|
|
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 117
CEG\'er
|
OP
CEG\'er
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 117 |
Originally posted by 99fordsvt:
Apparently you didn't see or understand the "as long as the you aren't locking up any wheel" part of my message.
Most Cg / weight distributions combinations on the road can easily get to 0.3g without locking the rears. Prove me wrong.
What did I correct?
Well I guess I have to spell it out for you again. Whether you have 70%, 80, 90 or 95% front brake bias, adding weight to the rear won't "make the rears work any harder", It just doesn't matter where the weight is added for normal low level braking (as in the city driving case where I notice the grossly mis-balanced temps).
Any clearer? Your pull the parking brake analogy is senseless. Big braking well over 0.3 G, unload the rears and locks them, as expected. What is the point?
Did I ever say weight transfer doesn't happen? NO
I think the point is that you can have the brake bias set too much to the fronts, and overheat the fronts (as compared the rears) in city stop/go, even is the bias is OK for panic stops.
Where the weight is under that (<0.3g) situation is totally a non-issue, contrary to TCE and RARA's gospel.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 3,223
"Absolut Rara."
|
|
"Absolut Rara."
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 3,223 |
Originally posted by 99fordsvt:
Where the weight is under that (<0.3g) situation is totally a non-issue, contrary to TCE and RARA's gospel.
Except the situation you discuss is totally irrelevant. 0.3g is a pretty normal traffic stop rate, anything less and you could nearly use your tennis shoes to generate the braking effort.
If you are locking the tires under 0.3g, then you either need some tires that aren't made out of teflon, or get off the ice.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 117
CEG\'er
|
|
OP
CEG\'er
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 117 |
Originally posted by 99fordsvt:
But I really think my normal 40 minute drive cycle is required first. And that is when I first noticed the larger temp differences (and again later today
You say 0.3g is irrelevent.
Of course, for anything related to maximum braking it is.
But to the big temp difference I observed, it is not.
- 0.3g and below is around a normal city stop, agreed.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 3,223
"Absolut Rara."
|
|
"Absolut Rara."
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 3,223 |
Originally posted by 99fordsvt:
Originally posted by 99fordsvt:
But I really think my normal 40 minute drive cycle is required first. And that is when I first noticed the larger temp differences (and again later today
You say 0.3g is irrelevent.
Of course, for anything related to maximum braking it is.
But to the big temp difference I observed, it is not.
- 0.3g and below is around a normal city stop, agreed.
0.3g IS irrelevant for the temperature discussion that started this thread. The temps measured for BOTH front and rear are incredibly low, and far from the capacity of the system. If you set the bias to maximize the use of the rears in very low effort situations, you simply end up having the bias way off at higher effort stops, resulting in a car that is dangerous to drive.
You are frustrating the hell out of me, because you are ignorant and argumentative. If you want to learn how brake systems work, great, we'll hold a class; but if you want to argue your ignorance, and refuse to give up when shown wrong, go someplace else. How many vehicles out on the road have brake parts that you designed or otherwise worked on? Let me know when you have more than I do, or at least when you have one.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 383
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 383 |
"You can lead a horse to water but then you still have to deal with the horse's ass." Or something. Maybe it's "you can lead a horse to water but it can't drink when it's choking on its nuts". Nah, that's not quite it either..."A fool and a keyboard are a dangerous combination"...meh..."there's a sucker born every minute, and then he buys cross-drilled rotors"...no that isn't it either. Damn. I'll have to think about this for a while. Maybe it's "your steadfast refusal to absorb even one bit of the useful information given to you on a polished silver platter by industry experts while stubbornly arguing a ridiculous case indicates you really belong on ClubGP.com". Yeah, that's it. Whew.
Pacific Green '96 Contour LX V6
â??98 GTP, light mods, 14.66/94
Calypso Green '92 Mustang LX coupe, 13.56/101
Crown Autocross Club 1999 Street Tire Champion, 2000/2001/2002 Street Modified Champion
KCR SCCA 2002 Solo II Street Modified Champion
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 4,140
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 4,140 |
 This thread is completely useless. Rara should post how brakes work in the FAQ, and delete this drivel. I don't see all the arguing here being necessary at all. They are friggin' brakes FCOL. Metal thingies to make a car stop. This kind of bickering belongs in CI, in those stupid oil threads.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 10,015
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 10,015 |
If the clown wants the car to swap ends next time his stands on the brakes, then fine let him increase the rear bias, and end up facing oncoming traffic. Talking to him is pointless, as he is ignoarant and argumaetative. If you're pissed at the brake wear and/or fading/warping, I've got an idea...use better f$#king brake componenets other than OEM!  Alternatively one-up that and upsize the fronts. Increasaing the rear braking strength which allows the rears to lock will increase the chance of instability in a panic stop - remember this: A ROLLING TIRE HAS MORE TRACTION AND CONTROL THAT A SKIDDING TIRE  What this means is the if you lock the fronts and the rears keep rolling (which would only happen if the re is no ABS or it failed) then you would lose steering, increase the stopping distance BUT you'd still go straight and not spinning off into a ditch and killing yourself and others. Luckily ABS (which most of us have) reduces the front skidding, which although may not reduce stopping length DOES allow the driver to STEER the car, as only rolling tires steer! If the rears lock before the fronts, the fact that they will have a lower coefficient of friction now, will undoubtedly unsettle the car and cause it to spin - thus you lose control all together and swerve/crash. Not very ideal huh?  Now if you want to argue this - well my freind you're a nimrod and you know not of what you speak. 
2000 SVT Turbo 295hp/269ftlb@12psi
#1 for Bendix Brakes Kits!
Knuckles rebuilt w/new bearings $55
AUSSIE ENDLINKS $70
Gutted pre-cats $80/set
A lack of planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on mine!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 3,223
"Absolut Rara."
|
|
"Absolut Rara."
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 3,223 |
tell us how you really feel Stazi 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,176
CEG'er
|
|
CEG'er
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,176 |
Is it time to re-elect the President yet? That was the last time I have seen all this good-will being spread around!!!
Bob
An ounce of prevention provides a pound of cure!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 117
CEG\'er
|
|
OP
CEG\'er
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 117 |
Originally posted by Stazi:
If the clown wants the car to swap ends next time his stands on the brakes, then fine let him increase the rear bias, and end up facing oncoming traffic.
Bravo! You've just indicated that you don't know what the HeII the thread is about.
It is about a vehicle with rear bias well BELOW what it is supposed to be. So to add rear bias (or preferably fix whatever is causing the gross underbias) would put it back to NORMAL!
Nice 1+1 = 2 post of yours, but I never disputed those braking 101 items. Why you bring them up is mysterious to me.
I plan to borrow the IR temp gauge again soon and do more testing. Here are some comparisons from other vehicles:
http://www.zeckhausen.com/testing_brakes.htm
Hey - whatdayaknow - all those rear brakes in the test are above the "sizzle temp"
The know it all flamers who can't comprehend obviously know the outcome beforehand and that all Contour brake systems are faultless and NEVER NEVER NEVER underbias the rear .... NEVER.
|
|
|
|
|
