Board Thread:Game Discussion/@comment-28169398-20171125201941/@comment-29898480-20171126174728

There some persistent myths about braking, such as the idea that "better" or "bigger" brakes yield shorter stopping distances. They don't, at least not in principle, so long as the braking force generated is adequate to lock the tires and most are. Tire grip pulling on pavement is what stops a car. The calipers squeezing on the rotor drives that pulling. If braking force through the calipers is adequate to overcome maximum grip and lock the tires, then it's adequate to squeeze for maximum grip.

So why "better" and/or "bigger brakes". The main reasons are resistance to fade (=ability to shed heat), durability, and better brake modulation (=brake feel). Modulation alone gives shorter braking distances in practice as it's easier to keep pressure at near-maximun grip. That's not a huge effect, though, and can't explain the Supercars. Fade resistance and durability are not about stopping distance the first time you brake, they are about stopping distance not getting longer over repeated braking. Engine braking can take some of the workload off brakes, but won't change stopping distance.

All that said, there are cars where the brakes are not adequate to lock the wheels. I own one, in fact. It's highly modified with moe than 2X stock power, downforce, and runs race rubber, and the stock brakes don't seem to be able to lock the wheels at high speed. It's hard for me to imagine that Supercars are as mismatched a build as my car.