On Sat, 16 Oct 2010 21:25:34 +0000 (UTC),
(Larry W) wrote:

In article ocal,
J. Clarke wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Sat, 16 Oct 2010 03:40:59 +0000 (UTC),
(Larry W) wrote:

In article ,
wrote:
...snipped...
Generally speaking, an electronic implementation/solution is at least
twice as reliable as a mechanical solution, and the difference
increases as the mechanical complexity increases. More moving parts
means more to fail.

Then why don't we have automotive brakes that work that way?


Electronic braking IS employed on virtually all electric and hybrid
vehicles - and virtually NO motor vehicle on the road today uses
"mechanical" brakes - since hydraulics, having fewer moving parts,
meet the requirement and are much more reliable than the mechanicals.

Your distinction between "mechanical" and "hydraulic" is a clear attempt
at shifting the discussion. And your mentioning it so late suggests
that you yourself are just parroting what someone else told you.

As for electric and hybrid vehicles having "electronic brakes", they
have regenerative braking systems, just as trolleys and electric
locomotives have had for decades, but those are not substitutes for the
conventional brake.



In the context of this discussion, an automotive style disc brake caliper
is being considered as a means of stopping a table saw blade. Clearly,
hydraulics are involved. YOU are the one, who within that context, made
the comparison of reliability between mechanical and electronic systems.
Now it appears that YOU are making a distinction between hydraulic and
mechanical so that the scarcity of electronically actuated automotive
brakes does not conflict with your earlier assertion.

By the way, by most measures, it would be a stretch to call the earliest
examples of regenrative braking "electronic"


Who's talking the "earliest examples" - I'm talking "current"
electrical and hybrid vehicle technology - ALL of which are computer
controlled.
ANd there is a difference between "regenerative" and "dynamic"
Deisel electric locos with their large resistive braking arrays are
"dynamic" while the same type of system on a battery powered or hybrid
vehicle is "regenerative" because the power is being captured to
recharge the battery, not wasted, as in a normal brake , as heat.

At least that has been the common useage.

Larry Jaques wrote:


I heartily disagree. The only solid ever thrown up at a brake caliper
in any quantity is water, and that runs right off. Sawdust would tend
to stick, especially in the inverted configuration it would have on a
table saw. 'Twould be especially bad with folks who "do Jummywood."

Go ahead and prove me wrong, Mike. Mount one and see. I double dare
ya!

I'm a sucker for a dare. Damnit... I agree the sawdust would stick, but I
don't think that would be a real problem. It would be worn off the braking
surface rather easily.

--

-Mike-

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 16 Oct 2010 21:25:34 +0000 (UTC),
(Larry W) wrote:

In article ocal,
J. Clarke wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Sat, 16 Oct 2010 03:40:59 +0000 (UTC),
(Larry W) wrote:

In article ,
wrote:
...snipped...
Generally speaking, an electronic implementation/solution is at least
twice as reliable as a mechanical solution, and the difference
increases as the mechanical complexity increases. More moving parts
means more to fail.

Then why don't we have automotive brakes that work that way?


Electronic braking IS employed on virtually all electric and hybrid
vehicles - and virtually NO motor vehicle on the road today uses
"mechanical" brakes - since hydraulics, having fewer moving parts,
meet the requirement and are much more reliable than the mechanicals.

Your distinction between "mechanical" and "hydraulic" is a clear attempt
at shifting the discussion. And your mentioning it so late suggests
that you yourself are just parroting what someone else told you.

As for electric and hybrid vehicles having "electronic brakes", they
have regenerative braking systems, just as trolleys and electric
locomotives have had for decades, but those are not substitutes for the
conventional brake.



In the context of this discussion, an automotive style disc brake caliper
is being considered as a means of stopping a table saw blade. Clearly,
hydraulics are involved. YOU are the one, who within that context, made
the comparison of reliability between mechanical and electronic systems.
Now it appears that YOU are making a distinction between hydraulic and
mechanical so that the scarcity of electronically actuated automotive
brakes does not conflict with your earlier assertion.

By the way, by most measures, it would be a stretch to call the earliest
examples of regenrative braking "electronic"


Who's talking the "earliest examples" - I'm talking "current"
electrical and hybrid vehicle technology - ALL of which are computer
controlled.
ANd there is a difference between "regenerative" and "dynamic"
Deisel electric locos with their large resistive braking arrays are
"dynamic" while the same type of system on a battery powered or hybrid
vehicle is "regenerative" because the power is being captured to
recharge the battery, not wasted, as in a normal brake , as heat.

At least that has been the common useage.

All of these pedantic little distinctions you make are starting to get
boring.

On 10/16/10 6:47 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Thu, 14 Oct 2010 15:05:50 -0500,
wrote:

On 10/14/10 2:24 PM, wrote:

How? Really. :-)
You NEVER put side loads on a saw blade , particularly when running
at speed.

1. It wouldn't be running.
2. What I'm talking about could hardly be considered a load.

Mike, typical caliper pads are unloaded by the play in the wheel
bearings and a bit of runout on the disc.

Please note that I never bought in to the caliper thing, before you
include me in an argument I've opted out of. :-)

I am still talking about a bicycle style spring and/or solenoid/magnetic
brake.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

On Sat, 16 Oct 2010 21:36:09 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 16 Oct 2010 21:25:34 +0000 (UTC),
(Larry W) wrote:

In article ocal,
J. Clarke wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Sat, 16 Oct 2010 03:40:59 +0000 (UTC),
(Larry W) wrote:

In article ,
wrote:
...snipped...
Generally speaking, an electronic implementation/solution is at least
twice as reliable as a mechanical solution, and the difference
increases as the mechanical complexity increases. More moving parts
means more to fail.

Then why don't we have automotive brakes that work that way?


Electronic braking IS employed on virtually all electric and hybrid
vehicles - and virtually NO motor vehicle on the road today uses
"mechanical" brakes - since hydraulics, having fewer moving parts,
meet the requirement and are much more reliable than the mechanicals.

Your distinction between "mechanical" and "hydraulic" is a clear attempt
at shifting the discussion. And your mentioning it so late suggests
that you yourself are just parroting what someone else told you.

As for electric and hybrid vehicles having "electronic brakes", they
have regenerative braking systems, just as trolleys and electric
locomotives have had for decades, but those are not substitutes for the
conventional brake.



In the context of this discussion, an automotive style disc brake caliper
is being considered as a means of stopping a table saw blade. Clearly,
hydraulics are involved. YOU are the one, who within that context, made
the comparison of reliability between mechanical and electronic systems.
Now it appears that YOU are making a distinction between hydraulic and
mechanical so that the scarcity of electronically actuated automotive
brakes does not conflict with your earlier assertion.

By the way, by most measures, it would be a stretch to call the earliest
examples of regenrative braking "electronic"


Who's talking the "earliest examples" - I'm talking "current"
electrical and hybrid vehicle technology - ALL of which are computer
controlled.
ANd there is a difference between "regenerative" and "dynamic"
Deisel electric locos with their large resistive braking arrays are
"dynamic" while the same type of system on a battery powered or hybrid
vehicle is "regenerative" because the power is being captured to
recharge the battery, not wasted, as in a normal brake , as heat.

At least that has been the common useage.

All of these pedantic little distinctions you make are starting to get
boring.

Nice to know the difference between a fox terrier and a fox - or a
wolf hound and a wolf. The little distinctions can make a big
difference in the real world.

"-MIKE-" wrote in message
...
On 10/10/10 7:51 PM, Steve Turner wrote:
Someone could make some money by developing an aftermarket saw brake,
under the
table.... pads or rollers or whatever, that would squeeze the blade.

I've always wondered if a set of good quality bicycle brakes couldn't be
safely mounted on the trunnion to perform that very task. Route the
cable to the front of the saw to a hand or foot operated lever and there
ya go.


Interesting. There is certainly a lot for force against a bike brake
than a coasting saw blade/motor. I think a simple spring and
electromagnet/solenoid would do the trick in the same way an electric
about 6 seconds. door bell works.
No electric current: spring holds brakes closed.
Electric current: solenoid pulls brakes open.
A manual cable or secondary electric source could be added for manual
brake release.

I have a Delta radial arm that uses an electromagnet and puck against a disk
of the opposite side of the motor from the blade. Fair function- stops the
blade in about 6 seconds.
--
Jim in NC

In article , wrote:

It has been proven over and over. They have, generally, more than
twice the friction area of a disk brake of the same diameter, and
being self energizing require much less pedal effort. Drum brakes do
not REQUIRE power boosters, while disk brakes, generally, are pittiful
without them. I'll put a 10 1/2 X2 1/2 drum brake up against an 11
inch disk any day of the week for a cold stop. and beat it hands down.

Complete and utter nonsense. It's evident that you've never driven a car with
unassisted disc brakes. I owned one for three years (Fiat X-1/9), and I can
attest that the disc brakes in that car were *far* more effective than the
drum brakes, assisted or not, in any other vehicle I've ever driven.

After 2 60mph stops within about 1 1/2 - 2 minutes the disk brake will
start gaining. By the third stop within 2 minutes it will be
outstopping the drum brake on a good day.

Disc brakes outstop drum brakes, on good days or bad, beginning with the first
stop.

Another major advantage of discs over drums is that they still work -- first
time -- after driving through a puddle, because the water can drain away.

On Oct 17, 9:01*am, (Doug Miller) wrote:
..

Another major advantage of discs over drums is that they still work -- first
time -- after driving through a puddle, because the water can drain away.

Unless the puddle has some oak rust floating in it...in that case we
are all doomed.

On Sat, 16 Oct 2010 21:03:02 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 16 Oct 2010 17:03:40 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Fri, 15 Oct 2010 11:54:46 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 14 Oct 2010 22:06:25 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:

Scott Lurndal wrote:


On the other hand, disc brakes are designed so they don't lock up,
this includes the materials used as well plus the modern ABS
electronics.


No they aren't. ABS systems are designed to prevent the wheel from locking
up, but disk brakes aren't. In fact, quite the opposite, they are designed
to lock up but rely upon the ABS to govern them so they don't.
Not true. Drum brakes are much more powerfull on the first
application,

False.
It has been proven over and over. They have, generally, more than
twice the friction area of a disk brake of the same diameter, and
being self energizing require much less pedal effort.

I was comparing efficiencies for a given number of square inches of
friction material, as noted further on in my last post. If you want
to cheat, go ahead, but...


Drum brakes do
not REQUIRE power boosters, while disk brakes, generally, are pittiful
without them. I'll put a 10 1/2 X2 1/2 drum brake up against an 11
inch disk any day of the week for a cold stop. and beat it hands down.

And your point is? Drums are heavier, discs take more force, but both
of those are attributes, not overall performance indicators. Most
American cars are equipped with power brakes nowadays, and have been
for at least 30 years.


After 2 60mph stops within about 1 1/2 - 2 minutes the disk brake will
start gaining. By the third stop within 2 minutes it will be
outstopping the drum brake on a good day.

In your dreams, clare. Discs will outstop the first stop, every time.


3 hard stops in a row will make the disks shine (and mabee even glow)

Haven't you ever seen red glowing brake drums on a truck headed down a
mountain at night?



and more likely to lock up due to their self-energizing
servo action (virtually every drum brake on a vehicle in the last 40
years)

True.


The only advantage of disks is faster cooling and less fade.

The main advantage is efficiency. For a given poundage and square inch
of pad, they're better than drums.


NOT when cold. Most disk brakes are actually pretty inneffective
before they get warmed up and they definitely require higher hydraulic
pressure to work, period.

True, and it takes, what, about one quarter -second- of applied
braking to warm them up? Gimme a break!

Ta!

--
Know how to listen, and you will
profit even from those who talk badly.
-- Plutarch

On Sat, 16 Oct 2010 21:04:36 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 16 Oct 2010 16:47:14 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Thu, 14 Oct 2010 15:05:50 -0500, -MIKE-
wrote:

On 10/14/10 2:24 PM, wrote:

How? Really. :-)
You NEVER put side loads on a saw blade , particularly when running
at speed.

1. It wouldn't be running.
2. What I'm talking about could hardly be considered a load.

Mike, typical caliper pads are unloaded by the play in the wheel
bearings and a bit of runout on the disc. Unless you have some wobble
in the blade, the pads will continue to drag on the blade. Just one
more thing to work out. Build self-retracting pad retractors and...
You'll be rich!
The design of a hydraulic brake caliper IS self retracting - based on
the flex in the square section "O" rings that seal the piston in the
bore.

Only to an engineer in an office, not in real life.

Go jack up a disc braked car and spin the wheel. Now climb inside and
give the brake pedal a good stomp. Then spin the wheel again. You'll
find that they're not quite self-retracting. A quick pop on the side
(top or bottom) of the tire with your hand will release it, though.


--
Know how to listen, and you will
profit even from those who talk badly.
-- Plutarch

On Sat, 16 Oct 2010 21:29:05 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:

Larry Jaques wrote:


I heartily disagree. The only solid ever thrown up at a brake caliper
in any quantity is water, and that runs right off. Sawdust would tend
to stick, especially in the inverted configuration it would have on a
table saw. 'Twould be especially bad with folks who "do Jummywood."

Go ahead and prove me wrong, Mike. Mount one and see. I double dare
ya!

I'm a sucker for a dare. Damnit... I agree the sawdust would stick, but I
don't think that would be a real problem. It would be worn off the braking
surface rather easily.

Just in time for a sawdust fire! Oops.

--
Know how to listen, and you will
profit even from those who talk badly.
-- Plutarch

On Sat, 16 Oct 2010 21:01:12 -0500, -MIKE-
wrote:

On 10/16/10 6:47 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Thu, 14 Oct 2010 15:05:50 -0500,
wrote:

On 10/14/10 2:24 PM, wrote:

How? Really. :-)
You NEVER put side loads on a saw blade , particularly when running
at speed.

1. It wouldn't be running.
2. What I'm talking about could hardly be considered a load.

Mike, typical caliper pads are unloaded by the play in the wheel
bearings and a bit of runout on the disc.

Please note that I never bought in to the caliper thing, before you
include me in an argument I've opted out of. :-)

I am still talking about a bicycle style spring and/or solenoid/magnetic
brake.

Wull, nevermindthen.

--
Know how to listen, and you will
profit even from those who talk badly.
-- Plutarch

On Thu, 14 Oct 2010 13:00:44 -0500, -MIKE- wrote:

On 10/14/10 12:58 PM, Robatoy wrote:
Any disc or drum of any size will interfere with the raising of the
blade to the point that the disk brake hits the bottom of the table
somewhere.

I propose an air bag. Electronically triggered, it throws you
backwards across the shop and away from the table saw. Punches you
right in the chest with the option for a double bag for some people
here in which case the second bag knocks some sense in them. We can
glue on a boxing glove for that operation...just a 4 oz. one; you want
it to hurt a little.
One can mount the boxing glove on an expanding multi-pivot articulated
parallelogram.
What a stellar idea.
I'm talking to investors now.
They want to call the company ACME.

Beautiful. Wile E. fricken beautiful.

Coyote ugly.

On Sun, 17 Oct 2010 13:01:35 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

In article , wrote:

It has been proven over and over. They have, generally, more than
twice the friction area of a disk brake of the same diameter, and
being self energizing require much less pedal effort. Drum brakes do
not REQUIRE power boosters, while disk brakes, generally, are pittiful
without them. I'll put a 10 1/2 X2 1/2 drum brake up against an 11
inch disk any day of the week for a cold stop. and beat it hands down.

Complete and utter nonsense. It's evident that you've never driven a car with
unassisted disc brakes. I owned one for three years (Fiat X-1/9), and I can
attest that the disc brakes in that car were *far* more effective than the
drum brakes, assisted or not, in any other vehicle I've ever driven.

I've driven an X1/9 too - and a 128S. Brakes were not the strong point
of either one. The 1/9 had 4 wheel disks - little ****ty 9 inchers
that seized up if you got within 6 feet of a salted road.

Edmund's tech center states "the current rear drum brake systems on
today's cars would provide better stopping performance then the front
disc setups of the '70s."

Disc brakes require higher static line pressures for effective braking
torque to be experienced.

Most drum brake systems have Servo brakes. In a servo brake system, as
hydraulic pressure is increased in the wheel cylinder, the push rod is
extended & pushes against the primary shoe, moving the primary &
secondary shoe in an arc. The end of the secondary shoe is anchored
against an anchor pin at the top of the brake cluster [ backing
plate]. This results in the primary & secondary shoes of the brake
cluster having LEVERED force applied to the brake shoes.

Because of this levered force, developed at the drum brake cluster,
drum brakes will give better braking torque, at a lower hydraulic
pressure & are therefore more effective'
In addition to this, the surface area of the pads on a drum brake
system is normally larger than that of a comparable disc brake system.
With a comparable coefficient of friction for the drum & disc brake
components, the greater surface area of the drum system will give
greater frictional resistance due to the larger surface area of the
pads.



After 2 60mph stops within about 1 1/2 - 2 minutes the disk brake will
start gaining. By the third stop within 2 minutes it will be
outstopping the drum brake on a good day.

Disc brakes outstop drum brakes, on good days or bad, beginning with the first
stop.

Another major advantage of discs over drums is that they still work -- first
time -- after driving through a puddle, because the water can drain away.

I'm not saying drums are better than discs - for many reasons - mostly
heat related - but the fact remains - for the FIRST stop, size for
size a drum brake is more effective. It takes less hydraulic pressure
to provide higher braking force than a disc. That is just fact. Disc
brakes have a lot of advantages - they don't fade nearly as quickly
when heated up - they are more "linear" and less prone to grabbing,
they are self adjusting, and easier to service.

Drums have only a few advantages - they are lighter, they are easier
to combine parking brake function, they require less hydraulic
pressure for the same stopping power, and they are cheaper to build.

All this observation comes from decades in the automotive service
buisiness and years of competition driving.

On Sun, 17 Oct 2010 09:40:33 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Sat, 16 Oct 2010 21:03:02 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 16 Oct 2010 17:03:40 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Fri, 15 Oct 2010 11:54:46 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 14 Oct 2010 22:06:25 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:

Scott Lurndal wrote:


On the other hand, disc brakes are designed so they don't lock up,
this includes the materials used as well plus the modern ABS
electronics.


No they aren't. ABS systems are designed to prevent the wheel from locking
up, but disk brakes aren't. In fact, quite the opposite, they are designed
to lock up but rely upon the ABS to govern them so they don't.
Not true. Drum brakes are much more powerfull on the first
application,

False.
It has been proven over and over. They have, generally, more than
twice the friction area of a disk brake of the same diameter, and
being self energizing require much less pedal effort.

I was comparing efficiencies for a given number of square inches of
friction material, as noted further on in my last post. If you want
to cheat, go ahead, but...


You didn't state you were comparing area of friction material, sonI'm
not cheating. Drum brakes have more friction material for the same
brake diameter.

Drum brakes do
not REQUIRE power boosters, while disk brakes, generally, are pittiful
without them. I'll put a 10 1/2 X2 1/2 drum brake up against an 11
inch disk any day of the week for a cold stop. and beat it hands down.

And your point is? Drums are heavier, discs take more force, but both
of those are attributes, not overall performance indicators. Most
American cars are equipped with power brakes nowadays, and have been
for at least 30 years.

And you are wrong on one other point. Disc brakes are generally
accepted as being HEAVIER than drum brakes of the same size, due to
the requirements of both the caliper and caliper frame vs stamped
backplate of a drum brake. The drum itself, compared to the rotor, can
go from being a virtual wash to the rotors being slightly lighter.


After 2 60mph stops within about 1 1/2 - 2 minutes the disk brake will
start gaining. By the third stop within 2 minutes it will be
outstopping the drum brake on a good day.

In your dreams, clare. Discs will outstop the first stop, every time.

I've driven with massive disc brakes where if you didn't "warm them up
a bit" before the first really critical braking incident, you were in
DEEP trouble - but those were "competition" pads. I've driven LOTS of
cars without ABS, but power disc brakes, where you could NOT lock the
wheels on cool dry pavement, hot or cold. All the cars I've driven
with power drum brakes I could lock the brakes on any surface, at just
about any legal speed.
Those with non-power hydraulic drums could lock the wheels at in-town
speeds - even the old 850 mini.

That said - after several brake applications at highway speeds, ALL of
the drum equipped vehicles started requiring (significant) extra
stopping distance - even the Buick with the massively finned aluminum
drums, while the disc brake vehicles maintained stopping ability - and
in several cases, actually started stopping a whole lot better. With
the ceramic competition pads that, first stop, could hardly stop the
vehicle at 40mph, you could pretty easily lock the wheels at 80MPH and
higher once you had the rotors glowing a dull red.


3 hard stops in a row will make the disks shine (and mabee even glow)

Haven't you ever seen red glowing brake drums on a truck headed down a
mountain at night?

Yes I have - and when they are glowing, he's not far from trouble.
With disc brakes he's still got brakes


and more likely to lock up due to their self-energizing
servo action (virtually every drum brake on a vehicle in the last 40
years)

True.


The only advantage of disks is faster cooling and less fade.

The main advantage is efficiency. For a given poundage and square inch
of pad, they're better than drums.


NOT when cold. Most disk brakes are actually pretty inneffective
before they get warmed up and they definitely require higher hydraulic
pressure to work, period.

True, and it takes, what, about one quarter -second- of applied
braking to warm them up? Gimme a break!

Can take a lot longer than that. Depending on the pad material, of
course.

Ta!

On Sun, 17 Oct 2010 09:44:09 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Sat, 16 Oct 2010 21:04:36 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 16 Oct 2010 16:47:14 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Thu, 14 Oct 2010 15:05:50 -0500, -MIKE-
wrote:

On 10/14/10 2:24 PM, wrote:

How? Really. :-)
You NEVER put side loads on a saw blade , particularly when running
at speed.

1. It wouldn't be running.
2. What I'm talking about could hardly be considered a load.

Mike, typical caliper pads are unloaded by the play in the wheel
bearings and a bit of runout on the disc. Unless you have some wobble
in the blade, the pads will continue to drag on the blade. Just one
more thing to work out. Build self-retracting pad retractors and...
You'll be rich!
The design of a hydraulic brake caliper IS self retracting - based on
the flex in the square section "O" rings that seal the piston in the
bore.

Only to an engineer in an office, not in real life.

Go jack up a disc braked car and spin the wheel. Now climb inside and
give the brake pedal a good stomp. Then spin the wheel again. You'll
find that they're not quite self-retracting. A quick pop on the side
(top or bottom) of the tire with your hand will release it, though.
A dual piston or 4 piston caliper will release virtually immediately.
A single piston caliper will release the inside pad immediately, and
depending on the slider design, can also release the outer pad
immediately (rubber bushed pin type sliders)
Those with metal plate type sliders will not release the outside pad
without a bit of "external help" - and if those sliders are corroded
and/or inadequately lubricated, often not even WITH significant
external help.

If you get corrosion on the pistons, or crud buildup around the
piston, the self retracting is a lot less effective.

On Oct 17, 2:43*pm, wrote:


I've driven an X1/9 too -

Who would ADMIT to such a thing.....?

On Sun, 17 Oct 2010 15:01:07 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 17 Oct 2010 09:40:33 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:
I was comparing efficiencies for a given number of square inches of
friction material, as noted further on in my last post. If you want
to cheat, go ahead, but...

You didn't state you were comparing area of friction material, sonI'm
not cheating. Drum brakes have more friction material for the same
brake diameter.

I did, and I quote: "For a given poundage and square inch of pad,
they're better than drums."


And you are wrong on one other point. Disc brakes are generally
accepted as being HEAVIER than drum brakes of the same size, due to
the requirements of both the caliper and caliper frame vs stamped
backplate of a drum brake. The drum itself, compared to the rotor, can
go from being a virtual wash to the rotors being slightly lighter.

I'm used to full-sized vehicles, and the drums outweigh the entire
rest of the front suspension. YMMV.



True, and it takes, what, about one quarter -second- of applied
braking to warm them up? Gimme a break!

Can take a lot longer than that. Depending on the pad material, of
course.

Moving into racing parts, sure. And they're lighter still. I don't
know about you, but most people back out of their driveway and hit a
couple of stopsigns before they hit the freeway for a high-speed
braking situation. Those 90%+ have warm brakes before they get up to
speed. I just don't see your point at all unless it's semi-metallic
pads, and they take a helluva lot more force to stop, too. Whole
nother ball of worms and NOT standard equipment.

--
Know how to listen, and you will
profit even from those who talk badly.
-- Plutarch

On Sun, 17 Oct 2010 12:07:01 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
wrote:

On Oct 17, 2:43*pm, wrote:


I've driven an X1/9 too -

Who would ADMIT to such a thing.....?

Ex-Yugo and Chebby drivers, perhaps?

--
Know how to listen, and you will
profit even from those who talk badly.
-- Plutarch

On Sun, 17 Oct 2010 12:07:01 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
wrote:

On Oct 17, 2:43Â*pm, wrote:


I've driven an X1/9 too -

Who would ADMIT to such a thing.....?
I didn't say I OWNED it.
I drove it for a while after replacing the engine with the brand new
engine out of the 128S I converted to electric power.
Got the 128S for doing the transplant, so I wasn't complaining.

On Sun, 17 Oct 2010 14:38:12 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Sun, 17 Oct 2010 15:01:07 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 17 Oct 2010 09:40:33 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:
I was comparing efficiencies for a given number of square inches of
friction material, as noted further on in my last post. If you want
to cheat, go ahead, but...

You didn't state you were comparing area of friction material, sonI'm
not cheating. Drum brakes have more friction material for the same
brake diameter.

I did, and I quote: "For a given poundage and square inch of pad,
they're better than drums."


And you are wrong on one other point. Disc brakes are generally
accepted as being HEAVIER than drum brakes of the same size, due to
the requirements of both the caliper and caliper frame vs stamped
backplate of a drum brake. The drum itself, compared to the rotor, can
go from being a virtual wash to the rotors being slightly lighter.

I'm used to full-sized vehicles, and the drums outweigh the entire
rest of the front suspension. YMMV.


Even on full-sized Mopars of the seventies, the disc brake assembly
outweighed the drum brake on the same car by something around 2 lbs


True, and it takes, what, about one quarter -second- of applied
braking to warm them up? Gimme a break!

Can take a lot longer than that. Depending on the pad material, of
course.

Moving into racing parts, sure. And they're lighter still. I don't
know about you, but most people back out of their driveway and hit a
couple of stopsigns before they hit the freeway for a high-speed
braking situation. Those 90%+ have warm brakes before they get up to
speed. I just don't see your point at all unless it's semi-metallic
pads, and they take a helluva lot more force to stop, too. Whole
nother ball of worms and NOT standard equipment.

Depends on the vehicle. LOTS of cars come/came with semi-metallic
brake pads as standard equipment.
Ceramics are even worse - but not nearly as common as standard
equipment.

I like the new Hybrid pads, with 2 (at least) different friction
materials. One works good cold, and one works good hot, while both
work pretty well in between. Pricey little buggers though - over $235
for the front set on my PT Cruiser. They DO stop well. NO ABS on this
car, and I can lock all 4 wheels at will on dry pavement (rear drums,
front discs)

I have Kevlars on the front of the wife's Mystique, and with the ABS
disabled I can lock that one up too. Could NOT with the factory pads -
4 wheel discs on that puppy. They are good cold, fantastic under
normal conditions, and much better than average when well heated up.

On Oct 17, 5:38*pm, Larry Jaques
wrote:
On Sun, 17 Oct 2010 15:01:07 -0400, wrote:
On Sun, 17 Oct 2010 09:40:33 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:
I was comparing efficiencies for a given number of square inches of
friction material, as noted further on in my last post. *If you want
to cheat, go ahead, but...

You didn't state you were comparing area of friction material, sonI'm
not cheating. Drum brakes have more friction material for the same
brake diameter.

I did, and I quote: * "For a given poundage and square inch of pad,
they're better than drums."

And you are wrong on one other point. Disc brakes are generally
accepted as being HEAVIER than drum brakes of the same size, due to
the requirements of both the caliper and caliper frame vs stamped
backplate of a drum brake. The drum itself, compared to the rotor, can
go from being a virtual wash to the rotors being slightly lighter.

I'm used to full-sized vehicles, and the drums outweigh the entire
rest of the front suspension. *YMMV.

True, and it takes, what, about one quarter -second- of applied
braking to warm them up? *Gimme a break!

Can take a lot longer than that. Depending on the pad material, of
course.

Moving into racing parts, sure. *And they're lighter still. *I don't
know about you, but most people back out of their driveway and hit a
couple of stopsigns before they hit the freeway for a high-speed
braking situation. *Those 90%+ have warm brakes before they get up to
speed. *I just don't see your point at all unless it's semi-metallic
pads, and they take a helluva lot more force to stop, too. Whole
nother ball of worms and NOT standard equipment.

--
Know how to listen, and you will
profit even from those who talk badly.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * -- Plutarch

All you need to do is look at the history of the disc brake.
Lightweight, high-speed stopping power, reliable, operable in wet
conditions... IOW...aircraft.
On the back-end of a competition car, inboard disc brakes are often
used to reduce the unsprung weight. In high-end 4-wheel (Quattro)
competition drive systems, the discs are sometimes even found inboard,
at the front-end.

There simply isn't one single reason NOT to have disc brakes.

Rust on the back disks from lack of heavy usage.

I doubt it would be oak rust, though.


"Robatoy" wrote in message
...
All you need to do is look at the history of the disc brake.
Lightweight, high-speed stopping power, reliable, operable in wet
conditions... IOW...aircraft.
On the back-end of a competition car, inboard disc brakes are often
used to reduce the unsprung weight. In high-end 4-wheel (Quattro)
competition drive systems, the discs are sometimes even found inboard,
at the front-end.

There simply isn't one single reason NOT to have disc brakes.

In article ,
says...

On Sun, 17 Oct 2010 12:07:01 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
wrote:

On Oct 17, 2:43*pm, wrote:


I've driven an X1/9 too -

Who would ADMIT to such a thing.....?
I didn't say I OWNED it.
I drove it for a while after replacing the engine with the brand new
engine out of the 128S I converted to electric power.
Got the 128S for doing the transplant, so I wasn't complaining.

Hey, I owned one and loved it until some asshole stole it.

Disc brakes, drum brakes, who gives a good fiddly ****?

Lew

In article ocal, "J. Clarke" wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Sun, 17 Oct 2010 12:07:01 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
wrote:

On Oct 17, 2:43*pm, wrote:


I've driven an X1/9 too -

Who would ADMIT to such a thing.....?
I didn't say I OWNED it.
I drove it for a while after replacing the engine with the brand new
engine out of the 128S I converted to electric power.
Got the 128S for doing the transplant, so I wasn't complaining.

Hey, I owned one and loved it until some asshole stole it.

Not the most reliable car I've ever owned (not the least, either), but hands
down the most fun to drive.

You must be too young to remeber driving on the highway and wondering if the
brakes will stop you the second time with drum brakes. How many brake
hydraulic systems have you exploded from stepping too hard with both feet?

Besides, what else would we argue about?


"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
b.com...
Disc brakes, drum brakes, who gives a good fiddly ****?

Lew

On Sun, 17 Oct 2010 16:53:16 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
wrote:

On Oct 17, 5:38Â*pm, Larry Jaques
wrote:
On Sun, 17 Oct 2010 15:01:07 -0400, wrote:
On Sun, 17 Oct 2010 09:40:33 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:
I was comparing efficiencies for a given number of square inches of
friction material, as noted further on in my last post. Â*If you want
to cheat, go ahead, but...

You didn't state you were comparing area of friction material, sonI'm
not cheating. Drum brakes have more friction material for the same
brake diameter.

I did, and I quote: Â* "For a given poundage and square inch of pad,
they're better than drums."

And you are wrong on one other point. Disc brakes are generally
accepted as being HEAVIER than drum brakes of the same size, due to
the requirements of both the caliper and caliper frame vs stamped
backplate of a drum brake. The drum itself, compared to the rotor, can
go from being a virtual wash to the rotors being slightly lighter.

I'm used to full-sized vehicles, and the drums outweigh the entire
rest of the front suspension. Â*YMMV.

True, and it takes, what, about one quarter -second- of applied
braking to warm them up? Â*Gimme a break!

Can take a lot longer than that. Depending on the pad material, of
course.

Moving into racing parts, sure. Â*And they're lighter still. Â*I don't
know about you, but most people back out of their driveway and hit a
couple of stopsigns before they hit the freeway for a high-speed
braking situation. Â*Those 90%+ have warm brakes before they get up to
speed. Â*I just don't see your point at all unless it's semi-metallic
pads, and they take a helluva lot more force to stop, too. Whole
nother ball of worms and NOT standard equipment.

--
Know how to listen, and you will
profit even from those who talk badly.
Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* -- Plutarch

All you need to do is look at the history of the disc brake.
Lightweight, high-speed stopping power, reliable, operable in wet
conditions... IOW...aircraft.
On the back-end of a competition car, inboard disc brakes are often
used to reduce the unsprung weight. In high-end 4-wheel (Quattro)
competition drive systems, the discs are sometimes even found inboard,
at the front-end.

There simply isn't one single reason NOT to have disc brakes.
Aircraft disc brakes, particularly on light planes, are not required
to do nearly the braking an automotive brake is. The calipers are
aluminum, the 5 inch diameter discs unventilated and about 8mm thick.
And the plane (mine anyway) grosses out at well under a ton. Also, it
can land in 200 feet without even using the brakes at all.

MUCH different than the disc brakes on a car. More like a go-cart or a
bicycle. Mopeds have bigger brakes than a c172

On Sun, 17 Oct 2010 20:43:53 -0400, "Josepi"
wrote:

Rust on the back disks from lack of heavy usage.

I doubt it would be oak rust, though.


"Robatoy" wrote in message
...
All you need to do is look at the history of the disc brake.
Lightweight, high-speed stopping power, reliable, operable in wet
conditions... IOW...aircraft.
On the back-end of a competition car, inboard disc brakes are often
used to reduce the unsprung weight. In high-end 4-wheel (Quattro)
competition drive systems, the discs are sometimes even found inboard,
at the front-end.

There simply isn't one single reason NOT to have disc brakes.

There were even a few inboard DRUM brake vehicles built. Front drive
too. IIRC one of the NSU or DKW models, and perhaps the SAAB Sonnett??

Larry Jaques wrote:
On Sat, 16 Oct 2010 21:29:05 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:

Larry Jaques wrote:


I heartily disagree. The only solid ever thrown up at a brake
caliper in any quantity is water, and that runs right off. Sawdust
would tend to stick, especially in the inverted configuration it
would have on a table saw. 'Twould be especially bad with folks who
"do Jummywood."

Go ahead and prove me wrong, Mike. Mount one and see. I double dare
ya!

I'm a sucker for a dare. Damnit... I agree the sawdust would
stick, but I don't think that would be a real problem. It would be
worn off the braking surface rather easily.

Just in time for a sawdust fire! Oops.

You arse - now you're changing the direction of this thread. We'll have to
labor through fire hazards, fire extinuishers, and smoke detectors now....

--

-Mike-

On 10/17/10 10:41 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:

Just in time for a sawdust fire! Oops.

You arse - now you're changing the direction of this thread. We'll have to
labor through fire hazards, fire extinuishers, and smoke detectors now....


Oak dust won't burn because it corrodes the fire right out.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

On Oct 17, 10:57*pm, wrote:
On Sun, 17 Oct 2010 16:53:16 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy





wrote:
On Oct 17, 5:38*pm, Larry Jaques
wrote:
On Sun, 17 Oct 2010 15:01:07 -0400, wrote:
On Sun, 17 Oct 2010 09:40:33 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:
I was comparing efficiencies for a given number of square inches of
friction material, as noted further on in my last post. *If you want
to cheat, go ahead, but...

You didn't state you were comparing area of friction material, sonI'm
not cheating. Drum brakes have more friction material for the same
brake diameter.

I did, and I quote: * "For a given poundage and square inch of pad,
they're better than drums."

And you are wrong on one other point. Disc brakes are generally
accepted as being HEAVIER than drum brakes of the same size, due to
the requirements of both the caliper and caliper frame vs stamped
backplate of a drum brake. The drum itself, compared to the rotor, can
go from being a virtual wash to the rotors being slightly lighter.

I'm used to full-sized vehicles, and the drums outweigh the entire
rest of the front suspension. *YMMV.

True, and it takes, what, about one quarter -second- of applied
braking to warm them up? *Gimme a break!

Can take a lot longer than that. Depending on the pad material, of
course.

Moving into racing parts, sure. *And they're lighter still. *I don't
know about you, but most people back out of their driveway and hit a
couple of stopsigns before they hit the freeway for a high-speed
braking situation. *Those 90%+ have warm brakes before they get up to
speed. *I just don't see your point at all unless it's semi-metallic
pads, and they take a helluva lot more force to stop, too. Whole
nother ball of worms and NOT standard equipment.

--
Know how to listen, and you will
profit even from those who talk badly.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * -- Plutarch

All you need to do is look at the history of the disc brake.
Lightweight, high-speed stopping power, reliable, operable in wet
conditions... IOW...aircraft.
On the back-end of a competition car, inboard disc brakes are often
used to reduce the unsprung weight. In high-end 4-wheel (Quattro)
competition drive systems, the discs are sometimes even found inboard,
at the front-end.

There simply isn't one single reason NOT to have disc brakes.

*Aircraft disc brakes, particularly on light planes, are not required
to do nearly the braking an automotive brake is. The calipers are
aluminum, the 5 inch diameter discs unventilated and about 8mm thick.
And the plane *(mine anyway) grosses out at well under a ton. Also, it
can land in 200 feet without even using the brakes at all.

MUCH different than the disc brakes on a car. More like a go-cart or a
bicycle. Mopeds have bigger brakes than a c172

Did I mention little puddle jumpers like a 172? I have seen 1/4 scale
models with disc brakes....and I wasn't talking about them either.
Now read my paragraph again. I talked about the origin of the disc
brakes. period.
..
..

On Sun, 17 Oct 2010 22:59:03 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 17 Oct 2010 20:43:53 -0400, "Josepi"
wrote:

Rust on the back disks from lack of heavy usage.

I doubt it would be oak rust, though.


"Robatoy" wrote in message
...
All you need to do is look at the history of the disc brake.
Lightweight, high-speed stopping power, reliable, operable in wet
conditions... IOW...aircraft.



And you are WRONG again, Robotoy.
Disc brakes were invented before flight.

The drum brake, as it is now known, became all-dominant in the United
States. In Europe, particularly in Great Britain, it had to share the
stage with disc brakes. Disc brakes became more or less standard on
European cars during the '50s, about 20 years before they were adopted
by American manufacturers in 1973.

This is ironic, because the spot-type disc brake is an American
invention. In 1898, Elmer Ambrose Sperry of Cleveland designed an
electric car having front-wheel disc brakes.

He made a large disc integral with the hub on each wheel.
Electromagnets were used to press smaller discs, lined with a friction
material, against spots on the rotating disc to bring the wheel to a
stop. Springs retracted the spot discs when current was interrupted.

Meanwhile in Great Britain, a patent was issued in 1902 to F. W.
Lanchester for a nonelectric spot disc braking system that's similar
in principle to what we have today. The biggest problem that
Lanchester encountered was noise. Metal-to-metal contact between his
copper linings and the metal disc caused an intense screech that sent
chills through anyone within earshot.

The problem was solved in 1907 when Herbert Frood, another Englishman,
came up with the idea of lining pads with asbestos. The new material
was quickly adopted by car manufacturers on both drum and disc brakes.
Asbestos linings also outlasted other friction materials by a wide
margin. The 10,000-mile brake job had arrived.

As roads improved and cars began to be driven at high speeds,
manufacturers recognized the need for even greater braking power. One
solution to the problem became apparent during the Elgin road Race of
1915. A Duesenberg took the flats at 80 mph, then screeched to a
virtual crawl to negotiate the hairpin curves. Duesenberg's secret for
such magnificent braking power was to simply use an internal brake on
each front wheel as well as each rear wheel.

In 1918, a young inventor named Malcolm Lougheed (who later changed
the spelling of his name to Lockheed) applied hydraulics to braking.
He used cylinders and tubes to transmit fluid pressure against brake
shoes, pushing the shoes against the drums. In 1921, the first
passenger car to be equipped with four-wheel hydraulic brakes appeared
-- the Model A Duesenberg.

Carmakers as a group were not quick to adopt hydraulics. Ten years
after the Model A Duesie, in 1931, only Chrysler, Dodge, Desoto,
Plymouth, Auburn, Franklin, Reo, and Graham had hydraulic brakes. All
the others still had cable-operated mechanical brakes. In fact, it was
not until 1939 that Ford finally gave in, becoming the last major
manufacturer to switch to hydraulic brakes.

The basic braking system we have today was pretty much in place by
1921, including a refinement some regard as contemporary -- power
assist.

Power assist, technically, dates back to 1903 when a car called the
Tincher used air brakes. But the first car to be equipped with a
vacuum-operated power booster similar to those we have today was the
1928 Pierce-Arrow. It used vacuum from the inlet manifold to reduce
the physical effort needed to apply brakes. Vacuum boosters from then
to now have similar designs.

The first widespread deviation from vacuum power assist came about in
1985. Some '85 GM cars use an electrically driven brake booster, which
is smaller and lighter than the conventional vacuum booster, giving an
all-hydraulic system. Some cars with antilock brakes also use
all-hydraulic systems.

The first car to have self-adjusting brakes was the 1925 Cole. The
prototype for today's systems appeared on the 1946 Studebaker. The
mechanism by Wagner Electric Co., consisted of an adjusting wedge
under the influence of a tension spring. As linings wore, a plug
receded to move a pin and lever against the spring. This forced the
adjusting wedge against brake shoes, which expanded to keep linings at
a preset distance from the drums.

As for the antilock (antiskid) units now available in the U.S., they
are hardly new. The first practical antiskid braking system, named
Maxaret, was developed in 1958 by the Road Research Laboratories in
Great Britain and was first applied to the Jensen FF sports sedan in
1966.

Three years later, in 1969, the Lincoln Continental Mark III was
equipped with an Auto-Linear antilock unit developed by Kelsey-Hayes.
Sensors on the rear wheels transmitted signals to a transistorized
"computer" behind the glove box. The computer controlled a
vacuum-operated valve on the rear brake line to modulate pressure to
the rear brakes when the sensors told the computer that the brakes
were locking.

Cost and some technical problems caused the shelving of this unit. But
now, updated versions that give four-wheel skid control are offered on
almost every car model, although initially they were available only on
high-end cars like Lincoln and Mercedes, and a few European cars.

Computerized brakes notwithstanding, there is a piece of advice about
using brakes that's as relevant today as it was in 1909 when it was
first published in The American Cyclopedia of the Automobile:

"Good driving in traffic is shown by making the minimum use of brakes.
The strain on passengers amounts to intense nervousness when the car
is constantly driven so that the least alteration of direction or of
pace on the part of any vehicle ahead results in the violent
application of the brake."

And so it will always be.


On the back-end of a competition car, inboard disc brakes are often
used to reduce the unsprung weight. In high-end 4-wheel (Quattro)
competition drive systems, the discs are sometimes even found inboard,
at the front-end.

There simply isn't one single reason NOT to have disc brakes.

There were even a few inboard DRUM brake vehicles built. Front drive
too. IIRC one of the NSU or DKW models, and perhaps the SAAB Sonnett??

On 10/18/10 12:23 PM, wrote:
And you are WRONG again, Robotoy.
Disc brakes were invented before flight.

The drum brake, as it is now known, became all-dominant in the United
States. In Europe, particularly in Great Britain, it had to share the
stage with disc brakes. Disc brakes became more or less standard on
European cars during the '50s, about 20 years before they were adopted
by American manufacturers in 1973.

This is ironic, because the spot-type disc brake is an American
invention. In 1898, Elmer Ambrose Sperry of Cleveland designed an
electric car having front-wheel disc brakes.

He made a large disc integral with the hub on each wheel.
Electromagnets were used to press smaller discs, lined with a friction
material, against spots on the rotating disc to bring the wheel to a
stop. Springs retracted the spot discs when current was interrupted.

Meanwhile in Great Britain, a patent was issued in 1902 to F. W.
Lanchester for a nonelectric spot disc braking system that's similar
in principle to what we have today. The biggest problem that
Lanchester encountered was noise. Metal-to-metal contact between his
copper linings and the metal disc caused an intense screech that sent
chills through anyone within earshot.

The problem was solved in 1907 when Herbert Frood, another Englishman,
came up with the idea of lining pads with asbestos. The new material
was quickly adopted by car manufacturers on both drum and disc brakes.
Asbestos linings also outlasted other friction materials by a wide
margin. The 10,000-mile brake job had arrived.

As roads improved and cars began to be driven at high speeds,
manufacturers recognized the need for even greater braking power. One
solution to the problem became apparent during the Elgin road Race of
1915. A Duesenberg took the flats at 80 mph, then screeched to a
virtual crawl to negotiate the hairpin curves. Duesenberg's secret for
such magnificent braking power was to simply use an internal brake on
each front wheel as well as each rear wheel.

In 1918, a young inventor named Malcolm Lougheed (who later changed
the spelling of his name to Lockheed) applied hydraulics to braking.
He used cylinders and tubes to transmit fluid pressure against brake
shoes, pushing the shoes against the drums. In 1921, the first
passenger car to be equipped with four-wheel hydraulic brakes appeared
-- the Model A Duesenberg.

Carmakers as a group were not quick to adopt hydraulics. Ten years
after the Model A Duesie, in 1931, only Chrysler, Dodge, Desoto,
Plymouth, Auburn, Franklin, Reo, and Graham had hydraulic brakes. All
the others still had cable-operated mechanical brakes. In fact, it was
not until 1939 that Ford finally gave in, becoming the last major
manufacturer to switch to hydraulic brakes.

The basic braking system we have today was pretty much in place by
1921, including a refinement some regard as contemporary -- power
assist.

Power assist, technically, dates back to 1903 when a car called the
Tincher used air brakes. But the first car to be equipped with a
vacuum-operated power booster similar to those we have today was the
1928 Pierce-Arrow. It used vacuum from the inlet manifold to reduce
the physical effort needed to apply brakes. Vacuum boosters from then
to now have similar designs.

The first widespread deviation from vacuum power assist came about in
1985. Some '85 GM cars use an electrically driven brake booster, which
is smaller and lighter than the conventional vacuum booster, giving an
all-hydraulic system. Some cars with antilock brakes also use
all-hydraulic systems.

The first car to have self-adjusting brakes was the 1925 Cole. The
prototype for today's systems appeared on the 1946 Studebaker. The
mechanism by Wagner Electric Co., consisted of an adjusting wedge
under the influence of a tension spring. As linings wore, a plug
receded to move a pin and lever against the spring. This forced the
adjusting wedge against brake shoes, which expanded to keep linings at
a preset distance from the drums.

As for the antilock (antiskid) units now available in the U.S., they
are hardly new. The first practical antiskid braking system, named
Maxaret, was developed in 1958 by the Road Research Laboratories in
Great Britain and was first applied to the Jensen FF sports sedan in
1966.

Three years later, in 1969, the Lincoln Continental Mark III was
equipped with an Auto-Linear antilock unit developed by Kelsey-Hayes.
Sensors on the rear wheels transmitted signals to a transistorized
"computer" behind the glove box. The computer controlled a
vacuum-operated valve on the rear brake line to modulate pressure to
the rear brakes when the sensors told the computer that the brakes
were locking.

Cost and some technical problems caused the shelving of this unit. But
now, updated versions that give four-wheel skid control are offered on
almost every car model, although initially they were available only on
high-end cars like Lincoln and Mercedes, and a few European cars.

Computerized brakes notwithstanding, there is a piece of advice about
using brakes that's as relevant today as it was in 1909 when it was
first published in The American Cyclopedia of the Automobile:

"Good driving in traffic is shown by making the minimum use of brakes.
The strain on passengers amounts to intense nervousness when the car
is constantly driven so that the least alteration of direction or of
pace on the part of any vehicle ahead results in the violent
application of the brake."

And so it will always be.


Are you going to at least give credit to the websites from which you
cut-n-pasted all this?



--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

Always a trolling angle.

"-MIKE-" wrote in message
...
Are you going to at least give credit to the websites from which you
cut-n-pasted all this?



--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

Now corrosion is our friend.


"-MIKE-" wrote in message
...
Oak dust won't burn because it corrodes the fire right out.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

On 10/18/10 12:38 PM, Josepi wrote:
Always a trolling angle.

wrote in message
...
Are you going to at least give credit to the websites from which you
cut-n-pasted all this?


Trolling? Really? That's how you see it?
Where I come from copying someone else's work and passing it off as your
own is called plagiarism.

Passive aggressive, much, Josepi? :-)


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

On Mon, 18 Oct 2010 12:27:39 -0500, -MIKE-
wrote:

On 10/18/10 12:23 PM, wrote:
And you are WRONG again, Robotoy.
Disc brakes were invented before flight.

The drum brake, as it is now known, became all-dominant in the United
States. In Europe, particularly in Great Britain, it had to share the
stage with disc brakes. Disc brakes became more or less standard on
European cars during the '50s, about 20 years before they were adopted
by American manufacturers in 1973.

This is ironic, because the spot-type disc brake is an American
invention. In 1898, Elmer Ambrose Sperry of Cleveland designed an
electric car having front-wheel disc brakes.

He made a large disc integral with the hub on each wheel.
Electromagnets were used to press smaller discs, lined with a friction
material, against spots on the rotating disc to bring the wheel to a
stop. Springs retracted the spot discs when current was interrupted.

Meanwhile in Great Britain, a patent was issued in 1902 to F. W.
Lanchester for a nonelectric spot disc braking system that's similar
in principle to what we have today. The biggest problem that
Lanchester encountered was noise. Metal-to-metal contact between his
copper linings and the metal disc caused an intense screech that sent
chills through anyone within earshot.

The problem was solved in 1907 when Herbert Frood, another Englishman,
came up with the idea of lining pads with asbestos. The new material
was quickly adopted by car manufacturers on both drum and disc brakes.
Asbestos linings also outlasted other friction materials by a wide
margin. The 10,000-mile brake job had arrived.

As roads improved and cars began to be driven at high speeds,
manufacturers recognized the need for even greater braking power. One
solution to the problem became apparent during the Elgin road Race of
1915. A Duesenberg took the flats at 80 mph, then screeched to a
virtual crawl to negotiate the hairpin curves. Duesenberg's secret for
such magnificent braking power was to simply use an internal brake on
each front wheel as well as each rear wheel.

In 1918, a young inventor named Malcolm Lougheed (who later changed
the spelling of his name to Lockheed) applied hydraulics to braking.
He used cylinders and tubes to transmit fluid pressure against brake
shoes, pushing the shoes against the drums. In 1921, the first
passenger car to be equipped with four-wheel hydraulic brakes appeared
-- the Model A Duesenberg.

Carmakers as a group were not quick to adopt hydraulics. Ten years
after the Model A Duesie, in 1931, only Chrysler, Dodge, Desoto,
Plymouth, Auburn, Franklin, Reo, and Graham had hydraulic brakes. All
the others still had cable-operated mechanical brakes. In fact, it was
not until 1939 that Ford finally gave in, becoming the last major
manufacturer to switch to hydraulic brakes.

The basic braking system we have today was pretty much in place by
1921, including a refinement some regard as contemporary -- power
assist.

Power assist, technically, dates back to 1903 when a car called the
Tincher used air brakes. But the first car to be equipped with a
vacuum-operated power booster similar to those we have today was the
1928 Pierce-Arrow. It used vacuum from the inlet manifold to reduce
the physical effort needed to apply brakes. Vacuum boosters from then
to now have similar designs.

The first widespread deviation from vacuum power assist came about in
1985. Some '85 GM cars use an electrically driven brake booster, which
is smaller and lighter than the conventional vacuum booster, giving an
all-hydraulic system. Some cars with antilock brakes also use
all-hydraulic systems.

The first car to have self-adjusting brakes was the 1925 Cole. The
prototype for today's systems appeared on the 1946 Studebaker. The
mechanism by Wagner Electric Co., consisted of an adjusting wedge
under the influence of a tension spring. As linings wore, a plug
receded to move a pin and lever against the spring. This forced the
adjusting wedge against brake shoes, which expanded to keep linings at
a preset distance from the drums.

As for the antilock (antiskid) units now available in the U.S., they
are hardly new. The first practical antiskid braking system, named
Maxaret, was developed in 1958 by the Road Research Laboratories in
Great Britain and was first applied to the Jensen FF sports sedan in
1966.

Three years later, in 1969, the Lincoln Continental Mark III was
equipped with an Auto-Linear antilock unit developed by Kelsey-Hayes.
Sensors on the rear wheels transmitted signals to a transistorized
"computer" behind the glove box. The computer controlled a
vacuum-operated valve on the rear brake line to modulate pressure to
the rear brakes when the sensors told the computer that the brakes
were locking.

Cost and some technical problems caused the shelving of this unit. But
now, updated versions that give four-wheel skid control are offered on
almost every car model, although initially they were available only on
high-end cars like Lincoln and Mercedes, and a few European cars.

Computerized brakes notwithstanding, there is a piece of advice about
using brakes that's as relevant today as it was in 1909 when it was
first published in The American Cyclopedia of the Automobile:

"Good driving in traffic is shown by making the minimum use of brakes.
The strain on passengers amounts to intense nervousness when the car
is constantly driven so that the least alteration of direction or of
pace on the part of any vehicle ahead results in the violent
application of the brake."

And so it will always be.


Are you going to at least give credit to the websites from which you
cut-n-pasted all this?
Sorry - I believe it was originally published on the internet by
motorera.com
Not sure where it came from before that, as I have seen it in several
different places.

On 10/18/10 1:04 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 18 Oct 2010 12:27:39 -0500,
wrote:
Are you going to at least give credit to the websites from which you
cut-n-pasted all this?
Sorry - I believe it was originally published on the internet by
motorera.com
Not sure where it came from before that, as I have seen it in several
different places.

Riiiiiiight. You're saying you typed it out, verbatim, from memory
Rainman? :-p


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

On Mon, 18 Oct 2010 13:12:17 -0500, -MIKE-
wrote:

On 10/18/10 1:04 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 18 Oct 2010 12:27:39 -0500,
wrote:
Are you going to at least give credit to the websites from which you
cut-n-pasted all this?
Sorry - I believe it was originally published on the internet by
motorera.com
Not sure where it came from before that, as I have seen it in several
different places.

Riiiiiiight. You're saying you typed it out, verbatim, from memory
Rainman? :-p
No, but I have a heck of a lot of automotive stuff on my hard drive,
from many sources - much of it teaching/training materials.
I also have a failry decent library of printed material.

A lot of stuff on automotive, computer and aircraft technology.
Woodworking is only one of my hobbies