can withstand rotor temperatures and water, salt, and brake dust?

Is this really the sort of information an ordinary consumer should know and inspect a brake kit for? Isn't that what you're paying $1,600 for — for the manufacturer to do the due diligence?


----------



## rstolz (Jun 16, 2009)

is this where you bust out "lawyered!"

And i turn around and walk away shaking my head with a smirk, because you don't know what a manufacturing defect is...

yup


“Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.” ― Mark Twain


----------



## esoxlucios (Sep 17, 2009)

rstolz said:


> is this where you bust out "lawyered!"
> 
> And i turn around and walk away shaking my head with a smirk, because you don't know what a manufacturing defect is...
> 
> ...


"Yup." That about sums up the brilliance of your riposte.

The fact that you've resorted to ad hominem insults suggests defensiveness because you know my points are valid.

From Blacks Law Dictionary: 

Product defect. An imperfection in a product that has a manufacturing defect or design defect, or is faulty because of inadequate instructions or warnings. See manufacturing defect; design defect; marketing defect.

Design defect. An imperfection occurring when the seller or distributor could have reduced or avoided a foreseeable risk of harm by adopting a reasonable alternative design, and when, as a result of not using the alternative, the product or property is not reasonably safe.

Manufacturing defect. An imperfection in a product that departs from its intended design even though all possible care was exercised in its assembly.

Marketing defect. 1. The failure to adequately warn of a potential risk of harm that is known or should have been known about a product or its foreseeable use. 2. The failure to adequately instruct the user about how to use a product safely.

Thus, whether the defect was a design or manufacturing all depends on whether ECS intended to isolate the dissimilar metals in the first place, but a defect nonetheless.

You never said which anti- seize paste to use, or where to get the gasket.


----------



## rstolz (Jun 16, 2009)

"yup" is "yup." How you read into it is your prerogative. I did not know you were a psychoanalyst AND a lawyer... 

I cannot answer your question on paste. The question denies the means to attain the answer. If I don't know the answer, and you deny me the means to finding it, how can I answer?

This must be what good old Mark was talking about.


----------



## esoxlucios (Sep 17, 2009)

rstolz said:


> "yup" is "yup." How you read into it is your prerogative. I did not know you were a psychoanalyst AND a lawyer...
> 
> This must be what good old Mark was talking about.


If only Samuel Clemens (Mark Twain) had said it. He didn't. You were misquoting Greg King ("Don’t argue with idiots because they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience"). According to ToastMaster.org, "Attributing a saying to Mark Twain without confirming it makes a 'hollow place' in your speech, because what you are really doing is confessing that you have no idea where this came from ..." http://www.toastmasters.org/Toastma.../2007/June/Departments/LookingatLanguage.aspx

Perhaps a better one for you to consider adopting is, "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt" (also frequently misattributed to Twain or Lincoln).


----------



## PLAYED TT (Oct 17, 2010)

I agree with max on this one. And somehow suing went from "realizing the design flaw and warning everyone who purchased" to retards thinking "free money!!!" Or "only d-bags sue!!!!" Once again people's safety>Internet egos. Grow the **** up all of you. I can honestly say this forum is going to **** and if you guys don't calm down it's going to turn into the same 5 people posting bull **** and taking stabs at each other's egos.


----------



## esoxlucios (Sep 17, 2009)

PLAYED TT said:


> I agree with max on this one. And somehow suing went from "realizing the design flaw and warning everyone who purchased" to retards thinking "free money!!!" Or "only d-bags sue!!!!" Once again people's safety>Internet egos. Grow the **** up all of you. I can honestly say this forum is going to **** and if you guys don't calm down it's going to turn into the same 5 people posting bull **** and taking stabs at each other's egos.


Regarding the criticism (much further up in the thread) of a seemingly-silly suit over a pair of rotors, I want to point something out: One lawyer I respect greatly once told me that, if you're going to sue over principle, make sure it's for "principal and interest." On the other hand, I see this as a safety issue, and the role of class actions in modern society is to aggregate many claims, which individually might be very small, into one large case that has the effect of bringing powerful companies to account (anyone here recall the instrument cluster or coil-packs class actions against Audi?). And, although class actions and negligence suits certainly do increase business operating costs (E&O insurance, legal fees, _etc._), but they also cause companies to do more R&D and due diligence, because they are aware of the accountability exposure. R&D and due diligence saves lives. And, even where a class action is not sustained, even just engaging in debate and subjecting the matter to the forum of public opinion (like this one) can bring attention to a potentially important matter, and cause companies to take responsibility for issues that, otherwise, they might not do.


----------



## ECS Tuning (Oct 2, 2006)

As we have always demonstrated, ECS Tuning takes a great deal of care in supporting its products and addressing customers’ concerns. No other customer has contacted ECS Tuning with similar claims as made in this forum regarding alleged failure of the rotors supplied by ECS Tuning. We have requested that the customer send the rotors to ECS Tuning for further inspection.

If any other members have concerns or questions please contact ECS Tuning at 1.800.924.5172 or online at www.ecstuning.com.


----------



## speed51133! (Aug 5, 2002)

esoxlucios said:


> I know a little something about this, and I respectfully disagree. A retailer or manufacturer can't simply sell a product that he knows or reasonably should know will be used for a particular purpose (on road) and then get out of liability with a boiler-plate disclaimer like the one you mention above. Moreover, such a disclaimer does not limit ECS's liability under "strict products liability," which affords protection not only for the buyer, but for all others who are injured, even if they are not in privity of contract. So, for example, if you buy a lawnmower, which is defectively made without a rock guard, and a rock flies out and hits your neighbor, your neighbor may have a claim against the retailer, distributor, and manufacturer of the lawn mower, even `though he didn't buy it.
> 
> The only defense ECS might try to assert is "assumption of the risk," but this only applies when one intentionally encounters a *known* risk. In this case, ECS advertised the product as "designed to last a lifetime." I was unaware that they joined two dissimilar metals (aluminum and iron) without a gasket, and I am not a metallurgist (only a car enthusiast). I was unaware that the rotor assemblies would be unsafe to use in nothernn climates for more than one or two years, and reasonably believed they would outlast the OEM assembly. In light of the fact that the rotor hats didn't even outlast the rotors and began corroding long before 31K miles, apparently they're using a monarch butterfly as the measuring life. My incandescent turn signal bulbs have a longer lifespan than the ECS big brake assembly. Again, this is an issue of a breach of the warranty of merchantability (which warrants that a product is fit for its ordinary use and purpose, and which accompanies all products unless that warranty is expressly disclaimed).


"If someone got hurt because of a manufacturing defect, then all the manufacturers, suppliers, and retailers responsible for inserting the product "into the stream of commerce" would be strictly liable for the injuries caused thereby."

YOU ARE ASSUMING THAT THERE WAS A MANUFACTURING DEFECT!

AND, if you are going to remove a car manufacturer's brakes, which is a BIG safety item, and replace with aftermarket ones, that are probably NOT DOT approved, you are ASSuming the risk. You SHOULD have known that,,,

Mountain, meet molehill. Did anyone get hurt (butthurt no count)? No. Who is to say it wouldn't last "a lifetime".


----------



## speed51133! (Aug 5, 2002)

esoxlucios said:


> Regarding the criticism (much further up in the thread) of a seemingly-silly suit over a pair of rotors, I want to point something out: One lawyer I respect greatly once told me that, if you're going to sue over principal, make sure it's for "principle and interest." On the other hand, I see this as a safety issue, and the role of class actions in modern society is to aggregate many claims, which individually might be very small, into one large case that has the effect of bringing powerful companies to account (anyone here recall the instrument cluster or coil-packs class actions against Audi?). And, although class actions and negligence suits certainly do increase business operating costs (E&O insurance, legal fees, _etc._), but they also cause companies to do more R&D and due diligence, because they are aware of the accountability exposure. R&D and due diligence saves lives. And, even where a class action is not sustained, even just engaging in debate and subjecting the matter to the forum of public opinion (like this one) can bring attention to a potentially important matter, and cause companies to take responsibility for issues that, otherwise, they might not do.


first finish law school buddy....

what are you going to sue for? the cost of a new hat at best. even that is a stretch. your hats still work. you admitted to not being a metallurgy expert. all of the sudden you are an expert as to how much material there can be for the hat to be safe?

a class action suit? bwahahah! go grab your gilbert's and list for me the prongs necessary to establish a class action. thank you for being the white knight suing to protect people from ECS's alleged gross negligence.


----------



## speed51133! (Aug 5, 2002)

esoxlucios said:


> "Yup." That about sums up the brilliance of your riposte.
> 
> The fact that you've resorted to ad hominem insults suggests defensiveness because you know my points are valid.
> 
> ...


Blacks law is only a secondary authority at best....


----------



## esoxlucios (Sep 17, 2009)

speed51133! said:


> first finish law school buddy....


I graduated law school with honors. Thanks for your opinion.


----------



## esoxlucios (Sep 17, 2009)

speed51133! said:


> "If someone got hurt because of a manufacturing defect, then all the manufacturers, suppliers, and retailers responsible for inserting the product "into the stream of commerce" would be strictly liable for the injuries caused thereby."
> 
> YOU ARE ASSUMING THAT THERE WAS A MANUFACTURING DEFECT!
> 
> AND, if you are going to remove a car manufacturer's brakes, which is a BIG safety item, and replace with aftermarket ones, that are probably NOT DOT approved, you are ASSuming the risk. You SHOULD have known that . . .


No, I'm not assuming there was a defect. I'm alleging there was a defect. I am saying that —as some others here have agreed— aluminum alloy should never be mated up to iron in an automotive application that is subject to salt and water. Basic knowledge that an aftermarket parts manufacturer knew or reasonably should have known.

Second, you assert (in a very disrespectful tone) that removing an OEM brake kit and replacing with a "NOT DOT approved" kit is prima facie evidence of an assumption of the risk. You could certainly make that argument, but to do so would mean that replacing OEM pads with aftermarket pads assumes a KNOWN risk of death or injury from a crash that the owner voluntarily encounters, and therefore pad manufacturers have no liability. I haven't done any case law research on that issue, but I have a feeling that's not how the courts have come down on this issue. Likewise, if I replace a lightbulb from Home Depot with a non UL-listed bulb, and it blows up, cuts me, and sprays poisonous mercury throughout the room, I highly doubt that strict liability would not apply to the retailer or manufacturer. For assumption of the risk to be a valid defense, defendant must show that plaintiff knew and appreciated the risk caused by the product defect and also that plaintiff voluntarily assumed that risk, even though it was unreasonable to do so. That is not the case here with owners who have purchased the ECS kits, and I doubt that ECS would now assert that such purchasers have assumed such a risk (because to do so would be to concede that the product is not safe). Other defenses to strict liability include commonly-known danger (danger commonly known by the general public), knowledgable user (user is aware of the defect), or product misuse (product was used in a way for which is was not designed, and such misuse was not reasonably foreseeable to defendant such that defendant would be required to safeguard against it). None of these defenses apply here.


----------



## speed51133! (Aug 5, 2002)

esoxlucios said:


> No, I'm not assuming there was a defect. I'm alleging there was a defect. I am saying that —as some others here have agreed— aluminum alloy should never be mated up to iron in an automotive application that is subject to salt and water. Basic knowledge that an aftermarket parts manufacturer knew or reasonably should have known.
> 
> Second, your assert (in a very disrespectful tone) that removing an OEM brake kit and replacing with a "NOT DOT approved" kit is prima facie evidence of an assumption of the risk. You could certainly make that argument, but to do so would mean that replacing OEM pads with aftermarket pads assumes a KNOWN risk of death or injury from a crash that the owner voluntarily encounters, and therefore pad manufacturers have no liability. I haven't done any case law research on that issue, but I have a feeling that's not how the courts have come down on this issue. Likewise, if I replace a lightbulb from Home Depot with a non UL-listed bulb, and it blows up, cuts me, and sprays poisonous mercury throughout the room, I highly doubt that strict liability would not apply to the retailer or manufacturer. For assumption of the risk to be a valid defense, defendant must show that plaintiff knew and appreciated the risk caused by the product defect and also that plaintiff voluntarily assumed that risk, even though it was unreasonable to do so. That is not the case here with owners who have purchased the ECS kits, and I doubt that ECS would now assert that such purchasers have assumed such a risk (because to do so would be to concede that the product is not safe). Other defenses to strict liability include commonly-known danger (danger commonly known by the general public), knowledgable user (user is aware of the defect), or product misuse (product was used in a way for which is was not designed, and such misuse was not reasonably foreseeable to defendant such that defendant would be required to safeguard against it). None of these defenses apply here.


compare apples to apples buddy...

First of all any braking components MUST be DOT approved to be legal for use on an interstate or federal highway.

UL approval for a light bulb? UL is an independent company, not a governmental authority.

http://www.hoseandfittingsetc.com/our-blog/bid/48794/ Food for thought. I understand this is for LINES. I am GUESSING the same would apply to brake pads/rotors/calipers.

What is the difference between lines that are “DOT compliant” and “DOT approved”?
The United States Department of Transportation (DOT) has established numerous standards for automotive components and subsystems. The regulation for brake hoses happens to be FMVSS106. In this document, anything and everything pertaining to automotive brake hoses has been laid out in gory detail – at least, those things important to the federal government.
If a manufacturer claims their SS lines are “DOT compliant”, it means that their SS lines have passed all FMVSS106 requirements, and they have submitted the test data to the government for official certification. This does not mean they are acceptable for use on your car, but it does mean they pass the government minimum standards.
Another term you may hear in this context is “DOT approved.” However, the DOT is not in the business of actually approving or disproving compliance – they don't typically run any tests on aftermarket components themselves. Under these circumstances, one can only surmise that these manufacturers are trying to state that their lines are actually “DOT compliant”, but it never hurts to ask before you buy.


----------



## esoxlucios (Sep 17, 2009)

speed51133! said:


> You admitted to not being a metallurgy expert. All of the sudden you are an expert as to how much material there can be for the hat to be safe? . . . Did anyone get hurt? . . . No. Who is to say it wouldn't last "a lifetime?"


 [punctuation and capitalization added].

So, first you suggest that those folks who install big brake kits have knowingly assumed the risk of serious injury or death (to self and others on the road) by installing such kits, but now you suggest that I shouldn't be concerned about cracks extending over to the bobbin holes (where the hat is fastened to the rotor), and should put it back on the car and quit my whining and run with it. Wow. I think I need a couple of minutes just to ponder the paradox and folly of your positions.


----------



## esoxlucios (Sep 17, 2009)

speed51133! said:


> Blacks law is only a secondary authority at best....


I'm sorry, is Blacks not authoritative enough for black letter law for you? Do I really need to quote Corbin on Contracts (warranty) and Prosser & Keeton on Torts? Are we exchanging legal briefs here, where I should be citing case law from the Eighth Circuit (my jurisdiction, where a putative suit would be brought)?

You're being ridiculous. Move on.


----------



## speed51133! (Aug 5, 2002)

esoxlucios said:


> [punctuation and capitalization added].
> 
> So, first you suggest that those folks who install big brake kits have knowingly assumed the risk of serious injury or death (to self and others on the road) by installing such kits, but now you suggest that I shouldn't be concerned about cracks extending over to the bobbin holes (where the hat is fastened to the rotor), and should put it back on the car and quit my whining and run with it. Wow. I think I need a couple of minutes just to ponder the paradox and folly of your positions.


people who install braking parts that are NOT DOT compliant know, OR SHOULD KNOW, of the associated risks. ignorance and stupidity is not a "get out of jail free card" for assuming the risk.

I am also saying what damage has been done? how do you know what is safe or not? you admitted to basically not knowing anything about metallurgy.


----------



## esoxlucios (Sep 17, 2009)

speed51133! said:


> What is the difference between lines that are “DOT compliant” and “DOT approved”?
> The United States Department of Transportation (DOT) has established numerous standards for automotive components and subsystems. The regulation for brake hoses happens to be FMVSS106. In this document, anything and everything pertaining to automotive brake hoses has been laid out in gory detail – at least, those things important to the federal government.
> If a manufacturer claims their SS lines are “DOT compliant”, it means that their SS lines have passed all FMVSS106 requirements, and they have submitted the test data to the government for official certification. This does not mean they are acceptable for use on your car, but it does mean they pass the government minimum standards.
> Another term you may hear in this context is “DOT approved.” However, the DOT is not in the business of actually approving or disproving compliance – they don't typically run any tests on aftermarket components themselves. Under these circumstances, one can only surmise that these manufacturers are trying to state that their lines are actually “DOT compliant”, but it never hurts to ask before you buy.


I'm sorry, but this analysis is a red herring, and is not helpful or relevant to the issue of whether a manufacturer has liability. Whether the product was or was not DOT-compliant or DOT-approved has no bearing on whether the consumer knowingly encountered a known risk, any more than a consumer needing to care whether the factory that produced some or all of the components of the system was ISO-9002 compliant, or whether an extension cord was UL certified. The fact that it is a Government standard is of no consequence, unless compliance with that standard was mandated by state or federal law.


----------



## speed51133! (Aug 5, 2002)

esoxlucios said:


> I'm sorry, but this analysis is a red herring, and is not helpful or relevant to the issue of whether a manufacturer has liability. Whether the product was or was not DOT-compliant or DOT-approved has no bearing on whether the consumer knowingly encountered a known risk, any more than a consumer needing to care whether the factory that produced some or all of the components of the system was ISO-9002 compliant, or whether an extension cord was UL certified. The fact that it is a Government standard is of no consequence, unless compliance with that standard was mandated by state or federal law.


so you are saying that dot compliance for brake parts is not mandated by the state or federal gov?
and
knowingly putting on brake parts that are not dot compliant has no bearing whatsoever on weather or not a consumer bears any contributory negligence or assumed any risk?


----------



## 18T_BT (Sep 15, 2005)

> ignorance and stupidity is not a "get out of jail free card" for assuming the risk.



So, did the 'burnt' McDonalds coffee drinker not have the ability to ignorantly know the coffee was too hot for consumption?


----------



## speed51133! (Aug 5, 2002)

18T_BT said:


> So, did the 'burnt' McDonalds coffee drinker not have the ability to ignorantly know the coffee was too hot for consumption?


The Mcdonals coffee incident resulted in something like skin grafts being needed for the woman's crotch. Mcdonalds KNEW that people were spilling coffee on themselves and getting burned. Others had complained of it. Mcdonalds also KNEW it was brewing at temps HIGHER than any other place, they did so on purpose so it stayed warmer, longer.

The lady initially asked for med bills paid. After she got nowhere, PUNITIVE damages were finally awarded. That means to teach Mcdonalds a lesson. The judgment was appealed, and she did not get the 40 million or whatever...

Different case, different facts, DIFFERENT RESULT (Actual injury)


----------



## esoxlucios (Sep 17, 2009)

speed51133! said:


> so you are saying that dot compliance for brake parts is not mandated by the state or federal gov?
> and
> knowingly putting on brake parts that are not dot compliant has no bearing whatsoever on weather or not a consumer bears any contributory negligence or assumed any risk?


To be honest with you, I don't know what state or federal regulations apply to the (1) purchase, (2) sale, (3) installation, or (4) on-road use of braking components, wheels, tires, and suspension components. I do know that a violation of the law constitutes negligence per se if the law that was broken was designed to prohibit the activity giving rise to the negligence claim (_e.g.,_ in a automobile accident negligence case, one who drove through a red light is presumed to have been negligent, but this presumption is rebuttable). A violation of the law in the purchase, installation, or use of a particular component, however, is not one of the defenses that I am aware of in a strict products liability matter. Perhaps it is. Perhaps it falls under "general knowledge," even though that requirement applies to the dangerousness of the defect, not to the law.

According to this site, http://www.sema.org/federal-regulation-aftermarket-parts, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) promulgates standards (the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards ("FMVSS") on parts for new automobiles and certain kinds of equipment.


> When offering a product for sale, the manufacturer is required to certify that the product meets all applicable FMVSS (since it is illegal to market a product that does not comply). Most aftermarket products are not covered by the FMVSS. However, if a product is covered by an industry standard (ex: a wheel standard issued by the Society of Automotive Engineers), it is anticipated that the product will meet the industry standard. Otherwise, the company may risk product liability exposure and NHTSA could deem the product to be unsafe.


 _Ibid. _ This directly contradicts your claim (in a post above) that UL or ISO or other private standards are irrelevant.

SEMA continues that "NHTSA relies on self-certification. It does not require submission of any documentation regarding the safety of aftermarket parts unless it is triggered by an investigation. . . If a manufacturer determines that a product does not comply with the FMVSS or there is a safety-related defect, the manufacturer must notify NHTSA within 5 days of making such a determination. "

What this tells me is that the ECS Tuning BBK may not be subject to any regulation at all. If it is, ECS is legally obligated to self-certify, which the consumer may rely upon.

So, one of either things has happened here, both of which undermine your arguments completely: (1) The ECS BBK is not governed by any regulation (and the site mentioned above goes on to explain that the "DoT-approved" has no legal meaning); or (2) ECS has self-certified, as required by law, that the kit meets FMVSS.

Next?


----------



## PLAYED TT (Oct 17, 2010)

speed51133! said:


> first finish law school buddy....
> 
> *what are you going to sue for? the cost of a new hat at best*. even that is a stretch. your hats still work. you admitted to not being a metallurgy expert. all of the sudden you are an expert as to *how much material there can be for the hat to be safe*?
> 
> a class action suit? bwahahah! go grab your gilbert's and list for me the prongs necessary to establish a class action. thank you for being the white knight suing to protect people from ECS's alleged gross negligence.


1. For safety. As mentioned earlier if it happens to one then theres no saying it can't happen to another. 
2. Thickness wouldn't matter in this case. Even if it was 1" thick the galvanic corrosion will still take place. The only difference is it would take longer to eat through the hat.


speed51133! said:


> *"If someone got hurt because of a manufacturing defect, then all the manufacturers, suppliers, and retailers responsible for inserting the product "into the stream of commerce" would be strictly liable for the injuries caused thereby."
> *
> *YOU ARE ASSUMING THAT THERE WAS A MANUFACTURING DEFECT!*
> 
> ...


 1. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the company who is last in charge of final inspection is held accountable. Hence why companies back charge their suppliers for faulty materials that don't meet specs, so they don't assume the responsibility and take the risk. 
2. Heres where you're right it wasn't a manufacturing defect. It was an engineering defect:laugh:. hell if the OP wanted to alleviate the issue he could have just painted the touching surfaces!
3. It states on their website that the stg5 kit brings performance to your daily driver....which is driven on the street. So ECS would take the blame on that DOT approved or not. 
Continue with the legal bickering I know nothing about


----------



## 18T_BT (Sep 15, 2005)

speed51133! said:


> The Mcdonals coffee incident resulted in something like skin grafts being needed for the woman's crotch. Mcdonalds KNEW that people were spilling coffee on themselves and getting burned. Others had complained of it. Mcdonalds also KNEW it was brewing at temps HIGHER than any other place, they did so on purpose so it stayed warmer, longer.
> 
> The lady initially asked for med bills paid. After she got nowhere, PUNITIVE damages were finally awarded. That means to teach Mcdonalds a lesson. The judgment was appealed, and she did not get the 40 million or whatever...
> 
> Different case, different facts, DIFFERENT RESULT (Actual injury)




So, what you are saying is go crash into a tree, break an arm and then it's ok to sue (for punitive damages) when everybody knows that coffee is usually hot so be careful you poor old lady. :laugh:


----------



## rstolz (Jun 16, 2009)

oh, you'll get corrected, in fact, I dare him to let someone else get the last word... triple dog dare...


----------



## speed51133! (Aug 5, 2002)

esoxlucios said:


> To be honest with you, I don't know what state or federal regulations apply to the (1) purchase, (2) sale, (3) installation, or (4) on-road use of braking components, wheels, tires, and suspension components. I do know that a violation of the law constitutes negligence per se if the law that was broken was designed to prohibit the activity giving rise to the negligence claim (_e.g.,_ in a automobile accident negligence case, one who drove through a red light is presumed to have been negligent, but this presumption is rebuttable). A violation of the law in the purchase, installation, or use of a particular component, however, is not one of the defenses that I am aware of in a strict products liability matter. Perhaps it is. Perhaps it falls under "general knowledge," even though that requirement applies to the dangerousness of the defect, not to the law.
> 
> According to this site, http://www.sema.org/federal-regulation-aftermarket-parts, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) promulgates standards (the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards ("FMVSS") on parts for new automobiles and certain kinds of equipment. _Ibid. _ This directly contradicts your claim (in a post above) that UL or ISO or other private standards are irrelevant.
> 
> ...


ECS only self certifies if they SAY THEY DO. Did they?
It is a self regulating thing. Honor system if you will. If ECS doesn't say DOT, so what? They don't have to. They can say "off road use only, as wilwood does for BBK. How did ECS advertise and label the product?
did ECS ever say it is meant for on-road use?


----------



## speed51133! (Aug 5, 2002)

PLAYED TT said:


> 1. For safety. As mentioned earlier if it happens to one then theres no saying it can't happen to another.
> 2. Thickness wouldn't matter in this case. Even if it was 1" thick the galvanic corrosion will still take place. The only difference is it would take longer to eat through the hat.
> 
> 1. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the company who is last in charge of final inspection is held accountable. Hence why companies back charge their suppliers for faulty materials that don't meet specs, so they don't assume the responsibility and take the risk.
> ...


you cant sue for "safety". that is not a cause of action.

you are wrong. you can sue EVERYONE in the entire supply chain, they are all potentially liable, down to the vendor and salesman who had nothing to do with the design.

Again, the fact that corrosion takes place is not necessarily a defect. Hell, how many people use wheel spacers? They corrode all the time. The whole damn car is steel and corrodes all the time. The fact there is corrosion does not mean defect. 

Can I sue ford because my 65 mustang rusted through and could have caused all sorts of injury? Ford told me it was safe for the road!!!!!
How about ball joints that fail over time? Can you sue over that?
I know, lets sue all the after market control arm manufacturers because the control arms have rust, they COULD fail and kill me. I want to sue for "Safety".....


----------



## esoxlucios (Sep 17, 2009)

speed51133! said:


> ECS only self certifies if they SAY THEY DO. Did they?
> It is a self regulating thing. Honor system if you will. If ECS doesn't say DOT, so what? They don't have to. They can say "off road use only, as wilwood does for BBK. How did ECS advertise and label the product?
> did ECS ever say it is meant for on-road use?


(1) Strict products liability applies to foreseeable use that defendant can reasonable safeguard against (this was discussed above, ad nauseum). Doesn't matter what ECS "says." It is beyond cavil that these kits are used on the road.

(2) The implied warranty of merchantability cannot be disclaimed, unless the disclaimer was express and prominent. At no time has ECS states that their kit is not fit for its ordinary use and purpose. To the contrary, the kits and their "Tru-Float" rotors are heralded as vastly superior to OEM setups.

Next.


----------



## TheDeckMan (Sep 26, 2004)

PLAYED TT said:


> 1. For safety. As mentioned earlier if it happens to one then theres no saying it can't happen to another.
> 2. Thickness wouldn't matter in this case. Even if it was 1" thick the galvanic corrosion will still take place. The only difference is it would take longer to eat through the hat.
> 
> 1. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the company who is last in charge of final inspection is held accountable. Hence why companies back charge their suppliers for faulty materials that don't meet specs, so they don't assume the responsibility and take the risk. *Correct. However, even if they were ISO 9001 certified, all that means is that they have a documented process. This does nothing to ensure there is no engineering/manufacturing issues with dimensions or finishing operations*
> ...



Under closer look, there seems like there are several other issues going on as well. Because of the sanding I cannot be sure, but it looks as in places the aluminum has cracks introduced by rapid heating/cooling. But also some sort of "sheering" action was causing the galling of the aluminum. There could also be a case that the hats were only black anodized and not as stated "Hard Coated". This could happen as it is an outsourced operation that I am assuming was most likely done by ECS's contracted manufacturer or if ECS is manufacturing "in-house" then they should be requesting the appropriate certifications of the said operations. 

In my opinion, unless you understand the dynamics of how something works and the intended operation and maintenance required of a modification, you should expect to have some losses as part of the learning curve. Hanging around the local race tracks and forums goes a long way to understanding fail points that are intentionally designed, from fatigue or issues in manufacturing and engineering. 

Not that I know anything about anything in automotive/engineering and or manufacturing standards  But I might know a thing about manufacturing/ISO9001/TS9001/ and engineering 

:beer::wave::beer:


----------



## esoxlucios (Sep 17, 2009)

speed51133! said:


> you cant sue for "safety". that is not a cause of action. . .
> 
> . . . the fact that corrosion takes place is not necessarily a defect. Hell, how many people use wheel spacers? They corrode all the time . . . lets sue all the after market control arm manufacturers because the control arms have rust, they COULD fail and kill me. I want to sue for "Safety".....


My T6075 wheel adapters ("spacers") were installed at the same time. No corrosion whatever. And not mated to iron.

Must we sue for safety? Let's sue under the warranty of merchantability, instead, like the suits against Audi over the timing belts, instrument clusters, and coil packs.

Bottom line: I expect the rotor hats to last longer than 20K miles (which is when I assume the stress corrosion cracking (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stress_corrosion_cracking) started — I expect a critical component like this to last longer than a turn signal bulb. And I find it especially more irritating that a little due diligence and R&D could have prevented this. ECS representations aside, part if what I'm supposed to get for that $1,600 is the confidence that solid R&D went into the product design and materials selection. I am sorry that you think I am unreasonable.


----------



## esoxlucios (Sep 17, 2009)

Here's an iPhone photo of the other hat (where I chipped off only one piece) — no macro lens.









In addition to the basic galvanic corrosion principle, I think this article explains the problem, and may have something to do with the particular alloy used: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stress_corrosion_cracking


----------



## esoxlucios (Sep 17, 2009)

DeckManDubs said:


> There could also be a case that the hats were only black anodized and not as stated "Hard Coated". This could happen as it is an outsourced operation that I am assuming was most likely done by ECS's contracted manufacturer or if ECS is manufacturing "in-house" then they should be requesting the appropriate certifications of the said operations.


Take a look at these pics, below. These I bought used from a Vortex member recently. Turns out they're for MK4 and won't fit my car. When I rec'd them, I cleaned them with a common kitchen cleaner (ProForce Oven, Grill & Fryer Cleaner). I scrubbed with a soft bristle brush for not more than 30 seconds and rinsed off Yes, it's a strong cleaner, but notice how it etched off the anodizing.







I don't know the difference between "hard" and just "black," but this stuff just washed away. (For the record, I've never used this on my own rotors, because I don't know if it would be harmful to the wheels ).


----------



## speed51133! (Aug 5, 2002)

speed51133! said:


> Can I sue ford because my 65 mustang rusted through and could have caused all sorts of injury? Ford told me it was safe for the road!!!!!
> How about ball joints that fail over time? Can you sue over that?
> I know, lets sue all the after market control arm manufacturers because the control arms have rust, they COULD fail and kill me. I want to sue for "Safety".....


you never addressed this...

you also never showed how the hats are dangerous or defective.


----------



## TheDeckMan (Sep 26, 2004)

speed51133! said:


> you never addressed this...
> 
> you also never showed how the hats are dangerous or defective.


Enough already. Stop derailing the discussion.




esoxlucios said:


> Here's an iPhone photo of the other hat (where I chipped off only one piece) — no macro lens.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





esoxlucios said:


> Take a look at these pics, below. These I bought used from a Vortex member recently. Turns out they're for MK4 and won't fit my car. When I rec'd them, I cleaned them with a common kitchen cleaner (ProForce Oven, Grill & Fryer Cleaner). I scrubbed with a soft bristle brush for not more than 30 seconds and rinsed off Yes, it's a strong cleaner, but notice how it etched off the anodizing.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The oven cleaner will break down regular anodizing with relative ease. So will a lot of industrial cleaners. High end hard coat anodizing where the coating is very durable is another story as it requires typically stronger solutions/heat to remove. 

The hats clearly have stress cracks introduced by the expansion of the rotor at a different rate than the hat. So thus the "squished" look to the aluminum in the 9 positions. 

Your best bet is to have new hats made out of steel by a company with race experience with floating hat setups. Wilwood might have something that will suit your needs.


----------



## PLAYED TT (Oct 17, 2010)

DeckManDubs said:


> Not that I know anything about anything in automotive/engineering and or manufacturing standards  But I might know a thing about manufacturing/ISO9001/TS9001/ and engineering
> 
> :beer::wave::beer:


It's almost like I asked you without actually asking you. Nice pick up on where I was heading with that
And OP regular anodizing is only a pigment that goes as deep as the oxide layer. If you remove that layer (chemically or mechanically) the anodizing will go with it. 

Speed- It comes down to the material. I've had adapters on my car for years and not once has a set corroded. Comparing the 2 types of aluminum above in this contrast is like comparing steel and stainless steel (oh wait certain stainless will rust under different conditions). Moving on the base materials are SIMILAR however alloying elements and heat and aging processes turn them into a completely different material. Comparing them as being the same is like me saying hey with both have similar DNA but in reality we are nowhere near the same. If you were right on this aspect then structural aluminum would be the same grade as airplane skins which would be the same as beer cans which would be the same as cooking pots and the same grade as wire etc. 
Ok and if you can't sue for endangerment, then what happens if another set pops up that does injure or kill someone with ECS knowing there was an issue? Like tho OP said just getting the point across is worth it assuming ECS looks into the issue. 

Hey Noah we have this fancy new mag particle and x ray cabinet that would make for some interesting images in this thread. I mean if I could get my hands on one. Not sure of any NDT procedure for testing heat related failures tho. Would polishing and etching do that?


----------



## TheDeckMan (Sep 26, 2004)

PLAYED TT said:


> It's almost like I asked you without actually asking you. Nice pick up on where I was heading with that






PLAYED TT said:


> Like tho OP said just getting the point across is worth it assuming ECS looks into the issue.


x2 Just a PSA more or less.



PLAYED TT said:


> Hey Noah we have this fancy new mag particle and x ray cabinet that would make for some interesting images in this thread. I mean if I could get my hands on one. Not sure of any NDT procedure for testing heat related failures tho. Would polishing and etching do that?


The best inspections would be Magnetic Particle Inspection / x-ray, from there I would compare to the original drawing for both total indicated run out and dimensional movements from fatigue. After that, really the best way is to cut it apart using an EDM to then check the grain structure cross section to determine where the energy is being directed and or if its a corrosion issue, etching after a cross section cut would be good to remove any contaminants.


----------



## 20v master (May 7, 2009)

What? No ultrasound or eddy currents?


----------



## PLAYED TT (Oct 17, 2010)

20v master said:


> What? No ultrasound or eddy currents?


UT with that amount of discontinuities would make me shoot myself if the face....too many formulas to worry about as well:laugh: Might as well give these to the state of new york of them to use on their UT test for bridge inspectors....theres only 8 licensed in the US to help you put that into perspective


----------



## esoxlucios (Sep 17, 2009)

Quick update here: I've been talking to a local rotor supplier and a number of plating shops. One plating shop owner was dismayed that this kit was assembled with aluminum alloy and iron in contact with each other, and his recommendation is that both the iron rotor and the hat be coated with a "High Phosphorous Electroless Nickel" in a .002 thickness. He characterized the rule of not mating aluminum to iron as "high school knowledge."

He said they will have to chemically strip the anodization from the new hats I purchased from ECS, and will have to chemically strip the Zinc from the new rotors. He explained that Zinc is a sacrificial metal (designed to corrode) that withstands a "salt water" test of 100 hours, whereas the Nickel is a 1,000 hour coating. He said he had no opinion about a gasket material, but believed that there should be no further corrosion if both the hats and the rotors are Nickel-plated, as described above. I'm dropping the parts off tomorrow.

Regarding the ECS Tuning product, let me say this: Obviously, I'm glad they've committed to investigate this matter by having me sending the hats back for inspection. I don't know if this thread was the catalyst, and it doesn't matter. I think it is in _ECS Tuning's_ best interests to become informed about this issue, because it puts them in a better position to be proactive in dealing with it, and possibly also in modifying their materials specifications and/or assembly process for future kits. There is no question that the BBK provides superior feedback and stopping power over OEM, and also the fit and finish of the kit (including the rotors and hats) is very nice. I also noted that the rotors & hats I recently received did have a Zinc-based anti-seize between the hat & rotor and also on the bobbin-bolt threads. I do not know if they were shipped that way five years ago (because I didn't have knowledge of this issue and, therefore, didn't check).

In order to properly rectify this issue, it seems to me that ECS needs either to Nickel-plate both parts, which may or may not add to the cost (as a substitute for anodization and Zinc coating), or they need to use a suitable gasket between them, which might be a very small added cost.


----------



## speed51133! (Aug 5, 2002)

esoxlucios said:


> He characterized the rule of not mating aluminum to iron as "high school knowledge."


I totally agree.

Therefore, you should have known and assumed the risk.


----------



## TheDeckMan (Sep 26, 2004)

speed51133! said:


> I totally agree.
> 
> Therefore, you should have known and assumed the risk.


Not exactly. Considering when your buying a product, you are also buying the engineering that goes into it. Thus why knock off products that are just replica's that are made without any knowledge of engineering/understanding of the intended design. 

High school knowledge, yes per say. But I would not hold it against the average person that did not know of this. However, any engineer/machinist that did not know this or ignored what is known across the industry, is a different story. 

Which brings me back to the thought that perhaps ECS does have some mills and lathes, but does not actually have experienced machinists/engineers working on this product at its inception.


----------



## speed51133! (Aug 5, 2002)

IMO floating hats are a track thing. You cant expect race track parts to last like OE parts.

That is also high school knowledge.


----------



## PLAYED TT (Oct 17, 2010)

DeckManDubs said:


> Which brings me back to the thought that perhaps ECS does have some mills and lathes, but does not actually have experienced machinists/engineers working on this product at its inception.


ECS products to me are just copies of other companies parts except no engineering went into them and this was a result.


----------



## Rford71 (Sep 1, 2011)

Lightweight aluminum hats connected to iron rotors seem to be the standard construction of two-piece rotors by most of the brake companies. My search of the Internet found that all the major companies brake are having failures of their brake aluminum rotor hats, Brembo, BR breaks, ECS tuning, Wilwood and Stoptech which seems to have the most issues with their rotor hats material electronegativities.

http://forums.audiworld.com/showthread.php?t=1632668

There are a few threads stating the same things about material compatibility problems and poor customer service, just swap the name from ECS to Stoptech to Brembo to Racing Brakes to ??. I don't know what the answer is to correct the problem. It is what it is, the companies really don't care about us.

Just my two cents


----------



## TheDeckMan (Sep 26, 2004)

speed51133! said:


> IMO floating hats are a track thing. You cant expect race track parts to last like OE parts.


You hit the nail on the head there. Race track parts do does not mean that they are intended for street use. While you might be able to run them on a street car, race car maintenance will be required. 



PLAYED TT said:


> ECS products to me are just copies of other companies parts except no engineering went into them and this was a result.


Figured that was the case. And we all know knock off parts get knocked off and knocked off again, each time there is a loss of the quality and the engineered design. This is one of the reasons I keep a lot of designs to myself now as the innovation is the hard part. Making a copy is easy, but at the possibility of tarnishing the name of the original innovator because a copy = same thing.



Rford71 said:


> Lightweight aluminum hats connected to iron rotors seem to be the standard construction of two-piece rotors by most of the brake companies. My search of the Internet found that all the major companies brake are having failures of their brake aluminum rotor hats, Brembo, BR breaks, ECS tuning, Wilwood and Stoptech which seems to have the most issues with their rotor hats material electronegativities.
> 
> http://forums.audiworld.com/showthread.php?t=1632668
> 
> ...


The answer is steel hats as come on factory cars like Porsche. However, steel hats cost close to 10x due to the tooling wear. Or running stock rotors with Boxster calipers seems like the best bang for the $$. It is a very common practice that has been around since the mid 90's when all the urs4 and s6 owners were upgrading brakes, but required something that would stand up against the test of time. 

In addition to the fact that by just using an adapter to mount the calipers while maintaining the stock rotors, it means that any possible wear item such as the caliper, pads, rotor and lines can all be sourced from any dealership if in a situation where you have to have something tomorrow. This is along the designed fail/replacement theory.


----------



## esoxlucios (Sep 17, 2009)

speed51133! said:


> I totally agree.
> 
> Therefore, you should have known and assumed the risk.


Wrong. I didn't disassemble the rotor assembly to investigate how or if they had isolated the metals. And, although this may be "high-school" knowledge, there are many things taught in a high school chemistry or trigonometry class that a court would not impute to a reasonable person as "common knowledge," but would certainly impute to a manufacturer. As stated above, part of the $1,600 I spent was for R&D, so that I wouldn't be required to reverse-engineer their product.


----------



## speed51133! (Aug 5, 2002)

esoxlucios said:


> Wrong. I didn't disassemble the rotor assembly to investigate how or if they had isolated the metals. And, although this may be "high-school" knowledge, there are many things taught in a high school chemistry or trigonometry class that a court would not impute to a reasonable person as "common knowledge," but would certainly impute to a manufacturer. As stated above, part if the $1,600 I spent was for R&D, so that I wouldn't be required to reverse-engineer their product.


With your prestigious and extended education, the court would most certainly extend the "reasonable person" standard to include that of high school level common knowledge. Good day sireace:


----------



## warranty225cpe (Dec 3, 2008)

speed51133! said:


> With your prestigious and extended education, the court would most certainly extend the "reasonable person" standard to include that of high school level common knowledge. Good day sireace:


Are you being a dick, just to be a dick? Kinda sounds like it.


----------



## ECS Tuning (Oct 2, 2006)

ECS Tuning offers the following on recent posts by Esoxlucios and others concerning two-piece rotor components and ideas about how these rotors might be “improved.” ECS Tuning cautions customers against modifying any ECS Tuning BBK or two-piece rotors:

ECS Tuning’s two-piece rotors have been tested through rigorous conditions and have been proven over time to meet demanding high performance needs.
The so-called “. . . rule of not mating aluminum to iron as ‘high school knowledge’” contradicts common practice in the automotive world as many applications match these metals in corrosive environments--steel wheel bolts fastening aluminum wheels—being but one additional example.
Cast iron rotors and aluminum hats are commonly mated in high performance rotors by such OEMs as BMW, Audi, Mercedes and Porsche.
http://www.ecstuning.com/Audi-R8--V8_4.2L/Braking/Rotors/ES2681210/
http://www.ecstuning.com/BMW-F10-M5-S63_4.4L/Braking/Rotors/ES2549938/
http://www.ecstuning.com/BMW-E82-135i-N54_3.0L/Braking/Rotors/ES2102485/
http://www.ecstuning.com/ES1477240/

To remove hard anodizing in preparation for nickel plating as written by Esoxlucios, a caustic chemical is required. This process will etch the surface of the aluminum, as well as remove surface material itself, which could decrease fatigue life. Further, ECS Tuning believes that nickel plating offers an inferior surface protection as compared to anodizing. For high heat exposed components, cracks in the plating could occur.
It is true that nickel has adequate corrosion resistance at low temperatures—less than 650F. But, at temperatures exceeding 650F such as with rotors that can reach temperatures of 1200F or greater, the nickel will become brittle and possibly crack, thus decreasing corrosion protection.
ECS Tuning is unaware of any manufacturer that nickel plates rotor components or utilizes any type of gasket material in this type of application. 
*Any modification to ECS Tuning’s BBK or two-piece rotors not only voids the warranty but much worse could cause product failure.* Nickel plating high stress components that reach temperatures at or above 1200F is simply a bad idea.

ECS Tuning values our reputation as a trusted supplier and manufacturer of BBK’s and two-piece rotors so it is quite offensive to be categorized as a copycat manufacturer. This is not the case in any way:

ECS Tuning BBK’s and two-piece rotors are designed and tested by our in-house engineering team of 6 engineers.
All ECS Tuning designed products are subject to incoming quality inspections at ECS with a CMM (coordinate measuring machine) by our team of R&D engineers.
Our two-piece rotors have been subjected to thousands of miles of hard street use and to the elements (including snow and salt) for years. They have also been subjected to scientific brutal stress testing at the track, performing countless high speed stops in quick succession. We have measured stopping distances and elevated rotor temperatures of over 1000*F for long sustained periods (to the point of rotor bluing and catching brake pads on fire), as well as subjecting rotors to careful post-test inspection for signs of irregular wear, warping, stress cracking, or any other signs of failure.
Our rotors have proven themselves to be robust, demonstrating excellent wear characteristics, no warping, no thermal stress cracking, no signs of hot spots and minimal pad glazing.
As we continue to demonstrate, ECS Tuning takes a great deal of care in supporting its products and addressing customers’ concerns. No other customer has contacted ECS Tuning with similar claims as made in this forum regarding alleged failure of the rotors supplied by ECS Tuning. We have requested that the customer send the rotors to ECS Tuning for further inspection.

If any other members have concerns or questions please contact ECS Tuning at 1.800.924.5172 or online at www.ecstuning.com.


----------



## esoxlucios (Sep 17, 2009)

ECS Tuning said:


> ECS Tuning offers the following on recent posts by Esoxlucios and others concerning two-piece rotor components and ideas about how these rotors might be “improved.” ECS Tuning cautions customers against modifying any ECS Tuning BBK or two-piece rotors:
> 
> ECS Tuning’s two-piece rotors have been tested through rigorous conditions and have been proven over time to meet demanding high performance needs.
> The so-called “. . . rule of not mating aluminum to iron as ‘high school knowledge’” contradicts common practice in the automotive world as many applications match these metals in corrosive environments--steel wheel bolts fastening aluminum wheels—being but one additional example.
> ...


I certainly appreciate the reply, and ran out of time today to drop off the replacement parts for plating, and will forbear from doing so until this issue can further clarified.

It is true that steel wheel bolts and lug nuts are mated to alloy —it already occurred to me, as it is true in my own car, just inches from your rotor assembly. But neither the alloy wheel (a BMW style 106 wheel) nor the 6065 5x120 hub adapter with steel wheel studs has corroded.

The fact remains that, during the same period of time, your hats have corroded with the stress corrosion cracks pictured, and I have not modified the assembly or tracked the car (as noted, the rotors are still nearly 26mm thick). The only difference I know of between your hats and the other alloys in proximity is the 7075 metallurgy. 

Also, I have noted a white powdery substance and apparent pitting on and around where your brackets —also advertised as 7075— mate to the spindle. I have not yet removed them for inspection, but the URL above regarding your competitor's brackets is very concerning. 

Finally, the fact that you allege that no other owners have reported issues is of no moment because: (a) my use is not extraordinary; (b) many owners do not keep their vehicles for longer than three years; (c) many owners would not be attentive enough to discern the cracks that are easily masked by brake dust and debris; (d) owners who might notice the defect would likely be unaware of the what legal claim, if any, they might have, and would be unlikely to take up issue with the manufacturer five years later; and, finally, (e) absence of a prior accident or report is always inadmissible as evidence to prove a lack of negligence or that a duty of care was fulfilled. The URL provided by another member in a recent post (above) indicates this is not a novel problem, or one I manufactured.


----------



## esoxlucios (Sep 17, 2009)

ECS Tuning said:


> To remove hard anodizing in preparation for nickel plating as [recommended to] Esoxlucios, a caustic chemical is required. This process will etch the surface of the aluminum, as well as remove surface material itself, which could decrease fatigue life. Further, ECS Tuning believes that nickel plating offers an inferior surface protection as compared to anodizing. For high heat exposed components, cracks in the plating could occur.
> [*]It is true that nickel has adequate corrosion resistance at low temperatures—less than 650F. But, at temperatures exceeding 650F such as with rotors that can reach temperatures of 1200F or greater, the nickel will become brittle and possibly crack, thus decreasing corrosion protection . . .
> *Any modification to ECS Tuning’s BBK or two-piece rotors not only voids the warranty but much worse could cause product failure.* Nickel plating high stress components that reach temperatures at or above 1200F is simply a bad idea. . . ECS Tuning is unaware of any manufacturer that nickel plates rotor components or utilizes any type of gasket material in this type of application.


I don't have the expertise or credentials to agree or disagree, but I am wondering why places like, for example, BrakeWarehouse.com offer nickel-plating for any rotors purchased from them: http://www.brakewarehouse.com/powdercoating_plating.asp.

Based on what I can find, electroless nickel-plating (AMS-2404, MIL-C-26074, MIL-DTL-26074F) is good for up to 1000°F (540°C) (_see, e.g.,_ http://laseretchingflorida.com/specs/electrolessnic_spec.shtml, http://www.prodigysurfacetech.com/specs_electrolessnickel.html).

As noted above, I did notice that these hats & rotors recently shipped to me did, in fact, have a nickel-based paste between where the hats & rotors mate (which shipment I received prior to starting this thread), which indicates that ECS had some knowledge of this issue. Again, I don't know if the set I bought five years ago did, because I didn't know enough to look.

And do rotors really, truly reach "1,200F or greater," as you wrote above? If so, we're all in trouble, because 7075-T6 alloy melts at 890 - 1175 °F. *Even worse, when 7075-T6 alloy is heated to at or above 400°F, it artificially "ages" and loses it's T6 temper (hardness and strength). This means that 7075 —aside from being the most susceptible alloy to corrosion— is a very poor materials choice, if the rotor hats get even one third as hot as you assert.* _ See_ http://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1009&context=mech_fac.


----------



## esoxlucios (Sep 17, 2009)

ECS Tuning said:


> The so-called “. . . rule of not mating aluminum to iron as ‘high school knowledge’” contradicts common practice in the automotive world as many applications match these metals in corrosive environments--steel wheel bolts fastening aluminum wheels—being but one additional example. . . Cast iron rotors and aluminum hats are commonly mated in high performance rotors by such OEMs as BMW, Audi, Mercedes and Porsche..


Whether this so-called rule is "high school" common knowledge might be debatable, but it does seem to be well settled that aluminum and iron don't go together. According to one research paper:



> Aluminium and its alloys have excellent durability and corrosion resistance, but, like most materials, their behaviour can be influenced by the way in which they are used . . . Aluminium is a well-known sacrificial anode if coupled with more passive metal as it is a most reliable and cost effective anode. Aluminium sacrificial anode has been used in major projects all over the world. It is used in offshore applications, including structures, platforms, pipelines, jetties, and power plants. Aluminium anode is also used for ship-hull and ballast tank protection





> Stress-corrosion cracking in aluminium alloys is characteristically intergranular. According to the electrochemical theory, this requires a condition along grain boundaries that makes them anodic to the rest of the microstructure so that corrosion propagates selectively along them. Intergranular (intercrystalline) corrosion is selective attack of grain boundaries or closely adjacent regions without appreciable attack of the grains themselves Aluminium alloys that contain appreciable amounts of soluble alloying elements, primarily copper, magnesium, silicon, and zinc, are susceptible to stress-corrosion cracking (SCC). An extensive failure analysis shows how many service failures occurred in the industry and what kind of alloys and stresses led to initiation and propagation of stress corrosion cracks which caused these service failures. *Alloys* 7079-T6, *7075 -T6* and 2024 - T3 *contributed to more than 90% of the service failures of all high-strength aluminium alloys.*


Ahmed Y. Musa, _Corrosion Protection of Al Alloys_ (Emphasis added) (avail. from http://cdn.intechopen.com/pdfs/2667...al_alloys_organic_coatings_and_inhibitors.pdf).

Maybe the reason my 6065 wheel adapters and BMW alloy wheels (all located in the same area as the hats & rotors, for the same length of time, and subjected to the same road salt and water) haven't corroded is because the ECS hats are made from 7075? Could it also be that the steel wheel bolts are stainless steel (I don't know)?



ECS Tuning said:


> Our two-piece rotors have been subjected to thousands of miles of hard street use and to the elements (including snow and salt) for years.


That's very encouraging, but seems inconsistent with Mr. Van Hauter's explanation that the hats have self-destructed in 31K miles and are not subject to warranty because of "Mother Nature."


----------



## PLAYED TT (Oct 17, 2010)

ECS Tuning said:


> The so-called “. . . rule of not mating aluminum to iron as ‘high school knowledge’” contradicts common practice in the automotive world as many applications match these metals in corrosive environments--steel wheel bolts fastening aluminum wheels—being but one additional example.


For the last time can we please stop categorizing aluminum as one material? 7075 was the wrong choice for this application. 7075 is superior in strength to 6061 however it suffers because it is more susceptible to corrosion. In material choice its hard to find something that offers the best of both worlds. This is where proper proper choice of coatings comes into play. 

Ever notice how wheel adapters are usually 15mm and larger? Because of the strengths of that series aluminum. Chosen for its corrosion properties. 

If you want to his proven take a hat and an adapter and put them in jars of corrosive liquid material with steel wheel bolts in them. You have them at your disposal from testing I'm sure. 



ECS Tuning said:


> To remove hard anodizing in preparation for nickel plating as written by Esoxlucios, a caustic chemical is required. This process will etch the surface of the aluminum, as well as remove surface material itself, which could decrease fatigue life. Further, ECS Tuning believes that nickel plating offers an inferior surface protection as compared to anodizing.



Regardless of how its removed, when for example welding aluminum, the oxide layer must be removed no matter what. Depending on the alloying elements Al melts at under 1200*F. The more alloys added the less heat is needed. Now the oxide melts at a way higher temp up around 2000*F. When welding polished Al do you think they mechanically strip it? No. 



ECS Tuning said:


> It is true that nickel has adequate corrosion resistance at low temperatures—less than 650F. But, at temperatures exceeding 650F such as with rotors that can reach temperatures of 1200F or greater, the nickel will become brittle and possibly crack, thus decreasing corrosion protection.


I'm not sure about a pure Ni as a coating but chances are thats an alloy because Ni alone wouldn't last. There are thousands of Ni alloys. To put this in perspective Ni is alloyed to stainless steel that is used in high temp, high stress, high strength applications. How hot you ask? NUCLEAR REACTORS VESSELS and coatings on JET TURBINE BLADES. Both of which are slightly more then 650*F



ECS Tuning said:


> Any modification to ECS Tuning’s BBK or two-piece rotors not only voids the warranty


What warranty? You made him pay for new hats anyway. I'm sure the OP knows the risk involved by now. 



ECS Tuning said:


> ECS Tuning values our reputation as a trusted supplier and manufacturer of BBK’s and two-piece rotors so it is quite offensive to be categorized as a copycat manufacturer. This is not the case in any way:


Lets see some proof then. Patents? Designs? Drawings on a napkin? Send one of the engineers on here so Noah and I can hear them out.


----------



## esoxlucios (Sep 17, 2009)

ECS Tuning said:


> ECS Tuning offers the following on recent posts by Esoxlucios . . . No other customer has contacted ECS Tuning with similar claims as made in this forum regarding alleged failure of the rotors supplied by ECS Tuning.


That appears to be inaccurate: http://www.audizine.com/forum/showt...ng-big-brake-kit-faliure-quot-crck-rotor-hats. (Thank you to a certain Vortex member for the PM with the URL).

In that thread, Jason of ECS wrote:


> That's the first I have personally seen of our hats failing like that . . . If anyone ever experiences an issue like that with one of our products I would advise you to contact our customer service a.s.a.p . . . They will be happy to get you taken care of!


In my case, "taken care of," was to deny the claim and sell me replacements. Only after this thread was started was I invited to send in the hats for inspection and claim resolution. 

A few days ago, the attorney representing ECS politely and reasonably asked me to refrain from posting "negative comments" here, writing:


> If you are incorrect, then, of course, you would have caused unmerited negative publicity to ECS Tuning and we just do not want any more of that. I trust you understand.


I do understand. But, it does not seem that I have been incorrect at all (and I've limited my commentary to matters of public concern, sincerely held beliefs, and steered well clear of posting anything mendacious or defamatory). I'll send the hats & rotors in. Let's get this taken care of.


----------



## speed51133! (Aug 5, 2002)

It's laughable that the resident attorney who admits knows nothing about metallurgy reads a website then quotes it as fact or a legitimate reference. 

Quit being an expert witness or qualify yourself properly. Fact is you have NO CLUE what the hell you are talking about. Google searching and quoting some paper doesn't mean you are right.

Get a life already. A said, everyone makes brakes like this. It's a race part as well. **** wears. The end. Put away your blacks law and quit giving lawyers a bad name. 

Yes I'm being a dick because I can't stand attorneys who are quick to be experts at, well everything, because they can repeat the requirements of negligence (yet lack common sense)


----------



## PLAYED TT (Oct 17, 2010)

Yeah but so far no one but Noah and I have posted any accurate metallurgical facts. ECS included. Truth is customer service and sales reps don't have the background to be responding in this thread. No offense meant by that. Simply put resolution of this situation needs to happen soon because no one seems to want yo get their facts straight. As far as I'm concerned this whole issue is now a legal mess and were of no help. If however we could keep this thread moving forward with actual known facts that support the OPs claim then maybe some people will learn a little bit.


----------



## esoxlucios (Sep 17, 2009)

speed51133! said:


> Yes I'm being a dick


Well, finally, we agree on something.


----------



## Pass18t (Oct 18, 2003)

Stumbled across this thread on search for..."ECS BBK".

What I've learned from this thread..."_Last edited by esoxlucios; xx/yy/zzzz at aa:bb AM/PM_."


----------



## warranty225cpe (Dec 3, 2008)

speed51133! said:


> It's laughable that the resident attorney who admits knows nothing about metallurgy reads a website then quotes it as fact or a legitimate reference.
> 
> Quit being an expert witness or qualify yourself properly. Fact is you have NO CLUE what the hell you are talking about. Google searching and quoting some paper doesn't mean you are right.
> 
> ...


Have something of value to add or stfu.


----------



## nilreb (Mar 17, 2012)

annoying having to sift through vagina monologues just to read the subject matter


----------



## PLAYED TT (Oct 17, 2010)

After discussing with others about the Nickel coating I'd like to add that possibly the coating could crack, but thats dependent upon the composition. Due to the heating and expansion differences between the two materials if the aluminum expands faster and more readily then that could happen in theory. However like I noted with how many different grades there are it comes down to which one is chosen


----------



## esoxlucios (Sep 17, 2009)

PLAYED TT said:


> After discussing with others about the Nickel coating I'd like to add that possibly the coating could crack, but thats dependent upon the composition. Due to the heating and expansion differences between the two materials if the aluminum expands faster and more readily then that could happen in theory. However like I noted with how many different grades there are it comes down to which one is chosen


There's some other issues here, you may've overlooked in one of my posts (above), because I added it with an edit (don't want to keep creating new posts when I discover something). ECS states the assembly can get to 1,200 degrees. Aside from the fact that this particular Nickel-plating is good for 1,000 (authoritative source cited in prev. post), the real problem is that the 7075 alloy loses its T6 temper when it reaches 400 degrees even for a few minutes (authoritative source cited in prev. post). Why bother using the 7075, if it's strength characteristics are lost when it reaches only one third of the temperature that ECS Tuning claims the assembly will reach, which is their primary reason for strongly advising against Nickel-plating?

My proposed solution here is to apply a thermal barrier coating (TBC) on the hats (right on top of the anodizing), followed by a high-temperature epoxy caliper paint, and to have the rotors electro-less Nickel plated for corrosion protection, and to use a Nickel-based anti-seize between where the hats and the rotors meet. This will create several layers of protection between the 7075 alloy and the iron. Also, I am thinking of taking the hats and subjecting them to retrogression and re-aging (RRA) treatment, which involves baking them at 400 degrees (which will cure the TBC), quenching them in cold water, and then baking at 250 for 24 hours. The result is only slightly less (1%) strength than the T6 temper, but significantly improved corrosion resistance. The RRA process has been in widespread use since the 80's as an alternative to outright replacement of corroding 7075 aircraft parts.


----------



## Rford71 (Sep 1, 2011)

What started off as a good information thread warning other members has now become a bitch fest and members argue with each other.😞

Unsubscribed!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## speed51133! (Aug 5, 2002)

Rford71 said:


> What started off as a good information thread warning other members has now become a bitch fest and members argue with each other.
> 
> Unsubscribed!
> 
> ...


"good information thread warning members"

sorry, but no.

More like started as a thread to sue an advertiser riddled with allegations, assumptions, and no knowledge.

EVERY BBK is made this same way...

Industry standard anyone??


----------



## PLAYED TT (Oct 17, 2010)

esoxlucios said:


> There's some other issues here, you may've overlooked in one of my posts (above), because I added it with an edit (don't want to keep creating new posts when I discover something). ECS states the assembly can get to 1,200 degrees. Aside from the fact that this particular Nickel-plating is good for 1,000 (authoritative source cited in prev. post), the real problem is that the 7075 alloy loses its T6 temper when it reaches 400 degrees even for a few minutes (authoritative source cited in prev. post). Why bother using the 7075, if it's strength characteristics are lost when it reaches only one third of the temperature that ECS Tuning claims the assembly will reach, which is their primary reason for strongly advising against Nickel-plating?
> 
> My proposed solution here is to apply a thermal barrier coating (TBC) on the hats (right on top of the anodizing), followed by a high-temperature epoxy caliper paint, and to have the rotors electro-less Nickel plated for corrosion protection, and to use a Nickel-based anti-seize between where the hats and the rotors meet. This will create several layers of protection between the 7075 alloy and the iron. Also, I am thinking of taking the hats and subjecting them to retrogression and re-aging (RRA) treatment, which involves baking them at 400 degrees (which will cure the TBC), quenching them in cold water, and then baking at 250 for 24 hours. The result is only slightly less (1%) strength than the T6 temper, but significantly improved corrosion resistance. The RRA process has been in widespread use since the 80's as an alternative to outright replacement of corroding 7075 aircraft parts.


Lol you should tell them that 7075 melts at 890-1175*f :laugh: That goes for tempers of 0,T6 and T73. No way in hell.


----------



## esoxlucios (Sep 17, 2009)

speed51133! said:


> "good information thread warning members"
> 
> sorry, but no . . . EVERY BBK is made this same way...
> 
> Industry standard anyone??


And, not so long ago, all women couldn't vote, children worked in coal mines and factories, and asbestos was used as a building material in all houses. Please stop trolling the thread with your unwelcome and illogical arguments.


----------



## speed51133! (Aug 5, 2002)

esoxlucios said:


> And, not so long ago, all women couldn't vote, children worked in coal mines and factories, and asbestos was used as a building material in all houses. Please stop trolling the thread with your unwelcome and illogical arguments.


Illogical arguments? How is the law suit you keep threatening going? Why not sue for asbestos used in brake pads while at it?


go on internet lawyering...


----------



## PLAYED TT (Oct 17, 2010)

Guys seriously......let the legal bs go and let's focus on the actual topic.


----------



## warranty225cpe (Dec 3, 2008)

speed51133! said:


> Illogical arguments? How is the law suit you keep threatening going? Why not sue for asbestos used in brake pads while at it?
> 
> 
> go on internet lawyering...


You need a hobby:wave:


----------



## 20v master (May 7, 2009)

warranty225cpe said:


> You need a hobby:wave:


Pot, meet kettle.


----------



## PLAYED TT (Oct 17, 2010)

:banghead:


----------



## warranty225cpe (Dec 3, 2008)

:heart:


----------



## Raek (Aug 1, 2003)

Holy crap, you guys are childish.


----------



## PLAYED TT (Oct 17, 2010)

Raek said:


> Holy crap, you guys are childish.


Unfortunately interweb egos seem to be the biggest concern around here. I'm out.


----------



## esoxlucios (Sep 17, 2009)

This is what I'm installing on the car this weekend. Friction rings were electroless Nickel plated at .002" Hats were treated with thermal barrier coating, retrogression & reaging, and sealed with a high temp epoxy. Finally, I used a thin layer of Nickel-based anti-seize between the two parts. I hoping for better than 30K miles.


----------



## [email protected] (May 14, 2009)

:thumbup:


----------



## PLAYED TT (Oct 17, 2010)

Glad you found a solution. Seems like some overkill but now you should never have a problem!


----------



## esoxlucios (Sep 17, 2009)

Here's some pics of one of the 7075 carriers. Notice the corrosion pitting where it is "designed" to mate to the iron spindle without a gasket.









And here's what they now look like, installed:


----------



## BeasTToftheEast (Sep 20, 2007)

I'm praying that the Vmaxx kit I'll be running on my TT wasn't made with the same issues as ECS kits were...


----------



## speed51133! (Aug 5, 2002)

this JUST in...

things corrode, rust, and generally do not last forever.

film at 11.


----------



## esoxlucios (Sep 17, 2009)

speed51133! said:


> this JUST in...
> 
> things corrode, rust, and generally do not last forever.
> 
> film at 11.



Yeah, so as a cool experiment, let's just speed up that process by about a thousand percent by joining galvanically incompatible metals together in an environment that will include electrolyte (salt water), and tell our customers our kits are "Designed to last a lifetime."


----------

