Sorry, but you have either not read or not understood the 'Physics of racing' series; weight is not a critical factor in the overall stopping distance. If you believe it is then explain why a Range Rover has a quicker stopping time than an Elise? Lossing weight has many, many advantages when it comes to cars, but braking is not one of them. I have provided links to detailed explinations of why this occurs, either you do not believe the racer (and Physics Phd) who wrote them or you have an alternative theory. The Following is from the Physics of racing and can be applied to braking and acceleration as they discuss maximum levels of grip available during straight line travel. The second you start looking at accel/decel during cornering it gets far more complex. "Finally, by Newton's second law again, the acceleration of the tire due to the force applied to it is We can now combine the expressions above to discover a fascinating fact: The maximum acceleration a tire can take is , a constant, independent of the mass of the car! While the maximum force a tire can take depends very much on the current vertical load or weight on the tire, the acceleration of that tire does not depend on the current weight. If a tire can take one before sliding, it can take it on a lightweight car as well as on a heavy car, and it can take it under load as well as when lightly loaded. We hinted at this fact in Part 2, but the analysis above hopefully gives some deeper insight into it. We note that being constant is only approximately true, because changes slightly as tire load varies, but this is a second-order effect (covered in a later article)." Nothing theoretical about it, almost any modern braking system (including drum brakes) can exert sufficent force to make the tyres lock. You are quite right about why better brakee setups are an advantage, as they allow the driver to exploit the system to its full, with better feel and modulation availiable, with low levels of fade.