>
> Nothing like a disagreement to bring out the biases is there Patrick?
Yours are well known Tom.
> This is not a game at all, at least for me.
Apparently, it is a game to you(i.e. the "your turn" comment), the goal
of which escapes me.
> You made a statement about the area
> of the braking surface having no effect on the braking force. I simply asked
> what formula you were using. Guess you could not find it.
Does it make you feel important to take a cheap shot when you know I
won't read this for two days - much less respond?
> Every comment you make is read and evaluated by others on this net with a
> wide variety of experiences and capabilities of separating the false
> information from the good. Seems like you constantly misinterpret the goals
> of some of these discussions.
Let's get this straight, you are not the self-appointed conscience of
GMCnet. There is no such position. We're all adults here and
responsible for considering all the input(including yours) and making
our own decisions. There's a great disclaimer at the Western States
web-site that should be required reading.
> I never said that drums are superior to discs,
> depends on what the application is.
Excuse me? What about this from Friday morning:
>
> a popular misconception is that disc brakes stop faster than drum brakes.
> Not so! Disc brakes were designed to reduce BRAKE FADE in racing applications.
>
> Who says drum brakes will not stop as fast as discs??? Not me!
I guess I just misunderstood.
> The point is very simple Patrick, if you
> can lock up all 4 wheels on a dry surface with the normal braking system of
> the GMC, than excluding ABS brakes, you cant get any better BRAKING then
> that.
You keep making this ludicrous statement Tom. Obviously you're ignorant
to the fact that a sliding tire has less adhesion than one that's not.
When you lock the tires, you actually reduce braking due to the
off-gasing of the burning tire compound(not to mention ruining your
tires). Drum brakes have a mechnanical advantage(Rick Staples refers to
it as "self-energizing" in his excellent post) which allows them to
lock-up long before the limit of tire adhesion is reached and then they
require an almost complete release of pressure to unlock. Disk brakes
can operate up to the limit of tire adhesion before locking and then
require only slight pedal modulation to release.
> When you chose a braking system there are tradeoffs no matter what you
> chose.
Well we finally agree on something.
> I still contend that a properly functioning front disc rear drum system will
> stop just fine.
We agree on this point also. I just feel that disc's are superior for
the reasons I've outlined above. My decision - everyone else must
decide for themselves.
> In fact that sytem is still used on many heavy trucks, And
> there are several advantages.
>
> 1. I have all of the technical literature for this configuration.
> 2. It is a fully supportable system by several after market distributers
> with overnight service.
> 3. Easy to maintain.
>
> What do you gain with a read disc system?
> 1. Expensive
> 2. No technical information or parts breakdown
> 3. YOu have to support it.
Advantages of disc(other than what I've already outlined):
Lighter unsprung weight.
Easier to maintain.
Less complex.
BTW, the TSM and Harrison disc conversion use off-the-shelf components
with the exception of some very heavy brackets that are unlikely to wear
out or break.
A great disadvantage to the OEM rear system IMO is that it almost
guarantees contamination of the wheel bearings unless the assembler is
extremely careful and fastidious. How many garage grease-monkeys fit
that description?
> I agree with Dave Greenberg, it stops fine for me.
And that's your decision. Enjoy!
Patrick
- --
Patrick Flowers
Mailto
atrick
The GMC Motorhome Page
http://www.gmcmotorhome.com
