In message , Mary
Fisher writes

"Andy Dingley" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 2 Apr 2005 16:17:13 +0100, ":::Jerry::::"
wrote:

(oh, can I be fecking bothered....)

And rear wheel drive was still more common than FWD, this meant that
rear brake shoes wore out

So RWD puts more braking force on the rear than FWD ?

as most brake systems didn't use any form on
limiting device on the rear hydraulics.

Braking force depends on the cylinder size and rear cylinders have
commonly been smaller than front cylinders since back in the '50s. If
you did have equal braking balance you'd spin as the back end locked
up.

Secondly, hydraulic limiting has been common since the early '60s.
Minis had a fixed sprung-piston balance valve limiting pressure to the
rear axle. My Fiat 124 (a '64 design) went a step further and had a
similar valve controlled by the back axle position - as weight shifted
forward and the rear axle went light, it reduced rear braking force to
avoid locking the wheels up.


Total bollox, asbestos has been removed from brake shoes / pads for
almost as long as linings haven't been fitted by most main stream
garages.

So what ? The regulations are there because they're there, not
because asbestos is necessarily there. Besides which, the likelihood
of encountering asbestos in the old shoes remained appreciable for a
very long time after new pads had ditched asbestos. Even today there
are still people driving Beetles with asbestos shoes in them.

Andy, sorry to say this, but I love you :-))))))))))

Enough to have his babies ?

--
geoff