|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,887
Hard-core CEG'er
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,887 |
Originally posted by Stazi:
Tony, you're righ in your transaltion. But How can you ASSUME that temperatures should be equal on the front and rear rotors? You simply cannot do that, especially after a panic stop as the rears will NEVER do as much work as the fronts and therefore will NEVER reach the same temperature.
exactly...I would hope that the rears would NEVER get as hot as the fronts on a stock setup under heavy braking.
06 GMC Sierra 2500HD Dmax/ally
06 Pontiac G6 GT
05 CRF250R
FOR SALE 06 KX65 with riding gear $2700 obo
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 117
CEG\'er
|
|
OP
CEG\'er
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 117 |
Originally posted by Stazi:
Yeah and you're SOOOOOOO analytical with your whole argument based on the sound some snow made when you threw it on your rotors.   You're ridiculous. How did you come up with your imaginary bias proportion? How do you know it isn't 70-80-90-95%? 
Stop trying to act like you're in some sort of divine connection with your braking system.
Without ACTUAL brake pressure readings on each wheel, you CANNOT make the assumptions you have made. Temps won't tell you enough due to the different sized rotors, front to rear. You need to know the pad pressure, coefficient of fricton of the front and rear pads and actual contact area.
So if you measure the temps, what kind of home-brew calculation will you use to deduce that your brake roportioning is wrong? Do you have access to the original DVP&R for the CDW-27 Brake Design?......... somehow, I think NOT!
Eh, f@#k, do what the hell you want you are a lost cause.
Well if you could comprehend, maybe you saw a few IR temp readings that I posted. You don't need a tire pressure gauge to initially tell you have a totally flat tire ( well maybe you do), and if I can drive home, flat palm my barely lukewarm rear rotors yet not even dare to touch the fronts, that tells me something just may be off.
So I follow it up less than a week later with IR temps and you can't get it through your thick skull!
You obviously have a divine connection with your a$$hole.
BTW - temps tell plenty since this whole entire thread is about a GROSS temp mismatch. Again - let it soak in. It is only in like the heading "99% front brakes".
Not "64 vs 55" ... but 99 (that is the number just below 100 as in "100% a$$hole").
Where's all of your data Mr Analytical?
Look through the posts - you unecessarilly threw the first rocks.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 117
CEG\'er
|
|
OP
CEG\'er
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 117 |
Originally posted by TSIN03SE:
"It seems to me my rear brake is working less efficient than the fronts because given the proportioning in my car, the rears are far cooler than the fronts. Ideally the rotor temps should be more even in all situation for best efficiency."
Thank you! If it wasn't for Big Jim, Ray and you, I was beginning to believe that all CEG'ers on this thread were ego stroking OEM brake engineers without any reading comprehension skills.
Somehow they think that I'm insisting on unecesarily turning up my rear bias (not that it is currently adjustable). I'm really just looking for the cause of the imbalance adn fix it, leaving the system OEM. Still most likely some difficult to purge air is my guess.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,693
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,693 |
I havenot had internet access for the last few days so forgive me if I missed something on this thread when I tried to catch up.
Last I remember someone posted some temp readings from his car then 99fordsvt found an infared thermometer and found similar readings.
Did something else happen, or is 99fordsvt falling back to his original premise?
Jim Johnson
98 SVT
03 Escape Limited
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 117
CEG\'er
|
|
OP
CEG\'er
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 117 |
The temps weren't mis-balanced super bad from the few sample stops I tried with the IR temp gauge. But I need to repeat the test after a longer drive cycle. Early indications are that the bias is nearly 100% front at light braking, but closer to correct under heavy braking.
Hey - this could be entirely OK for this vehicle, but I still have to verify. I have a slight pull to the right, but that is tiny compared to this major imbalance.
It still remains that after my 40 minute drive home, the rears are lukewarm (110 ish), and the fronts 450+. When I get possession of an IR guage again I can confirm all of this.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 217
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 217 |
Please measure and post your results. I'm curious.
Stazi, I had this ideal for awhile. If contours are equipped with ABS, then we can eliminate the prop valve(some are built-in to the ABS module). This way the knee point isn't static but dynamic. It truely would be fully dependent on the dynamic weight transfer and available traction at each axle. This way we extract the max efficiency from the brake system.
This assumes the rears are corrected sized to be in the ball park of factory weight balance.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 10,015
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 10,015 |
That would be a VERY expensive experiment and I'm not sure if it would wig out the ABS. After all, is it a 2 or 4 channel ABS system?
Honestly, I wold not want more bias towards the rear anyway and having a flaoting knee would allow for too much of a possibility of rear lock-up. To a good driver this would be tolerable. To your average kid, recipe for disaster.
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: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,176
CEG'er
|
|
CEG'er
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,176 |
Hmmmm, I wonder what Terry Haines would make of all this...........
Bob
An ounce of prevention provides a pound of cure!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,693
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,693 |
Originally posted by 99fordsvt:
The temps weren't mis-balanced super bad from the few sample stops I tried with the IR temp gauge. But I need to repeat the test after a longer drive cycle. Early indications are that the bias is nearly 100% front at light braking, but closer to correct under heavy braking.
Hey - this could be entirely OK for this vehicle, but I still have to verify. I have a slight pull to the right, but that is tiny compared to this major imbalance.
It still remains that after my 40 minute drive home, the rears are lukewarm (110 ish), and the fronts 450+. When I get possession of an IR guage again I can confirm all of this.
So, verify.
Those sound like numbers to be expected.
The ball is in your court.
Jim Johnson
98 SVT
03 Escape Limited
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 383
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 383 |
Originally posted by Big Jim:
I havenot had internet access for the last few days so forgive me if I missed something on this thread when I tried to catch up.
Last I remember someone posted some temp readings from his car then 99fordsvt found an infared thermometer and found similar readings.
Did something else happen, or is 99fordsvt falling back to his original premise?
No, Jim, you haven't missed anything. This guy has yet to grow enough brain cells to figure out he needs to do some maintenance on the FRONT BRAKES. Somebody, please, stick a fork in this thread before any of us stick a fork in our own eyes.
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
|
|
|
|
|
