https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-l...607_122827.jpg

It was jump started prior to my arrival, I just drove it on my
beavertail trailer in 6WD low. No problem. It looked pretty new to me,
we could not believe it when we saw it. The batteries are dead 100%
and it would not restart. I am going to Chicago right now (as a
passenger) with the truck in the lowboy trailer.

i

On 6/7/2013 3:51 PM, Ignoramus29060 wrote:
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-l...607_122827.jpg

It was jump started prior to my arrival, I just drove it on my
beavertail trailer in 6WD low. No problem. It looked pretty new to me,
we could not believe it when we saw it. The batteries are dead 100%
and it would not restart. I am going to Chicago right now (as a
passenger) with the truck in the lowboy trailer.

i

Well, just how kewl is that!!!????

Sometimes even a blind hog... Looks like ya' scored on that one.

One imagines there's going to be a "veritable plethora" over the next
few years unless they just scrap/abandon everything over there and don't
even ship it home--nothing they could do would surprise me.

--

On Fri, 07 Jun 2013 15:51:55 -0500, Ignoramus29060
wrote:

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-l...607_122827.jpg

It was jump started prior to my arrival, I just drove it on my
beavertail trailer in 6WD low. No problem. It looked pretty new to me,
we could not believe it when we saw it. The batteries are dead 100%
and it would not restart. I am going to Chicago right now (as a
passenger) with the truck in the lowboy trailer.

i

Based on the milegae etc etc..it IS a new truck. Thats how the
government does things.

You did very very well!

Gunner

--
"You guess the truth hurts?

Really?

"Hurt" aint the word.

For Liberals, the truth is like salt to a slug.
Sunlight to a vampire.
Raid® to a cockroach.
Sheriff Brody to a shark
Bush to a Liberal

The truth doesn't just hurt. It's painful, like a red hot poker shoved
up their ass. Like sliding down a hundred foot razor blade using their
dick as a brake.

They HATE the truth."

On 2013-06-07, Ignoramus29060 wrote:
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-l...607_122827.jpg

It was jump started prior to my arrival, I just drove it on my
beavertail trailer in 6WD low. No problem. It looked pretty new to me,
we could not believe it when we saw it. The batteries are dead 100%
and it would not restart. I am going to Chicago right now (as a
passenger) with the truck in the lowboy trailer.

i

I figured out the battery problem. There are four batteries in the
battery compartment. Only two were connected and one of them was
bad. I swapped it with another battery that was not connected, and the
truck starts and runs good.

I drove the truck off the lowboy trailer:

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-N...607_190346.jpg

i

On 2013-06-07, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Fri, 07 Jun 2013 15:51:55 -0500, Ignoramus29060
wrote:

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-l...607_122827.jpg

It was jump started prior to my arrival, I just drove it on my
beavertail trailer in 6WD low. No problem. It looked pretty new to me,
we could not believe it when we saw it. The batteries are dead 100%
and it would not restart. I am going to Chicago right now (as a
passenger) with the truck in the lowboy trailer.

i

Based on the milegae etc etc..it IS a new truck. Thats how the
government does things.

You did very very well!

Thanks. I will see how it goes. It seems to have a few problems, the
driver's door stopped opening, the ABS light is on, and it seems to
drop air pressure in the airbrake system. The first and last one I am
sure will be an easy fix. The ABS, I am not so sure, you can drive it
without ABS, just brake lightly to avoid wheel lock-up, and avoid
tailgating.

i

On Fri, 07 Jun 2013 21:29:57 -0500, Ignoramus29060
wrote:

On 2013-06-07, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Fri, 07 Jun 2013 15:51:55 -0500, Ignoramus29060
wrote:

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-l...607_122827.jpg

It was jump started prior to my arrival, I just drove it on my
beavertail trailer in 6WD low. No problem. It looked pretty new to me,
we could not believe it when we saw it. The batteries are dead 100%
and it would not restart. I am going to Chicago right now (as a
passenger) with the truck in the lowboy trailer.

i

Based on the milegae etc etc..it IS a new truck. Thats how the
government does things.

You did very very well!

Thanks. I will see how it goes. It seems to have a few problems, the
driver's door stopped opening, the ABS light is on, and it seems to
drop air pressure in the airbrake system. The first and last one I am
sure will be an easy fix. The ABS, I am not so sure, you can drive it
without ABS, just brake lightly to avoid wheel lock-up, and avoid
tailgating.

i
If you know HOW to drive, driving without ABS does not require making
any adjustment to your driving style. Just don't lock the brakes.
Same as driving a pre-ABS vehicle.

On 2013-06-08, wrote:
On Fri, 07 Jun 2013 21:29:57 -0500, Ignoramus29060
wrote:

On 2013-06-07, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Fri, 07 Jun 2013 15:51:55 -0500, Ignoramus29060
wrote:

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-l...607_122827.jpg

It was jump started prior to my arrival, I just drove it on my
beavertail trailer in 6WD low. No problem. It looked pretty new to me,
we could not believe it when we saw it. The batteries are dead 100%
and it would not restart. I am going to Chicago right now (as a
passenger) with the truck in the lowboy trailer.

i

Based on the milegae etc etc..it IS a new truck. Thats how the
government does things.

You did very very well!

Thanks. I will see how it goes. It seems to have a few problems, the
driver's door stopped opening, the ABS light is on, and it seems to
drop air pressure in the airbrake system. The first and last one I am
sure will be an easy fix. The ABS, I am not so sure, you can drive it
without ABS, just brake lightly to avoid wheel lock-up, and avoid
tailgating.

i
If you know HOW to drive, driving without ABS does not require making
any adjustment to your driving style. Just don't lock the brakes.
Same as driving a pre-ABS vehicle.

THis is how I always drive. I just replaced the rear brake pads for the
first time in my pick-up truck, at 88,000 miles. The front brake pads
were less than halfwork and did not need replacing.

I almost never brake hard, I do not need to, I keep the distance and
drive on cruise control, pleasantly contemplating stuff, instead of
being glued to the gas pedal, weaving in and out of traffic.

i

On 2013-06-08, Ignoramus29060 wrote:
On 2013-06-08, wrote:
On Fri, 07 Jun 2013 21:29:57 -0500, Ignoramus29060
wrote:

On 2013-06-07, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Fri, 07 Jun 2013 15:51:55 -0500, Ignoramus29060
wrote:

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-l...607_122827.jpg

It was jump started prior to my arrival, I just drove it on my
beavertail trailer in 6WD low. No problem. It looked pretty new to me,
we could not believe it when we saw it. The batteries are dead 100%
and it would not restart. I am going to Chicago right now (as a
passenger) with the truck in the lowboy trailer.

i

Based on the milegae etc etc..it IS a new truck. Thats how the
government does things.

You did very very well!

Thanks. I will see how it goes. It seems to have a few problems, the
driver's door stopped opening, the ABS light is on, and it seems to
drop air pressure in the airbrake system. The first and last one I am
sure will be an easy fix. The ABS, I am not so sure, you can drive it
without ABS, just brake lightly to avoid wheel lock-up, and avoid
tailgating.

i
If you know HOW to drive, driving without ABS does not require making
any adjustment to your driving style. Just don't lock the brakes.
Same as driving a pre-ABS vehicle.

THis is how I always drive. I just replaced the rear brake pads for the
first time in my pick-up truck, at 88,000 miles. The front brake pads
were less than halfwork and did not need replacing.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ half worn

I almost never brake hard, I do not need to, I keep the distance and
drive on cruise control, pleasantly contemplating stuff, instead of
being glued to the gas pedal, weaving in and out of traffic.

i

On Fri, 07 Jun 2013 15:51:55 -0500, Ignoramus29060
wrote:

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-l...607_122827.jpg

It was jump started prior to my arrival, I just drove it on my
beavertail trailer in 6WD low. No problem. It looked pretty new to me,
we could not believe it when we saw it. The batteries are dead 100%
and it would not restart. I am going to Chicago right now (as a
passenger) with the truck in the lowboy trailer.

Way cool, Iggy!

--
I have never understood why it is "greed" to want to keep the money you
have earned, but it is not greed to want take someone else's money.
--Thomas Sowell

On Fri, 07 Jun 2013 21:29:57 -0500, Ignoramus29060
wrote:

On 2013-06-07, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Fri, 07 Jun 2013 15:51:55 -0500, Ignoramus29060
wrote:

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-l...607_122827.jpg

It was jump started prior to my arrival, I just drove it on my
beavertail trailer in 6WD low. No problem. It looked pretty new to me,
we could not believe it when we saw it. The batteries are dead 100%
and it would not restart. I am going to Chicago right now (as a
passenger) with the truck in the lowboy trailer.

i

Based on the milegae etc etc..it IS a new truck. Thats how the
government does things.

You did very very well!

That he did. Damned well!


Thanks. I will see how it goes. It seems to have a few problems, the
driver's door stopped opening, the ABS light is on, and it seems to
drop air pressure in the airbrake system. The first and last one I am
sure will be an easy fix. The ABS, I am not so sure, you can drive it
without ABS, just brake lightly to avoid wheel lock-up, and avoid
tailgating.

Is that ABS "anti-lock brake system" or "air brake system"? If it's
an antilock system, someone may have bled the brakes wrong and
uncentered the warning piston. (Remembering way back when I did
wrenchin'...) OR it could be that some ancient air line is cracked
and leaking, which set off the ABS light.

Do a thorough lube job on all hinges, latches, etc. with spray lithium
grease. I've fixed more dead old-car latches with that stuff than you
can imagine. Available at Home Depot, AutoZone, Pep Boys, etc. Just
spray it inside the latch assembly without removal, bang it around a
dozen times or so, and it magically starts working again. Unless the
handle/rod was disconnected from the latch itself, which is easily
possible. Pop the inner door cover off and see. 90% of dead latches
I've worked on were just stuck or disconnected. Few actually broke.
YMMV.


--
I have never understood why it is "greed" to want to keep the money you
have earned, but it is not greed to want take someone else's money.
--Thomas Sowell

Larry Jaques wrote:
On Fri, 07 Jun 2013 15:51:55 -0500, Ignoramus29060
wrote:

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-l...607_122827.jpg

It was jump started prior to my arrival, I just drove it on my
beavertail trailer in 6WD low. No problem. It looked pretty new to me,
we could not believe it when we saw it. The batteries are dead 100%
and it would not restart. I am going to Chicago right now (as a
passenger) with the truck in the lowboy trailer.

Way cool, Iggy!


Very possible the ABS light is related to the air leak.


"
The safety of the M939 series of trucks has been criticized, especially
braking performance and stability when loaded. In 1999 the US Army began
refitting anti-lock brake systems to the M939 trucks. Until the trucks
were modified, they were limited to a 40 mph (65 km/h) top speed by an
Army-wide safety order.

Prior to that improvement, 26% of all Army vehicle accidents and 53% of
all Army vehicle accident fatalities were in M939 series trucks. From
1987 to 1998 the series made up 9% of the total US Army vehicle
inventory, but accounted for 34% of all fatal accidents.

The problem seemed to be that the torque converter would "lock up" in
2nd gear, and would not unlock easily. When the driver attempted to
brake hard, often in a sudden or 'panic' stop, and accidentally locked
the brakes (no wheel movement, tires skidding), this would kill the
engine; this also killed the power steering, and the driver would
suddenly be unable to steer. Too often, the truck would veer sideways
and either hit something or roll over.
"


--
Steve W.

On Fri, 07 Jun 2013 21:24:44 -0500, Ignoramus29060
wrote:

On 2013-06-07, Ignoramus29060 wrote:
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-l...607_122827.jpg

It was jump started prior to my arrival, I just drove it on my
beavertail trailer in 6WD low. No problem. It looked pretty new to me,
we could not believe it when we saw it. The batteries are dead 100%
and it would not restart. I am going to Chicago right now (as a
passenger) with the truck in the lowboy trailer.

i

I figured out the battery problem. There are four batteries in the
battery compartment. Only two were connected and one of them was
bad. I swapped it with another battery that was not connected, and the
truck starts and runs good.

I drove the truck off the lowboy trailer:

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-N...607_190346.jpg

i
Did they paint over all the military markings?


--
"You guess the truth hurts?

Really?

"Hurt" aint the word.

For Liberals, the truth is like salt to a slug.
Sunlight to a vampire.
Raid® to a cockroach.
Sheriff Brody to a shark
Bush to a Liberal

The truth doesn't just hurt. It's painful, like a red hot poker shoved
up their ass. Like sliding down a hundred foot razor blade using their
dick as a brake.

They HATE the truth."

I almost never brake hard, I do not need to, I keep the distance and
drive on cruise control, pleasantly contemplating stuff, instead of
being glued to the gas pedal, weaving in and out of traffic.

i

Shoot, I thought you lived in Chicago. You're out of line there.

On 2013-06-08, Karl Townsend wrote:

I almost never brake hard, I do not need to, I keep the distance and
drive on cruise control, pleasantly contemplating stuff, instead of
being glued to the gas pedal, weaving in and out of traffic.

i

Shoot, I thought you lived in Chicago. You're out of line there.

Not really, only about half of the people here drive like crazy.

i

On 2013-06-08, Steve W. wrote:
Larry Jaques wrote:
On Fri, 07 Jun 2013 15:51:55 -0500, Ignoramus29060
wrote:

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-l...607_122827.jpg

It was jump started prior to my arrival, I just drove it on my
beavertail trailer in 6WD low. No problem. It looked pretty new to me,
we could not believe it when we saw it. The batteries are dead 100%
and it would not restart. I am going to Chicago right now (as a
passenger) with the truck in the lowboy trailer.

Way cool, Iggy!


Very possible the ABS light is related to the air leak.

That would be great, as air leaks are easy to find and fix.

i

On 2013-06-08, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Fri, 07 Jun 2013 21:29:57 -0500, Ignoramus29060
wrote:

On 2013-06-07, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Fri, 07 Jun 2013 15:51:55 -0500, Ignoramus29060
wrote:

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-l...607_122827.jpg

It was jump started prior to my arrival, I just drove it on my
beavertail trailer in 6WD low. No problem. It looked pretty new to me,
we could not believe it when we saw it. The batteries are dead 100%
and it would not restart. I am going to Chicago right now (as a
passenger) with the truck in the lowboy trailer.

i

Based on the milegae etc etc..it IS a new truck. Thats how the
government does things.

You did very very well!

That he did. Damned well!


Thanks. I will see how it goes. It seems to have a few problems, the
driver's door stopped opening, the ABS light is on, and it seems to
drop air pressure in the airbrake system. The first and last one I am
sure will be an easy fix. The ABS, I am not so sure, you can drive it
without ABS, just brake lightly to avoid wheel lock-up, and avoid
tailgating.

Is that ABS "anti-lock brake system" or "air brake system"? If it's
an antilock system, someone may have bled the brakes wrong and
uncentered the warning piston. (Remembering way back when I did
wrenchin'...) OR it could be that some ancient air line is cracked
and leaking, which set off the ABS light.

It has air brakes and anti-lock braking system. ABS refers to antilock
braking system.

Do a thorough lube job on all hinges, latches, etc. with spray lithium
grease. I've fixed more dead old-car latches with that stuff than you
can imagine. Available at Home Depot, AutoZone, Pep Boys, etc. Just
spray it inside the latch assembly without removal, bang it around a
dozen times or so, and it magically starts working again. Unless the
handle/rod was disconnected from the latch itself, which is easily
possible. Pop the inner door cover off and see. 90% of dead latches
I've worked on were just stuck or disconnected. Few actually broke.
YMMV.



Yep, will do.

i

On 2013-06-08, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Fri, 07 Jun 2013 21:24:44 -0500, Ignoramus29060
wrote:

On 2013-06-07, Ignoramus29060 wrote:
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-l...607_122827.jpg

It was jump started prior to my arrival, I just drove it on my
beavertail trailer in 6WD low. No problem. It looked pretty new to me,
we could not believe it when we saw it. The batteries are dead 100%
and it would not restart. I am going to Chicago right now (as a
passenger) with the truck in the lowboy trailer.

i

I figured out the battery problem. There are four batteries in the
battery compartment. Only two were connected and one of them was
bad. I swapped it with another battery that was not connected, and the
truck starts and runs good.

I drove the truck off the lowboy trailer:

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-N...607_190346.jpg

i
Did they paint over all the military markings?


I think so, I did not really have a lot of time to look in detail, though.

i

On 6/8/2013 12:05 AM, Ignoramus29060 wrote:

... I just replaced the rear brake pads for the
first time in my pick-up truck, at 88,000 miles. The front brake pads
were less than half [worn] and did not need replacing.
...

That's interesting: on every vehicle that I (or my wife) have ever had,
the front brakes wear 2 or 3 times as fast as the back. 'Cause that's
where the weight is - especially on stopping, with the inertial weight
transfer. Do you generally have a lot of weight in the back?

Bob

On 6/8/2013 2:17 AM, Steve W. wrote:
....
The problem seemed to be that the torque converter would "lock up" in
2nd gear, and would not unlock easily. When the driver attempted to
brake hard, often in a sudden or 'panic' stop, and accidentally locked
the brakes (no wheel movement, tires skidding), this would kill the
engine; this also killed the power steering, and the driver would
suddenly be unable to steer. Too often, the truck would veer sideways
and either hit something or roll over.

Well, that would be exciting! So they "fixed" it by adding ABS. Why
does that not surprise me? Bob

On Fri, 07 Jun 2013 22:31:22 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Fri, 07 Jun 2013 21:29:57 -0500, Ignoramus29060
wrote:

On 2013-06-07, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Fri, 07 Jun 2013 15:51:55 -0500, Ignoramus29060
wrote:

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-l...607_122827.jpg

It was jump started prior to my arrival, I just drove it on my
beavertail trailer in 6WD low. No problem. It looked pretty new to me,
we could not believe it when we saw it. The batteries are dead 100%
and it would not restart. I am going to Chicago right now (as a
passenger) with the truck in the lowboy trailer.

i

Based on the milegae etc etc..it IS a new truck. Thats how the
government does things.

You did very very well!

That he did. Damned well!


Thanks. I will see how it goes. It seems to have a few problems, the
driver's door stopped opening, the ABS light is on, and it seems to
drop air pressure in the airbrake system. The first and last one I am
sure will be an easy fix. The ABS, I am not so sure, you can drive it
without ABS, just brake lightly to avoid wheel lock-up, and avoid
tailgating.

Is that ABS "anti-lock brake system" or "air brake system"? If it's
an antilock system, someone may have bled the brakes wrong and
uncentered the warning piston. (Remembering way back when I did
wrenchin'...) OR it could be that some ancient air line is cracked
and leaking, which set off the ABS light.


Not part of ABS - you are thinking WAY back to the first fual
ballanced systems - failsafe so if one half of the system loses
pressure you still have SOME brake.
Do a thorough lube job on all hinges, latches, etc. with spray lithium
grease. I've fixed more dead old-car latches with that stuff than you
can imagine. Available at Home Depot, AutoZone, Pep Boys, etc. Just
spray it inside the latch assembly without removal, bang it around a
dozen times or so, and it magically starts working again. Unless the
handle/rod was disconnected from the latch itself, which is easily
possible. Pop the inner door cover off and see. 90% of dead latches
I've worked on were just stuck or disconnected. Few actually broke.
YMMV.

On 2013-06-08, Bob Engelhardt wrote:
On 6/8/2013 12:05 AM, Ignoramus29060 wrote:

... I just replaced the rear brake pads for the
first time in my pick-up truck, at 88,000 miles. The front brake pads
were less than half [worn] and did not need replacing.
...

That's interesting: on every vehicle that I (or my wife) have ever had,
the front brakes wear 2 or 3 times as fast as the back. 'Cause that's
where the weight is - especially on stopping, with the inertial weight
transfer. Do you generally have a lot of weight in the back?

Not really. It is a pick-up, most weight is in front. Actually what
you said does not make sense.

i

On Sat, 08 Jun 2013 14:56:23 -0500, Ignoramus20041
wrote:

On 2013-06-08, Bob Engelhardt wrote:
On 6/8/2013 12:05 AM, Ignoramus29060 wrote:

... I just replaced the rear brake pads for the
first time in my pick-up truck, at 88,000 miles. The front brake pads
were less than half [worn] and did not need replacing.
...

That's interesting: on every vehicle that I (or my wife) have ever had,
the front brakes wear 2 or 3 times as fast as the back. 'Cause that's
where the weight is - especially on stopping, with the inertial weight
transfer. Do you generally have a lot of weight in the back?

Not really. It is a pick-up, most weight is in front. Actually what
you said does not make sense.

In most vehicles, front brakes wear far faster than rear brakes. And
it's because the weight shifts to the front upon braking. It applies
even to rear-engined cars.

--
Ed Huntress

On 6/8/2013 4:04 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Sat, 08 Jun 2013 14:56:23 -0500, Ignoramus20041

....

Not really. It is a pick-up, most weight is in front. Actually what
you said does not make sense.

In most vehicles, front brakes wear far faster than rear brakes. And
it's because the weight shifts to the front upon braking. It applies
even to rear-engined cars.

Ayup, ever notice how the front end dips on stopping; the harder stop
the more pronounced?

Iggy may be the exception given the way he says he drives and that many
light trucks still have rear drums and disk front which can change the
wear rate considerable.

On Sat, 08 Jun 2013 16:47:01 -0500, dpb wrote:

On 6/8/2013 4:04 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Sat, 08 Jun 2013 14:56:23 -0500, Ignoramus20041

...

Not really. It is a pick-up, most weight is in front. Actually what
you said does not make sense.

In most vehicles, front brakes wear far faster than rear brakes. And
it's because the weight shifts to the front upon braking. It applies
even to rear-engined cars.

Ayup, ever notice how the front end dips on stopping; the harder stop
the more pronounced?

Iggy may be the exception given the way he says he drives and that many
light trucks still have rear drums and disk front which can change the
wear rate considerable.

I've never seen a car or a light truck that wears its rear brakes
faster than the fronts. If the rear drums are really feeble, it may be
that there are some out there. But I haven't seen one. And I've had a
bunch (including my current 2004 focus) that have disks on front and
really sad little drums on the rear.

--
Ed Huntress

On Sat, 08 Jun 2013 17:04:39 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Sat, 08 Jun 2013 14:56:23 -0500, Ignoramus20041
wrote:

On 2013-06-08, Bob Engelhardt wrote:
On 6/8/2013 12:05 AM, Ignoramus29060 wrote:

... I just replaced the rear brake pads for the
first time in my pick-up truck, at 88,000 miles. The front brake pads
were less than half [worn] and did not need replacing.
...

That's interesting: on every vehicle that I (or my wife) have ever had,
the front brakes wear 2 or 3 times as fast as the back. 'Cause that's
where the weight is - especially on stopping, with the inertial weight
transfer. Do you generally have a lot of weight in the back?

Not really. It is a pick-up, most weight is in front. Actually what
you said does not make sense.

In most vehicles, front brakes wear far faster than rear brakes. And
it's because the weight shifts to the front upon braking. It applies
even to rear-engined cars.

Except in snow/salt country where rear discs can need service twice as
often as front. Especially on lightly driven vehicles. The rears don't
get hot enough to dry out and it's rust city. One friend who doesn't
drive much is working on his rears almost annually. I remember reading
that some maker had returned to rear drums because of the issue.
http://www.tegger.com/hondafaq/rustybrakes/brakes3.html

On Sat, 08 Jun 2013 16:47:01 -0500, dpb wrote:

On 6/8/2013 4:04 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Sat, 08 Jun 2013 14:56:23 -0500, Ignoramus20041

...

Not really. It is a pick-up, most weight is in front. Actually what
you said does not make sense.

In most vehicles, front brakes wear far faster than rear brakes. And
it's because the weight shifts to the front upon braking. It applies
even to rear-engined cars.

Ayup, ever notice how the front end dips on stopping; the harder stop
the more pronounced?

Iggy may be the exception given the way he says he drives and that many
light trucks still have rear drums and disk front which can change the
wear rate considerable.


My various Ford Rangers go through 2 front pad changes for every 1
rear drum brake shoe change. And I dont drive hard, but I am often
pulling a trailer and have about 500-800 lbs of gear on/in the truck
all the time.

Gunner

--
"You guess the truth hurts?

Really?

"Hurt" aint the word.

For Liberals, the truth is like salt to a slug.
Sunlight to a vampire.
Raid® to a cockroach.
Sheriff Brody to a shark
Bush to a Liberal

The truth doesn't just hurt. It's painful, like a red hot poker shoved
up their ass. Like sliding down a hundred foot razor blade using their
dick as a brake.

They HATE the truth."

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 08 Jun 2013 14:56:23 -0500, Ignoramus20041
wrote:

On 2013-06-08, Bob Engelhardt wrote:
On 6/8/2013 12:05 AM, Ignoramus29060 wrote:

... I just replaced the rear brake pads for the
first time in my pick-up truck, at 88,000 miles. The front brake pads
were less than half [worn] and did not need replacing.
...

That's interesting: on every vehicle that I (or my wife) have ever had,
the front brakes wear 2 or 3 times as fast as the back. 'Cause that's
where the weight is - especially on stopping, with the inertial weight
transfer. Do you generally have a lot of weight in the back?

Not really. It is a pick-up, most weight is in front. Actually what
you said does not make sense.

In most vehicles, front brakes wear far faster than rear brakes. And
it's because the weight shifts to the front upon braking. It applies
even to rear-engined cars.


Brakes not bear any vehicle weight; that is what axle bearings are for.

Brake wear is due solely to torque, which is going to identical on all four
wheels until one of them locks up.

On 6/8/2013 9:07 PM, PrecisionmachinisT wrote:
Brakes not bear any vehicle weight; that is what axle bearings are for.

Brake wear is due solely to torque, which is going to identical on all four
wheels until one of them locks up.

Ah, but ... the amount of torque that brakes can apply is proportional
to the weight on the wheel. Lightly loaded wheels will lock up before
heavily loaded ones, with the same torque. So, lightly loaded wheels
(the back ones) are torqued less than the front - it's proportional braking.

Bob

On Sat, 8 Jun 2013 18:07:13 -0700, "PrecisionmachinisT"
wrote:


"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 08 Jun 2013 14:56:23 -0500, Ignoramus20041
wrote:

On 2013-06-08, Bob Engelhardt wrote:
On 6/8/2013 12:05 AM, Ignoramus29060 wrote:

... I just replaced the rear brake pads for the
first time in my pick-up truck, at 88,000 miles. The front brake pads
were less than half [worn] and did not need replacing.
...

That's interesting: on every vehicle that I (or my wife) have ever had,
the front brakes wear 2 or 3 times as fast as the back. 'Cause that's
where the weight is - especially on stopping, with the inertial weight
transfer. Do you generally have a lot of weight in the back?

Not really. It is a pick-up, most weight is in front. Actually what
you said does not make sense.

In most vehicles, front brakes wear far faster than rear brakes. And
it's because the weight shifts to the front upon braking. It applies
even to rear-engined cars.


Brakes not bear any vehicle weight; that is what axle bearings are for.

Brake wear is due solely to torque, which is going to identical on all four
wheels until one of them locks up.

Then let's put this another way. Because rear wheels are so lightly
loaded in braking, maintaining balance (near balance; you want front
brakes to lock up first) means that the brake bias runs from 70% front
up to 90% front.

Rear wheels will skid first if you apply more brake friction to them
than that. That's bad. So the friction you need on the rear brakes is
a fraction of the friction you need on the fronts. Because either
wheel diameter or brake weight limits the size of the front brakes
(but not the rear; the demand for braking effort there is so much
less), the brakes on the front wear faster.

The ability of the tires to produce that braking effort without
skidding -- again, 70% - 90% on the front -- determines how much
friction you can apply to the brakes at each end. That's a direct
product of the weight shift to the front upon braking.

You can measure the weight shift by measuring the load on the
suspension. It's not exactly equal ro suspension travel, because of a
geometric suspension feature called "anti-dive." . But the load is
still there, even if the actual travel is less than the weight shift
would indicate.

--
Ed Huntress

"BQ340" wrote in message
. com...
On 6/8/2013 9:07 PM, PrecisionmachinisT wrote:
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 08 Jun 2013 14:56:23 -0500, Ignoramus20041
wrote:

On 2013-06-08, Bob Engelhardt wrote:
On 6/8/2013 12:05 AM, Ignoramus29060 wrote:

... I just replaced the rear brake pads for the
first time in my pick-up truck, at 88,000 miles. The front brake
pads
were less than half [worn] and did not need replacing.
...

That's interesting: on every vehicle that I (or my wife) have ever
had,
the front brakes wear 2 or 3 times as fast as the back. 'Cause that's
where the weight is - especially on stopping, with the inertial weight
transfer. Do you generally have a lot of weight in the back?

Not really. It is a pick-up, most weight is in front. Actually what
you said does not make sense.

In most vehicles, front brakes wear far faster than rear brakes. And
it's because the weight shifts to the front upon braking. It applies
even to rear-engined cars.


Brakes not bear any vehicle weight; that is what axle bearings are for.

Brake wear is due solely to torque, which is going to identical on all
four
wheels until one of them locks up.

Is that true allowing for the proportioning valve front/rear pressure
difference? I would think less pressure on rear = less wear?


The cylinder with the higher pressure will lock up first, given identical
road traction and shoe contact surface area at all four (assuming that dual
wheels aren't being used)

Less pressure in the rear is a very bad situation; you cannot steer an arc
if the front wheels lock up, it'll just keep going straigt forward no matter
which direction you point the front wheels.

MikeB

--
Email is valid

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 8 Jun 2013 18:07:13 -0700, "PrecisionmachinisT"
wrote:


"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 08 Jun 2013 14:56:23 -0500, Ignoramus20041
wrote:

On 2013-06-08, Bob Engelhardt wrote:
On 6/8/2013 12:05 AM, Ignoramus29060 wrote:

... I just replaced the rear brake pads for the
first time in my pick-up truck, at 88,000 miles. The front brake
pads
were less than half [worn] and did not need replacing.
...

That's interesting: on every vehicle that I (or my wife) have ever
had,
the front brakes wear 2 or 3 times as fast as the back. 'Cause that's
where the weight is - especially on stopping, with the inertial weight
transfer. Do you generally have a lot of weight in the back?

Not really. It is a pick-up, most weight is in front. Actually what
you said does not make sense.

In most vehicles, front brakes wear far faster than rear brakes. And
it's because the weight shifts to the front upon braking. It applies
even to rear-engined cars.


Brakes not bear any vehicle weight; that is what axle bearings are for.

Brake wear is due solely to torque, which is going to identical on all
four
wheels until one of them locks up.

Then let's put this another way. Because rear wheels are so lightly
loaded in braking, maintaining balance (near balance; you want front
brakes to lock up first) means that the brake bias runs from 70% front
up to 90% front.

Rear wheels will skid first if you apply more brake friction to them
than that. That's bad. So the friction you need on the rear brakes is
a fraction of the friction you need on the fronts. Because either
wheel diameter or brake weight limits the size of the front brakes
(but not the rear; the demand for braking effort there is so much
less), the brakes on the front wear faster.

The ability of the tires to produce that braking effort without
skidding -- again, 70% - 90% on the front -- determines how much
friction you can apply to the brakes at each end. That's a direct
product of the weight shift to the front upon braking.

You can measure the weight shift by measuring the load on the
suspension. It's not exactly equal ro suspension travel, because of a
geometric suspension feature called "anti-dive." . But the load is
still there, even if the actual travel is less than the weight shift
would indicate.


Yes I know....

And thanks for clarifying.

--what you had written earlier had the potential to make lot of people even
more clueless that they had been before.

"PrecisionmachinisT" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 8 Jun 2013 18:07:13 -0700, "PrecisionmachinisT"
wrote:


"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 08 Jun 2013 14:56:23 -0500, Ignoramus20041
wrote:

On 2013-06-08, Bob Engelhardt wrote:
On 6/8/2013 12:05 AM, Ignoramus29060 wrote:

... I just replaced the rear brake pads for the
first time in my pick-up truck, at 88,000 miles. The front brake
pads
were less than half [worn] and did not need replacing.
...

That's interesting: on every vehicle that I (or my wife) have ever
had,
the front brakes wear 2 or 3 times as fast as the back. 'Cause
that's
where the weight is - especially on stopping, with the inertial
weight
transfer. Do you generally have a lot of weight in the back?

Not really. It is a pick-up, most weight is in front. Actually what
you said does not make sense.

In most vehicles, front brakes wear far faster than rear brakes. And
it's because the weight shifts to the front upon braking. It applies
even to rear-engined cars.


Brakes not bear any vehicle weight; that is what axle bearings are for.

Brake wear is due solely to torque, which is going to identical on all
four
wheels until one of them locks up.

Then let's put this another way. Because rear wheels are so lightly
loaded in braking, maintaining balance (near balance; you want front
brakes to lock up first) means that the brake bias runs from 70% front
up to 90% front.

Rear wheels will skid first if you apply more brake friction to them
than that. That's bad. So the friction you need on the rear brakes is
a fraction of the friction you need on the fronts. Because either
wheel diameter or brake weight limits the size of the front brakes
(but not the rear; the demand for braking effort there is so much
less), the brakes on the front wear faster.

The ability of the tires to produce that braking effort without
skidding -- again, 70% - 90% on the front -- determines how much
friction you can apply to the brakes at each end. That's a direct
product of the weight shift to the front upon braking.

You can measure the weight shift by measuring the load on the
suspension. It's not exactly equal ro suspension travel, because of a
geometric suspension feature called "anti-dive." . But the load is
still there, even if the actual travel is less than the weight shift
would indicate.


Yes I know....

And thanks for clarifying.

--what you had written earlier had the potential to make lot of people
even more clueless that they had been before.

Although, reading your reply again, I have to say that the reason for
biasing to the front is NOT so that they will "lock up first"....in fact, if
any wheels lock up it is way better for them to be the rear....

In other words, the reason brakes are biased towards the front is simply
because they can be, due to the increased traction that results when the
vehicle weight shifts forward.

On Sat, 08 Jun 2013 17:04:39 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Sat, 08 Jun 2013 14:56:23 -0500, Ignoramus20041
wrote:

On 2013-06-08, Bob Engelhardt wrote:
On 6/8/2013 12:05 AM, Ignoramus29060 wrote:

... I just replaced the rear brake pads for the
first time in my pick-up truck, at 88,000 miles. The front brake pads
were less than half [worn] and did not need replacing.
...

That's interesting: on every vehicle that I (or my wife) have ever had,
the front brakes wear 2 or 3 times as fast as the back. 'Cause that's
where the weight is - especially on stopping, with the inertial weight
transfer. Do you generally have a lot of weight in the back?

Not really. It is a pick-up, most weight is in front. Actually what
you said does not make sense.

In most vehicles, front brakes wear far faster than rear brakes. And
it's because the weight shifts to the front upon braking. It applies
even to rear-engined cars.
If the rear PADS wore out (rear disk brakes) there is a very strong
chance there is either a problem with the parking brake cable or
actuator,(caliper) or someone has a habit of driving with the parking
brake on. General rule of thumb is 2 or 3 sets of front brakes to one
set of rear brakes. My ranger got new front brakes at about 166,00
(0km (8 years) - but that's highway miles, no load, and standard
transmission. Still origional rears at 314,000km - and about half
lining left. - well over half pads left too. They were changed because
of a thump - not because they were worn out.

On Sat, 08 Jun 2013 16:47:01 -0500, dpb wrote:

On 6/8/2013 4:04 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Sat, 08 Jun 2013 14:56:23 -0500, Ignoramus20041

...

Not really. It is a pick-up, most weight is in front. Actually what
you said does not make sense.

In most vehicles, front brakes wear far faster than rear brakes. And
it's because the weight shifts to the front upon braking. It applies
even to rear-engined cars.

Ayup, ever notice how the front end dips on stopping; the harder stop
the more pronounced?

Iggy may be the exception given the way he says he drives and that many
light trucks still have rear drums and disk front which can change the
wear rate considerable.

Yes - the drum brakes last a whole lot longer than the disks

On Sat, 8 Jun 2013 19:33:00 -0700, "PrecisionmachinisT"
wrote:


"PrecisionmachinisT" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 8 Jun 2013 18:07:13 -0700, "PrecisionmachinisT"
wrote:


"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
m...
On Sat, 08 Jun 2013 14:56:23 -0500, Ignoramus20041
wrote:

On 2013-06-08, Bob Engelhardt wrote:
On 6/8/2013 12:05 AM, Ignoramus29060 wrote:

... I just replaced the rear brake pads for the
first time in my pick-up truck, at 88,000 miles. The front brake
pads
were less than half [worn] and did not need replacing.
...

That's interesting: on every vehicle that I (or my wife) have ever
had,
the front brakes wear 2 or 3 times as fast as the back. 'Cause
that's
where the weight is - especially on stopping, with the inertial
weight
transfer. Do you generally have a lot of weight in the back?

Not really. It is a pick-up, most weight is in front. Actually what
you said does not make sense.

In most vehicles, front brakes wear far faster than rear brakes. And
it's because the weight shifts to the front upon braking. It applies
even to rear-engined cars.


Brakes not bear any vehicle weight; that is what axle bearings are for.

Brake wear is due solely to torque, which is going to identical on all
four
wheels until one of them locks up.

Then let's put this another way. Because rear wheels are so lightly
loaded in braking, maintaining balance (near balance; you want front
brakes to lock up first) means that the brake bias runs from 70% front
up to 90% front.

Rear wheels will skid first if you apply more brake friction to them
than that. That's bad. So the friction you need on the rear brakes is
a fraction of the friction you need on the fronts. Because either
wheel diameter or brake weight limits the size of the front brakes
(but not the rear; the demand for braking effort there is so much
less), the brakes on the front wear faster.

The ability of the tires to produce that braking effort without
skidding -- again, 70% - 90% on the front -- determines how much
friction you can apply to the brakes at each end. That's a direct
product of the weight shift to the front upon braking.

You can measure the weight shift by measuring the load on the
suspension. It's not exactly equal ro suspension travel, because of a
geometric suspension feature called "anti-dive." . But the load is
still there, even if the actual travel is less than the weight shift
would indicate.


Yes I know....

And thanks for clarifying.

--what you had written earlier had the potential to make lot of people
even more clueless that they had been before.

Although, reading your reply again, I have to say that the reason for
biasing to the front is NOT so that they will "lock up first"....in fact, if
any wheels lock up it is way better for them to be the rear....

Oh, no. Never, ever.

Front-wheel lockup occurring first causes the car to lose steering but
to plow straight ahead. Rear-wheel lockup occurring first causes the
rear wheel adhesion to drop to a value less than the moment of the
rear end attempting to go forward (around the front wheels as a
"pivot") while the front end is being braked by the front wheels.

In other words, a simple spinout, or an oscillating fishtail, and
complete loss of control.

Take it from an old road racer. g Seriously, you could look this up
in any discussion of tire adhesion, cornering, and braking. Front
wheels must lock up first. In a race car, particularly a road-racing
car, you want the differential to be very small, but never for the
rear to lock first. That's deadly.


In other words, the reason brakes are biased towards the front is simply
because they can be, due to the increased traction that results when the
vehicle weight shifts forward.

Well, that's most of it. But when you're proportioning front verus
rear, you proportion them so the fronts lock first. Or you should.

--
Ed Huntress

On Sat, 8 Jun 2013 18:07:13 -0700, "PrecisionmachinisT"
wrote:


"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 08 Jun 2013 14:56:23 -0500, Ignoramus20041
wrote:

On 2013-06-08, Bob Engelhardt wrote:
On 6/8/2013 12:05 AM, Ignoramus29060 wrote:

... I just replaced the rear brake pads for the
first time in my pick-up truck, at 88,000 miles. The front brake pads
were less than half [worn] and did not need replacing.
...

That's interesting: on every vehicle that I (or my wife) have ever had,
the front brakes wear 2 or 3 times as fast as the back. 'Cause that's
where the weight is - especially on stopping, with the inertial weight
transfer. Do you generally have a lot of weight in the back?

Not really. It is a pick-up, most weight is in front. Actually what
you said does not make sense.

In most vehicles, front brakes wear far faster than rear brakes. And
it's because the weight shifts to the front upon braking. It applies
even to rear-engined cars.


Brakes not bear any vehicle weight; that is what axle bearings are for.

Brake wear is due solely to torque, which is going to identical on all four
wheels until one of them locks up.

Shows how much you know about vehicles and brakes.

You are PARTLY right- but mostly wrong.
The amount of weight on the wheels affects the amount of friction
between tire and road. If you put the same amount of stopping power on
the rear wheels as the front, when the weight distribution is 60/40
front /back, you will be backing into things or hitting things with
your rear quarter panels on a regular basis as the rear end will be
sliding around uncontrollably. That's why trucks had load sensing
proportioning valves to cut the pressure to the rear wheels when they
unloaded LONG before anti-lock brakes were common.

This is also why, for instance, drum brake vehicles had wider shoes on
the front than the back, and MUCH larger cyls on the front than the
rear - Example - 1971 Dodge Dart with drum brakes - 9 inch diameter
front and rear, front shoes 2.25" wide, rear shoes 2 inches wide,
front cyls 1 inch diameter, rear cyls 0.8125" diameter
On a '68 or '69 Ford Falcon V8 with drum brakes, 10 inch drums, 2,25
inch wide front linings, 1.75 rear, and 1.125" front cyl and .906 rear
in 68, and .875 in '69 ( due to rear brake lockup problems)

On a '68 or '69 Mustang with 390 V8, 10 inch diameter brakes, 2.5"
wide front shoes, 1.5" wide rear shoes, 1.094" diameter front cyls and
..813" diameter rears

This is to reduce the amount of braking torque the rear wheels can
develop so they do not break the rear tires loose from the road before
the front ones, due to reduced friction between the tires and the road
due to reduced weight.

On Sat, 08 Jun 2013 21:25:15 -0400, BQ340
wrote:

On 6/8/2013 9:07 PM, PrecisionmachinisT wrote:
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 08 Jun 2013 14:56:23 -0500, Ignoramus20041
wrote:

On 2013-06-08, Bob Engelhardt wrote:
On 6/8/2013 12:05 AM, Ignoramus29060 wrote:

... I just replaced the rear brake pads for the
first time in my pick-up truck, at 88,000 miles. The front brake pads
were less than half [worn] and did not need replacing.
...

That's interesting: on every vehicle that I (or my wife) have ever had,
the front brakes wear 2 or 3 times as fast as the back. 'Cause that's
where the weight is - especially on stopping, with the inertial weight
transfer. Do you generally have a lot of weight in the back?

Not really. It is a pick-up, most weight is in front. Actually what
you said does not make sense.

In most vehicles, front brakes wear far faster than rear brakes. And
it's because the weight shifts to the front upon braking. It applies
even to rear-engined cars.


Brakes not bear any vehicle weight; that is what axle bearings are for.

Brake wear is due solely to torque, which is going to identical on all four
wheels until one of them locks up.

Is that true allowing for the proportioning valve front/rear pressure
difference? I would think less pressure on rear = less wear?

MikeB
That's not all he missed.

On Sat, 8 Jun 2013 18:52:39 -0700, "PrecisionmachinisT"
wrote:


"BQ340" wrote in message
.com...
On 6/8/2013 9:07 PM, PrecisionmachinisT wrote:
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 08 Jun 2013 14:56:23 -0500, Ignoramus20041
wrote:

On 2013-06-08, Bob Engelhardt wrote:
On 6/8/2013 12:05 AM, Ignoramus29060 wrote:

... I just replaced the rear brake pads for the
first time in my pick-up truck, at 88,000 miles. The front brake
pads
were less than half [worn] and did not need replacing.
...

That's interesting: on every vehicle that I (or my wife) have ever
had,
the front brakes wear 2 or 3 times as fast as the back. 'Cause that's
where the weight is - especially on stopping, with the inertial weight
transfer. Do you generally have a lot of weight in the back?

Not really. It is a pick-up, most weight is in front. Actually what
you said does not make sense.

In most vehicles, front brakes wear far faster than rear brakes. And
it's because the weight shifts to the front upon braking. It applies
even to rear-engined cars.


Brakes not bear any vehicle weight; that is what axle bearings are for.

Brake wear is due solely to torque, which is going to identical on all
four
wheels until one of them locks up.

Is that true allowing for the proportioning valve front/rear pressure
difference? I would think less pressure on rear = less wear?


The cylinder with the higher pressure will lock up first, given identical
road traction and shoe contact surface area at all four (assuming that dual
wheels aren't being used)

Assuming the cyls are the same size - which they virtually NEVER are.
Less pressure in the rear is a very bad situation; you cannot steer an arc
if the front wheels lock up, it'll just keep going straigt forward no matter
which direction you point the front wheels.


A whole lot worse to have the rears lock up first, letting the rear
slide uncontrolled past the front which is still firmly planted to the
road, and slowing down. If the fronts lock first, the rears drag
behind, giving stability and allowing you to release the brakes enough
to let the front wheels hold again before the rear wheels BECOME the
front wheels.( which happens failrly quickly if the rears lock up
first - particularly on a curve. Terminal oversteer.
MikeB

--
Email is valid

On Sat, 08 Jun 2013 23:45:42 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 8 Jun 2013 18:52:39 -0700, "PrecisionmachinisT"
wrote:


"BQ340" wrote in message
s.com...
On 6/8/2013 9:07 PM, PrecisionmachinisT wrote:
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 08 Jun 2013 14:56:23 -0500, Ignoramus20041
wrote:

On 2013-06-08, Bob Engelhardt wrote:
On 6/8/2013 12:05 AM, Ignoramus29060 wrote:

... I just replaced the rear brake pads for the
first time in my pick-up truck, at 88,000 miles. The front brake
pads
were less than half [worn] and did not need replacing.
...

That's interesting: on every vehicle that I (or my wife) have ever
had,
the front brakes wear 2 or 3 times as fast as the back. 'Cause that's
where the weight is - especially on stopping, with the inertial weight
transfer. Do you generally have a lot of weight in the back?

Not really. It is a pick-up, most weight is in front. Actually what
you said does not make sense.

In most vehicles, front brakes wear far faster than rear brakes. And
it's because the weight shifts to the front upon braking. It applies
even to rear-engined cars.


Brakes not bear any vehicle weight; that is what axle bearings are for.

Brake wear is due solely to torque, which is going to identical on all
four
wheels until one of them locks up.

Is that true allowing for the proportioning valve front/rear pressure
difference? I would think less pressure on rear = less wear?


The cylinder with the higher pressure will lock up first, given identical
road traction and shoe contact surface area at all four (assuming that dual
wheels aren't being used)

Assuming the cyls are the same size - which they virtually NEVER are.
Less pressure in the rear is a very bad situation; you cannot steer an arc
if the front wheels lock up, it'll just keep going straigt forward no matter
which direction you point the front wheels.


A whole lot worse to have the rears lock up first, letting the rear
slide uncontrolled past the front which is still firmly planted to the
road, and slowing down. If the fronts lock first, the rears drag
behind, giving stability and allowing you to release the brakes enough
to let the front wheels hold again before the rear wheels BECOME the
front wheels.( which happens failrly quickly if the rears lock up
first - particularly on a curve. Terminal oversteer.
MikeB

--
Email is valid


This would be a good place for some of those vector diagrams they use
to explain tire adhesion, cornering, braking, and accelerating. They
make the whole thing brilliantly clear.

Or you can go take an old Corvette around a track and see how many
different ways you can spin out or swap ends. It's amazing. g

--
Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 8 Jun 2013 19:33:00 -0700, "PrecisionmachinisT"
wrote:


"PrecisionmachinisT" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 8 Jun 2013 18:07:13 -0700, "PrecisionmachinisT"
wrote:


"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
om...
On Sat, 08 Jun 2013 14:56:23 -0500, Ignoramus20041
wrote:

On 2013-06-08, Bob Engelhardt wrote:
On 6/8/2013 12:05 AM, Ignoramus29060 wrote:

... I just replaced the rear brake pads for the
first time in my pick-up truck, at 88,000 miles. The front brake
pads
were less than half [worn] and did not need replacing.
...

That's interesting: on every vehicle that I (or my wife) have ever
had,
the front brakes wear 2 or 3 times as fast as the back. 'Cause
that's
where the weight is - especially on stopping, with the inertial
weight
transfer. Do you generally have a lot of weight in the back?

Not really. It is a pick-up, most weight is in front. Actually what
you said does not make sense.

In most vehicles, front brakes wear far faster than rear brakes. And
it's because the weight shifts to the front upon braking. It applies
even to rear-engined cars.


Brakes not bear any vehicle weight; that is what axle bearings are for.

Brake wear is due solely to torque, which is going to identical on all
four
wheels until one of them locks up.

Then let's put this another way. Because rear wheels are so lightly
loaded in braking, maintaining balance (near balance; you want front
brakes to lock up first) means that the brake bias runs from 70% front
up to 90% front.

Rear wheels will skid first if you apply more brake friction to them
than that. That's bad. So the friction you need on the rear brakes is
a fraction of the friction you need on the fronts. Because either
wheel diameter or brake weight limits the size of the front brakes
(but not the rear; the demand for braking effort there is so much
less), the brakes on the front wear faster.

The ability of the tires to produce that braking effort without
skidding -- again, 70% - 90% on the front -- determines how much
friction you can apply to the brakes at each end. That's a direct
product of the weight shift to the front upon braking.

You can measure the weight shift by measuring the load on the
suspension. It's not exactly equal ro suspension travel, because of a
geometric suspension feature called "anti-dive." . But the load is
still there, even if the actual travel is less than the weight shift
would indicate.


Yes I know....

And thanks for clarifying.

--what you had written earlier had the potential to make lot of people
even more clueless that they had been before.

Although, reading your reply again, I have to say that the reason for
biasing to the front is NOT so that they will "lock up first"....in fact,
if
any wheels lock up it is way better for them to be the rear....

Oh, no. Never, ever.

Front-wheel lockup occurring first causes the car to lose steering but
to plow straight ahead. Rear-wheel lockup occurring first causes the
rear wheel adhesion to drop to a value less than the moment of the
rear end attempting to go forward (around the front wheels as a
"pivot") while the front end is being braked by the front wheels.

In other words, a simple spinout, or an oscillating fishtail, and
complete loss of control.

Take it from an old road racer. g Seriously, you could look this up
in any discussion of tire adhesion, cornering, and braking. Front
wheels must lock up first. In a race car, particularly a road-racing
car, you want the differential to be very small, but never for the
rear to lock first. That's deadly.


In other words, the reason brakes are biased towards the front is simply
because they can be, due to the increased traction that results when the
vehicle weight shifts forward.

Well, that's most of it. But when you're proportioning front verus
rear, you proportion them so the fronts lock first. Or you should.



Aww well I guess I'll stand corrected then.