Wytbishop, you completely misunderstood my train of thought there.
Now I will have to say, it most likely was because of my bad wording.
I was trying to put it in a very simple perspective, not a scientific analysis in physics or astrology. It was supposed to be super simplified, thank you very much.
So to clarify a bit what I said... poorly, and what you succeeded in overanalyzing, is this:
1. In reference to a rotor's mass, it's size, it's thickness, a thin rotor cools faster than a thick rotor does. Before you go rocket scientist on me, let me say that a thin piece of metal cools faster than a thick piece of metal. Surface area exposed to the environment. HOWEVER you want to word it, I don't care.
2. In reference to you making a connection between the rotor's mass and the car's mass, you can't put a thin rotor on a car. It'll break, explode, cause hunger in 3rd world countries. There are many OTHER reasons why a car's rotor has to be thicker than a motorcycle's rotor. How is that insignificant? Do you like children to go hungry?
The comparison was supposed to be between a cars rotor size, and a motorcycles rotor size. It was SUPPOSED to simply point out that the cars rotors just GET hotter and STAY hotter than one from a motorcycle. A car is heavier than a motorcycle. More mass for the rotor to stop. Because there is more mass for the rotor to stop, there is more heat created.
to successfully transfer that sudden influx of heat from the pad to the rotor, "Mo' rotor" is essential. So you got big rotors. guess what? They're harder to cool. HOW is it you find you have to disagree with that?
And may I mention this as well, there was nothing mentioned of Cross-drilling here. I was trying to point out the differences between a motorcycle's rotor and a car's rotor, so get the word "cross-drilling" out of the conversation at this point please.
Yes a motorcycle's brakes are more exposed to the atmosphere and this is taken advantage of by manufacturers. Yes a motorcycle's braking system has less kinetic enrgy to convert to heat as a result of the overall lower mass of a motorcycle compared to a car. This has nothing to do with the size of the bike's rotor compared to the car's.
How does this not have anything to do with the bike's rotor and the car's?
Bike's rotor is SMALL, because the bike is SMALL. The car is BIGGER and the rotors are BIGGER. the relation is between the car's rotor and the car's weight vs. the motorcycle's rotor and the bike's weight. Difference between bike and car. Bike and car. Bike and car, Aarrrgh! Bike and car, bike and car, bike and car BIKE AND CAR.
Also, since rotor's are much thinner, they are able to remove heat from the rotors much faster, similar to how a heatsink works, again. Thinner fins, better heat transfer.
Ok, so this WAS very poorly worded. I was, again, simply trying to say, thinner rotor, more exposure to the atmosphere, better heat transfer.
And I failed to push the point when I said the word heatsink.
You don't create a heatsink that's shaped like a cube, then throw a fan on it and say, "Cool." That's all I was trying to say in it's super ultra mega simple nature. I didn't use the words "pad" anywhere in that sentence. They had no place in that sentence. They were exiled, banished. I wrote "VOID" on them and threw them in the garbage.
A. yes but not because the rotors are less massive, because the bike is less massive.
B. yes less heat energy is being absorbed and subsequently shed by a motorcycle's rotors, but only because less heat is being generated due to the motorcycle's overall lower mass.
C. see A....and B.
No crap. I'm glad we agree on something. The bike is less massive. Congratulations. this was ALL the difference between the bike and the car.
Not because, again, simply rotor size, but rotor size/mass/ability to cure cancer, in relation to the vehicle it's trying to stop, or however you want to word it.
The ONLY conflicting issue, is how does a cross-drilled rotor compare to a solid rotor on the testbed. The issue here, is: Cross-drilled bad for cars... good for motorcycles?
I KNOW they're not a good option for cars, but I'm SUGGESTING they might be feasibly better in a motorcycle application.
Manufacturers of the MOTORCYCLE industry COULD have said, "Durr, they look cool on dem' bikes, let's slap them on"
OR they could have done long strings of mathematical calculations based on their application ALONG WITH REAL TIME TEST RESULTS to determine whether a SOLID rotor was a better application than a CROSS DRILLED rotor.
Now have you seen a side by side comparison? Have you seen a mathematical equation based on ALL the factors of a motorcycle? All it's characteristics?
All this was trying to do was point out the inherently different characteristics of a WHOLE motorcycle vs. a WHOLE car and how THOSE differences can cause massive differences to the braking system, or more exact, how they effect the rotors themselves.
Now my OPINION is that it's possible manufacturers HAVE done the appropriate real time testing on different applications and MAYBE there WAS a reason for them to choose cross-drilled on their high performance bikes. Giving manufacturers a bit of credit here, that there MIIIIIGHTTTT be a reason why they chose cross-drilled over solid IN A MOTORCYCLE <<< other than the reason that "They look cool"
My Very last question: If I were to present you with a child's toy, one that has a string attached to a plastic circular object with pictures of different animals and an arm that moves in a clockwise motion. One that has a mechanism that when you pull that string, that the arm that moves in the clockwise motion moves and falls on a random picure of an animal, say it falls on a cow.
Another mechanism featured on this plastic circular object is, say, an audible mechanism. It plays back audio.
OK, so it falls on the cow, like I said previously, right? and this audio mechanism all of a sudden sends out frequencies out of this little speaker on this circular plastic object, right? To the human ear, we decode these frequencies based on the vibrations of the tiny hairs in the ears, do we agree?
OK so say the human ear decodes these vibrations as, "The cow says, Moo"
And I say to you, "Hey, cows say moo"
I have a feeling you'd disagree with me.
And say something like, "No, it says, "HruuuUUUgh!"
And I'd say, "It's the same thing."
And you'd say, "No it's not."
"Oh honey look.. it has cross drilled rotors.. it must have good brakes" 
