I can't believe that anyone could take seriously the idea that drums have some inherent advantage in ANY day-to-day use.
They don't. All they have is that they are cheaper to produce.
I've owned cars with 4-whl drums and they were NEVER predictable . . . the emergency when you need them is the only thing that counts. I don't care how much maintenance they receive or the qulity of the shoes, etc. Even a BUNTING ventilated set.
And on disc/drum combos, good luck when the rears start to seize . . and they will. Live, and in-real-time demonstration of "polar moment of inertia" when the chassis is overwhelmed.
Now add water. Or a panic stop. Or a downgrade. Or out-of-adjustment drums . . . .
I drove big trucks for a living, and the ONLY reason drums are still found on Class 8 rigs is that the NHTSA has long been the creature of the companies it supposedly regulates. They, in turn have no desire to change to discs DESPITE demonstrated superiority. It would affect their profit. Tough luck for your cousin and his kids when yet another big trucks brakes overheat (takes only moments) and they wind up under the tractor drive axles. Sort of like FORD and the Pinto . . cheaper to pay out claims than re-design the fuel tank and mount. The turnover, and the high rate of job fatality in the trucking industry is closely related to this long obsolete brake type. The Europeans long ago demonstrated their superiority. But, hey, this ain't college-educated, First World work conditions we're talking about here. I learned not to ever lock up the trailer brakes after coming to a stop for the night. Why? Because the overnight temp drop was enough to get them locked. And this was in normal conditions with a company known for an outstanding maintenance program. And a driver who regularly spent time in the home base shop learning from the head of that department.
Someone got a picture, or a video of the latest BOEING transport undergoing brake testing? I doubt an aircraft has had anything but discs for more than a half-century. Yet an airplane has to make only one long stop, and in the larger types has thrust reverse available.
You guys are debating the merits of cheap brakes. So will someone please state the case for a nation of 220-million vehicles needing cheap brakes? The ethical and moral ones? The long-term cost of excellent brakes ought to be obvious.
1964 Mustang 60-0 braking distance: 172 ft.
2005 Mustang, same: 125 ft.
Only about a 30% difference. Or, 3+ car lengths.
Go on all you want about tire type/size, suspension, etc. It's irrelevant. The same "car" for the "same" market niche. Nothing exotic about the 2005 brakes or size. Just like in 1964.
They don't. All they have is that they are cheaper to produce.
I've owned cars with 4-whl drums and they were NEVER predictable . . . the emergency when you need them is the only thing that counts. I don't care how much maintenance they receive or the qulity of the shoes, etc. Even a BUNTING ventilated set.
And on disc/drum combos, good luck when the rears start to seize . . and they will. Live, and in-real-time demonstration of "polar moment of inertia" when the chassis is overwhelmed.
Now add water. Or a panic stop. Or a downgrade. Or out-of-adjustment drums . . . .
I drove big trucks for a living, and the ONLY reason drums are still found on Class 8 rigs is that the NHTSA has long been the creature of the companies it supposedly regulates. They, in turn have no desire to change to discs DESPITE demonstrated superiority. It would affect their profit. Tough luck for your cousin and his kids when yet another big trucks brakes overheat (takes only moments) and they wind up under the tractor drive axles. Sort of like FORD and the Pinto . . cheaper to pay out claims than re-design the fuel tank and mount. The turnover, and the high rate of job fatality in the trucking industry is closely related to this long obsolete brake type. The Europeans long ago demonstrated their superiority. But, hey, this ain't college-educated, First World work conditions we're talking about here. I learned not to ever lock up the trailer brakes after coming to a stop for the night. Why? Because the overnight temp drop was enough to get them locked. And this was in normal conditions with a company known for an outstanding maintenance program. And a driver who regularly spent time in the home base shop learning from the head of that department.
Someone got a picture, or a video of the latest BOEING transport undergoing brake testing? I doubt an aircraft has had anything but discs for more than a half-century. Yet an airplane has to make only one long stop, and in the larger types has thrust reverse available.
You guys are debating the merits of cheap brakes. So will someone please state the case for a nation of 220-million vehicles needing cheap brakes? The ethical and moral ones? The long-term cost of excellent brakes ought to be obvious.
1964 Mustang 60-0 braking distance: 172 ft.
2005 Mustang, same: 125 ft.
Only about a 30% difference. Or, 3+ car lengths.
Go on all you want about tire type/size, suspension, etc. It's irrelevant. The same "car" for the "same" market niche. Nothing exotic about the 2005 brakes or size. Just like in 1964.
