By PHUONG LE
The Associated Press

Manufacturers of brake pads are gearing up to meet a first-in-the-nation Washington state law requiring they phase out the use of copper and other heavy metals.

Washington in 2010 banned the use of copper in brake pads, as a way to prevent the metal from polluting waters and harming fish. When brakes wear down, they release copper shavings onto roads and are eventually washed into rivers, where state officials say it could harm marine life, especially salmon.

"We're hoping that people will be ready to certify their products soon," said Ian Wesley, the law's coordinator. He added: "I'm expecting that people will want to certify quickly."

The first phase of the law takes effect Jan. 1, when manufacturers of friction brakes will be required to report the concentrations of heavy metals such as copper, zinc or nickel in their products.

Brake pads manufactured after 2015 may not contain asbestos, mercury, cadmium or other heavy metals. By 2021, brake pads must contain less than five percent copper. The allowable amount of copper could drop almost to zero in 2023 if manufacturers show it is possible.

California passed a similar law in September 2010. California's law requires brake pad manufacturers to reduce copper in brake pads sold in that state to no more than 5 percent by 2021, and no more than 0.5 percent by 2025.
The laws in Washington and California will likely mean that copper-free pads will become the industry standard in the U.S.

"Once California passed their law, it became obvious that that will be the national standard," said Ann Wilson, senior vice president of government affairs with Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association, which represents manufacturers of motor vehicle parts and systems for use in light- and heavy-duty vehicles.

rest of the article: Brake manufacturers gearing up to meet Wash. law | Local News | The Seattle Times

Looks like regen will provide much of braking in upcoming years.

I know a woman who got 200K miles out of her original brakes on her Honda Accord. Too bad people don't drive more like her. I think she has over 300K on that car now. It is exposed to salt in winter or she could probably be up there with the record breakers in a few more years.

Would be interesting to know if a patent holder lobbied to get this into effect. Success via legislation.

Carbon brakes for all?

__________________
Whoever said there's nothing more expensive than a cheap Mercedes never had a cheap Jaguar.

83 300D Turbo with manual conversion, early W126 vented front rotors and H4 headlights 400,xxx miles
08 Suzuki GSX-R600 M4 Slip-on 22,xxx miles
88 Jaguar XJS V12 94,xxx miles. Work in progress.

Do ceramics have metal in them?

__________________
[SIGPIC] Diesel loving autocrossing grandpa Architect. 08 Dodge 3/4 ton with Cummins & six speed; I have had about 35 benzes. I have a 39 Studebaker Coupe Express pickup in which I have had installed a 617 turbo and a five speed manual.[SIGPIC]

..I also have a 427 Cobra replica with an aluminum chassis.

Brakes are so over rated.

__________________
Jim

pretty much.if you drive a clutch there are very few times you actually need them IF you know how to drive.

Likely. I read that electromagnetic brake systems are under development as well.

Don’t remember the exact number but my SUV got in the neighborhood of 100K miles on the front pads. Still haven’t changed the rears with about to 44K more. I attribute this to doing mostly hiway driving. Bet much the same was true of the car/driver you mentioned.

I like this comment. I have no knowledge of if this is true but have seen other similar "solutions" that give the idea precident and credibility.

That said there is a lot of effort in the area to limit the kinds of things that end up in the water. As an aside, one of the biggest problems causing water polution has not been touched but heavy metals causes a lot of problems.

According to this article they do contain copper for strength and another article said they use aluminum as well.

I found this to be often true when I drove vehicles with a standard transmission. I guess the question then becomes, do clutch disks employ heavy metals and according to this, the answer is yes.

Realistically, when driving in traffic it is very difficult to rely upon only the clutch unless you want a choirs of people honking and giving you the finger (or worse) for driving so slowly.

Yep, in bumper to bumper traffic, you must stay withing 5' of the vehicle in front of you............if you increase it to 50' or 75' so you don't need the brakes............the DB following will have a myocardial infarction right on the spot. I typically have them flashing the headlights and blowing the horn................

Dude...why don't they just legislate "hemp pads?"

Or...would that be too confusing?

Better yet, get the "stoners" toasted, then make them walk...no need for brakes 'cause they ain't driving.

__________________

M. G. Burg
'10 - Dakota SXT - Daily Ride / ≈ 172.5K
.'76 - 450SLC - 107.024.12 / < .89.20 K
..'77 - 280E - 123.033.12 / > 128.20 K
...'67 - El Camino - 283ci / > 207.00 K
....'75 - Yamaha - 650XS / < 21.00 K
.....'87 - G20 Sportvan / > 206.00 K
......'85 - 4WINNS 160 I.O. / 140hp
.......'74 - Honda CT70 / Real 125
.
“I didn’t really say everything I said.”
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ Yogi Berra ~

I wonder if they will ban the US penny (with what little copper it has) in that state?

Re pennies, from a cost analysis it would probably be a large savings for the tax payers, since the modern penny cost about 2.5 cents to make and the overwhelming majority of pennies end up being collected.

Re toxicity and copper see this article. http://www.puyallup.wsu.edu/ppo/sod/extension/workshops/Pr_Water_Jun_2011/pdf/10McIntyre.pdf

I don’t know how old you are but you might remember not too long ago lead, another heavy metal, was used widely in automobile fuel, household paint and a bunch of other common consumer products. http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/lead/tips/sources.htm


Lead caused widespread health problems. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead_poisoning

A lot of car enthusiasts were worried about the impact of removing lead from automobile fuel. But it was removed and we are no worse for the removal.

So what’s the problem with reducing the use of copper?

I'm betting that somebody out there funding all the work to get these laws passed is deep in the business of making whatever they will use as a substitute. Truest words I have ever heard were in the movie All The President's Men : "Follow the money"
I agree getting rid of lead was a good thing. Lotsa things used to be made out of lead and it was a problem. It also made some things work better. And yes, removing lead from gas did cause some cars problems. Hardened vall seats solved most of those problems, but if your motor did not come with them, you bore a large cost for the change.

Quote:

I'm betting that somebody out there funding all the work to get these laws passed is deep in the business of making whatever they will use as a substitute.

Someone above speculated much the same thing. It’s entirely possible. I think the roots of this change originated in California. Here’s a blurb about what they did: http://www.washingtonautomotive.org/newest-articles-at-wawa/45-wawa-news/153-california-legislature-approves-bill-to-require-reduced-copper-content-in-brake-pads.html

Quote:

Truest words I have ever heard were in the movie All The President's Men : "Follow the money"

Dunno, I never saw the movie but the auto industry evidently had a vast interest in poisoning people instead of even trying to engineer a solution to spewing toxins out the tail pipe. Of course the .gov mostly cared only about profiteering from fuel taxes.

Quote:

I agree getting rid of lead was a good thing. Lotsa things used to be made out of lead and it was a problem. It also made some things work better. And yes, removing lead from gas did cause some cars problems.

Lead started to be added into automobile fuel in about 1923 as a means to reduce engine knocking. There was widespread knowledge at the time about the damage lead caused to people, but it wasn’t until the Clean Air act of 1970 that lead was listed as a toxin. The Act called for the gradual removal of lead. Accordingly it was 1996 before the EPA goals were mostly met and leaded fuel was no longer sold in the USA. 25+ years is beyond the service life of most vehicles. I have a 21 year old vehicle and others at this site have older vehicles, so we all know some people keep their cars a long time. But in the end, by following the money one could see that the money showed the automobile industry and the .gov profited on all sides of this issue.

Of course, lead is used today in aviation fuels for piston engines. This is said to amount to half the lead poisoning in the USA http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=lead-in-aviation-fuel .

Quote:

A 2011 Duke University study found that kids living within 500 meters of an airport where leaded avgas is used have higher blood lead levels than other children, with elevated lead levels in blood found in kids as far as one kilometer away. The EPA estimates that 16 million Americans live close to one of 22,000 airports where leaded avgas is routinely used—and three million children go to schools near these airports.

In addition, lead is still widely used in fuels in other countries. Here’s a short read. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/indepth_coverage/science/alt_fuels/unleaded.html

Wonder how much food has high lead content? See this: http://www.gaia-health.com/articles251/000261-high-lead-levels-found-in-85-percent-of-foods-marketed-to-children.shtml

Quote:

Hardened vall seats solved most of those problems, but if your motor did not come with them, you bore a large cost for the change.

Don't you find it curious that so few cared or care about the cost of lead poisoning to themselves or their children?

While the Clean Air act was originally signed into law by a Democratic President (LBJ), subsequent additions have been added by Presidents of both parties, 1970 – Nixon; 1977 – Carter and 1990 – GHW Bush, which I find highly remarkable given typical Republican indifference towards poisoning people by the million. That they supported the act speaks to the importance of the goals.

On the other hand perhaps it’s only about the profits that come from innovation. If one follows the money, the true motivation for change could pretty clearly be argued as in support of health or in support of increased profits....................................................................