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
OK, I found the "original" source - Pop Mechanics July 1978 -Brakes
- A Century of Progress.by Morton Schultz. (starts on Page 132)
The MotorEra site does not attribute the text to Mr Schultz.

And as for an earlier question - re electric brakes, Seimens is
working on an EWB system - electronic wedge brake - that uses a
moroized wedge to apply a disk brake. This will allow true antilock
braking where the system pre-emtively reduces braking pressure BEFORE
the wheel locks, and it can react much more quickly than hydraulics.

On Oct 18, 1:23*pm, wrote:
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??

How does that make me wrong? Are you telling me that disc brakes are
not the preferred system for aircraft for all those reasons I laid
out? That it wasn't the aircraft people who developed many facets of
those systems?
Tell you what..... there was a guy in my home-town in Holland who tied
his 1930-sh Somethingmobile to a tree with a rope so it wouldn't roll
down his laneway. Now I suppose you will give me a dissertation on
rope-brake systems through the frikkin' ages as well? What about
parachute brakes? There are all kinds of people using those. The
Veyron uses a big paddle that rises out of the back of the car to
assist slowing the thing down.
Anywhooo.. disc brakes are the preferred systems regardless whether or
not the Queen's carriage has a leather pad rubbing on the tyres.

On Sun, 17 Oct 2010 23:41:18 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:

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....

....Regulators, insurances, etc...

Life's a bitch and then you die, so go suffer quietly among the
madding crowd, Mikey. _I'm_ otherwise occupied.

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

In article , wrote:
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? :-)

PDFTFT

On 10/18/10 7:57 PM, Doug Miller wrote:
In , wrote:
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? :-)

PDFTFT

Nobody's forcing you to read it.


--

-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 13:34:38 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
wrote:

On Oct 18, 1:23Â*pm, wrote:
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.

Â*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??

How does that make me wrong? Are you telling me that disc brakes are
not the preferred system for aircraft for all those reasons I laid
out? That it wasn't the aircraft people who developed many facets of
those systems?

You stated, or appeared to state, that disc brakes were developed for
aircraft use and they were lighter because of that.

In that, you are wrong. If that's not what you MEANT, it IS what you
SAID.
Tell you what..... there was a guy in my home-town in Holland who tied
his 1930-sh Somethingmobile to a tree with a rope so it wouldn't roll
down his laneway. Now I suppose you will give me a dissertation on
rope-brake systems through the frikkin' ages as well? What about
parachute brakes? There are all kinds of people using those. The
Veyron uses a big paddle that rises out of the back of the car to
assist slowing the thing down.
Anywhooo.. disc brakes are the preferred systems regardless whether or
not the Queen's carriage has a leather pad rubbing on the tyres.

And I never said disc brakes were not better, overall than drums.
All I said, which you have not been able to, and never will be able to
prove me wrong, is that a drum brake, properly set up and adjusted,
will stop a car more effectively on the first stop than a disc of the
same size on the same car. It is a proven fact.

It is also a proven fact that a properly designed and implemented disc
brake will outbrake any drum brake under extreme use and in repeated
applications. I have never disputed that.

On Oct 18, 10:58*pm, wrote:
On Mon, 18 Oct 2010 13:34:38 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy





wrote:
On Oct 18, 1:23*pm, wrote:
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??

How does that make me wrong? Are you telling me that disc brakes are
not the preferred system for aircraft for all those reasons I laid
out? That it wasn't the aircraft people who developed many facets of
those systems?

You stated, or appeared to state, that disc brakes were developed for
aircraft use and they were lighter because of that.

In that, you are wrong. If that's not what you MEANT, it IS what you
SAID.

Tell you what..... there was a guy in my home-town in Holland who tied
his 1930-sh Somethingmobile to a tree with a rope so it wouldn't roll
down his laneway. Now I suppose you will give me a dissertation on
rope-brake systems through the frikkin' ages as well? What about
parachute brakes? There are all kinds of people using those. The
Veyron uses a big paddle that rises out of the back of the car to
assist slowing the thing down.
Anywhooo.. disc brakes are the preferred systems regardless whether or
not the Queen's carriage has a leather pad rubbing on the tyres.

And I never said disc brakes were not better, overall than drums.
All I said, which you have not been able to, and never will be able to
prove me wrong, is that a drum brake, properly set up and adjusted,
will stop a car more effectively on the first stop than a disc of the
same size on the same car. It is a proven fact.

It is also a proven fact that zero rotation of a wheel can be achieved
with either a disc- or a drum brake and once that wheel has been
brought to a standstill ( leaving gobs of rubber on the road in the
process ) the difference becomes moot.
That leaves us with the ability to control the braking action on that
first stop you keep harping about and a disc brake is more
controllable than a drum brake.
This 'first stop' argument of yours is nothing but a straw man/red
herring combo.
Both a disc and a drum can stop a wheel dead.
If you believe that an 11" drum can out-brake, even on first stop, an
11" Brembo..... than you just keep on believing that because proving
that you can't.

On Mon, 18 Oct 2010 20:31:44 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
wrote:

On Oct 18, 10:58Â*pm, wrote:
On Mon, 18 Oct 2010 13:34:38 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy





wrote:
On Oct 18, 1:23Â*pm, wrote:
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.

Â*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??

How does that make me wrong? Are you telling me that disc brakes are
not the preferred system for aircraft for all those reasons I laid
out? That it wasn't the aircraft people who developed many facets of
those systems?

You stated, or appeared to state, that disc brakes were developed for
aircraft use and they were lighter because of that.

In that, you are wrong. If that's not what you MEANT, it IS what you
SAID.

Tell you what..... there was a guy in my home-town in Holland who tied
his 1930-sh Somethingmobile to a tree with a rope so it wouldn't roll
down his laneway. Now I suppose you will give me a dissertation on
rope-brake systems through the frikkin' ages as well? What about
parachute brakes? There are all kinds of people using those. The
Veyron uses a big paddle that rises out of the back of the car to
assist slowing the thing down.
Anywhooo.. disc brakes are the preferred systems regardless whether or
not the Queen's carriage has a leather pad rubbing on the tyres.

And I never said disc brakes were not better, overall than drums.
All I said, which you have not been able to, and never will be able to
prove me wrong, is that a drum brake, properly set up and adjusted,
will stop a car more effectively on the first stop than a disc of the
same size on the same car. It is a proven fact.

It is also a proven fact that zero rotation of a wheel can be achieved
with either a disc- or a drum brake and once that wheel has been
brought to a standstill ( leaving gobs of rubber on the road in the
process ) the difference becomes moot.
That leaves us with the ability to control the braking action on that
first stop you keep harping about and a disc brake is more
controllable than a drum brake.
This 'first stop' argument of yours is nothing but a straw man/red
herring combo.
Both a disc and a drum can stop a wheel dead.
If you believe that an 11" drum can out-brake, even on first stop, an
11" Brembo..... than you just keep on believing that because proving
that you can't.
Diameter for diameter, a drum brake has roughly TWICE the friction
area of a disc brake. Twice the friction area translates into twice
the stopping power with the same co-efficient of friction.

The reaction arm of a drum brake is also ALL at the outer radius of
the drum, while the average reaction arm on a disc brake is roughly
centered on the pad contact area, which is generally 1.5 to 2 inches
shorter than the radius of the rotor. The pad area inside the middle
provides less braking torque than average, while the area outside
provides more braking torque than the average, but still less than if
it was reacting at the outer radius of the rotor.

The disc brake also requires significantly more hydraulic action than
a Bendix style (or any other servo actuated) drum brake.

So for the same pedal effort (or boosted pressure with power brakes)
the drum brake WILL provide more stopping power. That cannot be
argued.
Period.
As soon as the drum starts getting hot it's braking power decreases,
and it continues to decrease as the temperature goes up. After a
fairly short time the disc brake starts to catch up, and quite soon it
ballances out and the lower initial braking power of the disc brake is
equal to the remaining braking power of the warmed up drum brake. Very
shortly there-after the braking power of the hot drum brake is reduced
to the point the "inferior" braking power of the disc brake now
greatly excedes the remaining braking power of the drum.

Add the effect of some of the higher performance pad materials, which
actually stop BETTER when hot, and the disc brake starts looking
pretty darn good in comparison to the overheated and now almost
totally ineffective drum brake.

Which does not change the FACT that the drum brake, within it's
(admittedly narrow) operating envelope, has superior braking power
compared to a disk of the same size.

And except for some of the more esoteric high priced (automotive)
brakes like (possibly) the Brembo, the combination of caliper, rotor,
and frame weights of a disc brake will outweigh all but the beafiest
drum brake implementation of the same diameter (by a significant
amount).
It is different in truck brakes, where the drums are REALLY heavy to
provide adequate thermal mass to keep the brakes from overheating to
the point of total failure in one moderate braking episode.

On 10/19/2010 12:02 PM, , the Energizer Bunny, wrote another
version of his book using slightly different words:
SNIP

Is this horse dead YET? Please tell me it's dead...

--
See Nad. See Nad go. Go Nad!
To reply, eat the taco.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbqboyee/

On Oct 19, 1:02*pm, wrote:



So for the same pedal effort (or boosted pressure with power brakes)
the drum brake WILL provide more stopping power. That cannot be
argued.
Period.

I love the way you keep narrowing down the parameters of your
argument.
Now we have to apply the same foot-pressure!

But you failed to address the opening act of my position, and that is
that either system can lock up a wheel completely and do so quite
easily. After that zero rotation has been reached, it doesn't matter
one bit what is holding that wheel stationary, the tire/road is now
the friction contact patch.... unless we want to modulate the braking
action rapidly and accurately via an ABS (which was developed by
Dunlop for aircraft applications) system and good luck doing that with
drum brakes. (I am not saying that has never been done, cheapos do
drums on the back-wheels), but it isn't the norm on anything with some
level of performance, and for very good reasons.)
But you go ahead and promote your one-stop drum philosophy, I'll stick
to stuff that works.
All YOU have to do is remember that every time you use your brakes,
your life is your foot's hands.

Oh.. and I'm done with this discussion.


And except for some of the more esoteric high priced (automotive)
brakes like (possibly) the Brembo, the combination of caliper, rotor,
and frame weights of a disc brake will outweigh all but the beafiest
drum brake implementation of the same diameter (by a significant
amount).

.......and what the hell does that have anything to do with the price
of fish?

In article , wrote:
On 10/18/10 7:57 PM, Doug Miller wrote:
In ,
wrote:
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? :-)

PDFTFT

Nobody's forcing you to read it.

Problem is that I have him killfiled, but not you. It's kinda disappointing to
open one of *your* posts, and see a bunch of *his* drivel.

On 10/19/10 7:30 PM, Doug Miller wrote:
In , wrote:
On 10/18/10 7:57 PM, Doug Miller wrote:
In ,
wrote:
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? :-)

PDFTFT

Nobody's forcing you to read it.

Problem is that I have him killfiled, but not you. It's kinda disappointing to
open one of *your* posts, and see a bunch of *his* drivel.

Kill file me, then... or get some bigger problems in your life. :-)


--

-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

Bull****. Where you come from, and most others, coying somebody else's work
is called a "Reference"

Constantly disputing anything and everything for a response that isn't
related to the subject at hand is called.... "Trolling"

You don't want to discuss anything at hand, you just want attention and
defences.


"-MIKE-" wrote in message
...
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? :-)

Ahhhh. The troll leader of the gang speaks.

"Everybody has to be just like me"

Better listen up or you will anger the biggest troll.


"-MIKE-" wrote in message
...
On 10/19/10 7:30 PM, Doug Miller wrote:
In ,
wrote:
On 10/18/10 7:57 PM, Doug Miller wrote:
In ,

wrote:
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? :-)

PDFTFT

Nobody's forcing you to read it.

Problem is that I have him killfiled, but not you. It's kinda
disappointing to
open one of *your* posts, and see a bunch of *his* drivel.

Kill file me, then... or get some bigger problems in your life. :-)


--

-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

OK, let's put drum brakes on the arbor of the motor!

Somebody tell me how we are going to implement drum brakes on a T/S?



"Steve Turner" wrote in message
...
Is this horse dead YET? Please tell me it's dead...

--
See Nad. See Nad go. Go Nad!
To reply, eat the taco.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbqboyee/

On 10/19/10 8:50 PM, Josepi wrote:
Bull****. Where you come from, and most others, coying somebody else's work
is called a "Reference"


I'm assuming you at least got though middle school where the subject was
covered, but here's a refresher...
Giving CREDIT to the original author is called a reference.
Copying and pasting word for word without giving credit to the author is
plagiarism.


Constantly disputing anything and everything for a response that isn't
related to the subject at hand is called.... "Trolling"


Thanks for finally admitting it.


You don't want to discuss anything at hand, you just want attention and
defences.

Even if that were true, at least I use my own material.


--

-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 Tue, 19 Oct 2010 21:55:45 -0400, "Josepi"
wrote:

OK, let's put drum brakes on the arbor of the motor!

Somebody tell me how we are going to implement drum brakes on a T/S?



"Steve Turner" wrote in message
...
Is this horse dead YET? Please tell me it's dead...
There AREelectric motors that DO have a drum brake on the fan
(opposite the drive ) end of the motor. They COULD be used on a table
saw.

Josepi wrote:
OK, let's put drum brakes on the arbor of the motor!

Somebody tell me how we are going to implement drum brakes on a T/S?


Oh hell - that's easy. A set of torches, some steel, a little time, and
then paint to match. Don't forget the spring kit though.

--

-Mike-

On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 12:06:49 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
wrote:

On Oct 19, 1:02Â*pm, wrote:



So for the same pedal effort (or boosted pressure with power brakes)
the drum brake WILL provide more stopping power. That cannot be
argued.
Period.

I love the way you keep narrowing down the parameters of your
argument.
Now we have to apply the same foot-pressure!

But you failed to address the opening act of my position, and that is
that either system can lock up a wheel completely and do so quite
easily.
Except I have owned several vehicles that could NOT lock the front
brakes with disc brakes and factory pads. The rear drum brakes WOULD
lock - so they had rear only anti-lock brakes, which flies straight in
the face of your arguement.

The vehicles in question were 1989 and 1990 long body Ford Aerostars
with 3 liter engines and automatic transmission.
When the brake pads were replaced with carbon metallic high
performance pads I could FINALLY lock the front brakes on dry
pavement.



After that zero rotation has been reached, it doesn't matter
one bit what is holding that wheel stationary, the tire/road is now
the friction contact patch.... unless we want to modulate the braking
action rapidly and accurately via an ABS

Locking the brakes and sliding the wheel is the easy part.(and where
drum brakes excell) But real world braking generally consists of
slowing the vehicle down to a gentle stop without sliding the wheels
and flat-siding the tires. THIS is what builds up heat in the brakes -
which causes drum brakes to loose their effectiveness, and is where
disc brakes have the overwhelming advantage.

(which was developed by
Dunlop for aircraft applications) system and good luck doing that with
drum brakes. (I am not saying that has never been done, cheapos do
drums on the back-wheels), but it isn't the norm on anything with some
level of performance, and for very good reasons.)
But you go ahead and promote your one-stop drum philosophy, I'll stick
to stuff that works.
All YOU have to do is remember that every time you use your brakes,
your life is your foot's hands.

Oh.. and I'm done with this discussion.

Good

And you don't listen well - you just like to argue. Like I said - I
NEVER stated drum brakes were BETTER than discs for automotive use. I
just refuted your statement that disc brakes were more effective for
the application being originally discussed - which was a convenience
brake for a table saw............ and lighter etc.


And except for some of the more esoteric high priced (automotive)
brakes like (possibly) the Brembo, the combination of caliper, rotor,
and frame weights of a disc brake will outweigh all but the beafiest
drum brake implementation of the same diameter (by a significant
amount).

.......and what the hell does that have anything to do with the price
of fish?

On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 21:44:18 -0500, -MIKE-
wrote:

On 10/19/10 8:50 PM, Josepi wrote:
Bull****. Where you come from, and most others, coying somebody else's work
is called a "Reference"


I'm assuming you at least got though middle school where the subject was
covered, but here's a refresher...
Giving CREDIT to the original author is called a reference.
Copying and pasting word for word without giving credit to the author is
plagiarism.




And the website I first referenced was clearly plagerised.
I did not reference it because I KNEW it was not the original when I
originally downloaded the material.

When called on it I investigated and found out who the ORIGINAL author
was and gave credit where credit was due.



Constantly disputing anything and everything for a response that isn't
related to the subject at hand is called.... "Trolling"


Thanks for finally admitting it.


You don't want to discuss anything at hand, you just want attention and
defences.

Even if that were true, at least I use my own material.

On 10/19/10 10:32 PM, wrote:
And the website I first referenced was clearly plagerised.
I did not reference it because I KNEW it was not the original when I
originally downloaded the material.


You're very good at throwing in minutia to slightly change the details
in an ill fated attempt at saving face. You should be a defense
attorney. :-)

It doesn't matter if the website you cut and pasted from was the
original author or not.
It's hard to find *anything* on the internet that hasn't been copied and
passed around from site to site. I find stuff I wrote on my website, ten
years ago, pasted on websites all over the world.

What matters is that you were trying pass it off as your own thought.
Have you seen Good Will Hunting?


When called on it I investigated and found out who the ORIGINAL author
was and gave credit where credit was due.


Credit to the original author in the context of this debate isn't nearly
as important as simply writing, "I copied the following from a mechanics
website."


--

-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 19, 11:31*pm, wrote:


The vehicles in question were 1989 and 1990 long body Ford Aerostars
with 3 liter engines and automatic transmission.

Ha! Now I KNOW you were just pulling my leg!

In article ,
says...

On 10/19/10 8:50 PM, Josepi wrote:
Bull****. Where you come from, and most others, coying somebody else's work
is called a "Reference"


I'm assuming you at least got though middle school where the subject was
covered, but here's a refresher...
Giving CREDIT to the original author is called a reference.
Copying and pasting word for word without giving credit to the author is
plagiarism.

Whether you give credit or not, it's copyright violation unless you have
the permission of the copyright holder or it falls under one of the
"fair use" exceptions.

There is for some reason a persistent notion that using someone else's
work is lawful as long as you give credit. It is not.

Constantly disputing anything and everything for a response that isn't
related to the subject at hand is called.... "Trolling"


Thanks for finally admitting it.


You don't want to discuss anything at hand, you just want attention and
defences.

Even if that were true, at least I use my own material.

I assume that would all fit on the shaft between the motor and the blade or
ar we drilling out the back endbell of the motor?


"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
...
Oh hell - that's easy. A set of torches, some steel, a little time, and
then paint to match. Don't forget the spring kit though.


Josepi wrote:
OK, let's put drum brakes on the arbor of the motor!

Somebody tell me how we are going to implement drum brakes on a T/S?


--

-Mike-

On 10/20/10 4:08 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
In ,
says...

On 10/19/10 8:50 PM, Josepi wrote:
Bull****. Where you come from, and most others, coying somebody else's work
is called a "Reference"


I'm assuming you at least got though middle school where the subject was
covered, but here's a refresher...
Giving CREDIT to the original author is called a reference.
Copying and pasting word for word without giving credit to the author is
plagiarism.

Whether you give credit or not, it's copyright violation unless you have
the permission of the copyright holder or it falls under one of the
"fair use" exceptions.

There is for some reason a persistent notion that using someone else's
work is lawful as long as you give credit. It is not.


The copyright aspect really wasn't the point.
Someone in here once used the term, "Googlectual."


--

-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 20, 9:00*am, "Josepi" wrote:
I assume that would all fit on the shaft between the motor and the blade or
ar we drilling out the back endbell of the motor?

Never seen TEFC motors with a shaft on both ends?

On 10/20/10 1:44 PM, Robatoy wrote:

Yup, how to make a small fortune (By starting with a bigger one)

I'm working on my second million.
I gave up on the first.


--

-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 10/20/2010 2:07 PM, -MIKE- wrote:
On 10/20/10 1:44 PM, Robatoy wrote:

Yup, how to make a small fortune (By starting with a bigger one)

I'm working on my second million.
I gave up on the first.

You just haven't been around long enough.

Apparently I've made a couple ... although I never realized it due to
wife, kids, utility companies, insurance companies, house payments, car
payments, colleges, property taxes, Uncle Sam, et al.

A million dollars ain't what it used to be ...

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlC@ (the obvious)

On Oct 20, 3:15*pm, Swingman wrote:


A million dollars ain't what it used to be ...


....and THAT is a fact, sir. I remember thinking 20 years ago that a
million was a lot of money. Now you need 5 if you want to retire with
any kind of comfort.
..
..
..
...so uncomfortable it is then. G

On Oct 20, 3:07*pm, -MIKE- wrote:
On 10/20/10 1:44 PM, Robatoy wrote:



Yup, how to make a small fortune (By starting with a bigger one)

I'm working on my second million.
I gave up on the first.


Good one! (in my best Clouseau voice.. the Steven Martin version.)

Not saying I agree with using drum brakes in this application, but one
possible place is at the pulley end of the blade arbor. I have seen small
brake assemblies that were actually built into pulleys, though much larger
than the ones used on table saws.

--
There are no stupid questions, but there are lots of stupid answers.

Larry Wasserman - Baltimore Maryland - lwasserm(a)sdf. lonestar. org

A billion dallars ain't what it used to be either unless you are in the USA.
It changed everywhere else.


"Swingman" wrote in message
...
A million dollars ain't what it used to be ...

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlC@ (the obvious)

In article
Steve Turner writes:
On 10/19/2010 12:02 PM, , the Energizer Bunny, wrote another
version of his book using slightly different words:
SNIP

Is this horse dead YET? Please tell me it's dead...

But what about the beating? It is going on, and we need some way to stop it.
If only there were braking systems of some sort . . . .


--
Drew Lawson | Though it's just a memory,
| some memories last forever

On 10/21/2010 9:14 PM, Drew Lawson wrote:
In
Steve writes:
On 10/19/2010 12:02 PM, , the Energizer Bunny, wrote another
version of his book using slightly different words:
SNIP

Is this horse dead YET? Please tell me it's dead...

But what about the beating? It is going on, and we need some way to stop it.
If only there were braking systems of some sort . . . .

Ayiiiieeee!!! :-)

--
See Nad. See Nad go. Go Nad!
To reply, eat the taco.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbqboyee/

On Fri, 22 Oct 2010 02:14:58 +0000 (UTC), lid (Drew
Lawson) wrote:

In article
Steve Turner writes:
On 10/19/2010 12:02 PM, , the Energizer Bunny, wrote another
version of his book using slightly different words:
SNIP

Is this horse dead YET? Please tell me it's dead...

But what about the beating? It is going on, and we need some way to stop it.
If only there were braking systems of some sort . . . .

Keep drumming that in, boy.

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