F-150 brakes

On Tue, 31 May 2011 09:22:08 -0500, "Pete C." >
wrote:

>
>"C. E. White" wrote:
>>
>> "Pete C." > wrote in message
>> ter.com...
>> >
>> > Tom Del Rosso wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Top Gear, Jeremy said the F-150 is a POS. One key point was his claim
>> >> that the brake pads are "the size of bottle caps" and are inadequate for
>> >> a
>> >> vehicle of this weight and power. Is that a real issue or one man's
>> >> opinion?
>>
>> I love Top Gear, but as others have noted Clarkson seems to hate most
>> American vehicles (or at least pretends to - not sure when he is catering to
>> the audience and when he is sincere). But then he especially hates the
>> Prius, so he can't be all bad.
>>
>> > I don't have an F150, but based on the brake complaints from several
>> > friends who do, and their comments on how much better my F350 brakes
>> > are, I'd say that the F150 brakes are inadequate.
>>
>> I have a 2009 F150. The brakes take some getting used to compared to my old
>> Frontier. In my opinion. it is not the pad size, or rotor size, or the
>> ultimate braking ability that is an issue. It is the boost characteristics
>> and the way the suspension reacts to braking that are generating complaints.
>> The brake boost seems "soft" by comparison with my previous truck (an '06
>> Frontier). By that I mean the brakes feel soft - unless you really do want
>> to do a hard stop. Plus the truck seems to have a lot of "anti-dive" built
>> into the front suspension. By this I mean when you really stand on the
>> brakes, the front end doesn't dip down like some vehicles. This makes it
>> seem as if the brakes aren't working as well as in some vehicles where the
>> front end drops sharply under braking. I occasionally drive a neighboor
>> Silverado HD and his brakes seem to haul you down sharply with a relatively
>> light touch on the pedals (sort of like some of the old Chrsyler Products
>> that would almost throw you through the windshield if you touched the
>> brakes). This makes them seem a lot more powerful, but without any sort of
>> actual measurements, is it really true? One thing for sure, the anti-lock
>> activation of my F150 is far better than it was in the Frontier. The ABS in
>> my '06 Frontier kicked in often on almost any surface but a paved road. It
>> was pretty un-nerving at times.
>>
>> For comaprison, I took a look at the Consumer Reports Tests for 1/2 Ton Crew
>> Cab Pick-ups:
>> Braking Distance
>> from 60 (ft)
>> Vehicle Dry Wet
>> 2009 F150 XLT V8 138 150
>> 2009 Chevrolet Silverado 150 163
>> 2007 Toyota Tundra 153 178
>> 2009 Dodge Ram 137 155
>> 2004 Nissan Titan 139 154
>> 2002 F150 XLT 151 --- (older test)
>>
>> If you trust CR (hard to do I know) it seems that the F150 Brakes are as
>> good as anyones. The 2009 F150 in the CR test had 20 inch wheels with
>> Pirelli Scorpion Tires. I suspect these tires had a lot better braking
>> performance than the 18 inch General Tires that came on my 2009 F150. Too
>> bad they don't have a comparison of the same truck with different tire
>> options installed. My truck seems better on the Bridgestones I installed
>> last year. It might just be in my mind, but I am sure I have better off road
>> traction.
>>
>> Ed
>
>I expect those numbers are for empty trucks. At least one of my friends
>tows trailers that are heavy but within the rated spec for his F150
>(with WD hitch), and he reports that the brakes truly are inadequate
>with a load.

What's wrong with the trailers brakes???

Ashton Crusher wrote:
>
> On Tue, 31 May 2011 09:22:08 -0500, "Pete C." >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"C. E. White" wrote:
> >>
> >> "Pete C." > wrote in message
> >> ter.com...
> >> >
> >> > Tom Del Rosso wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> On Top Gear, Jeremy said the F-150 is a POS. One key point was his claim
> >> >> that the brake pads are "the size of bottle caps" and are inadequate for
> >> >> a
> >> >> vehicle of this weight and power. Is that a real issue or one man's
> >> >> opinion?
> >>
> >> I love Top Gear, but as others have noted Clarkson seems to hate most
> >> American vehicles (or at least pretends to - not sure when he is catering to
> >> the audience and when he is sincere). But then he especially hates the
> >> Prius, so he can't be all bad.
> >>
> >> > I don't have an F150, but based on the brake complaints from several
> >> > friends who do, and their comments on how much better my F350 brakes
> >> > are, I'd say that the F150 brakes are inadequate.
> >>
> >> I have a 2009 F150. The brakes take some getting used to compared to my old
> >> Frontier. In my opinion. it is not the pad size, or rotor size, or the
> >> ultimate braking ability that is an issue. It is the boost characteristics
> >> and the way the suspension reacts to braking that are generating complaints.
> >> The brake boost seems "soft" by comparison with my previous truck (an '06
> >> Frontier). By that I mean the brakes feel soft - unless you really do want
> >> to do a hard stop. Plus the truck seems to have a lot of "anti-dive" built
> >> into the front suspension. By this I mean when you really stand on the
> >> brakes, the front end doesn't dip down like some vehicles. This makes it
> >> seem as if the brakes aren't working as well as in some vehicles where the
> >> front end drops sharply under braking. I occasionally drive a neighboor
> >> Silverado HD and his brakes seem to haul you down sharply with a relatively
> >> light touch on the pedals (sort of like some of the old Chrsyler Products
> >> that would almost throw you through the windshield if you touched the
> >> brakes). This makes them seem a lot more powerful, but without any sort of
> >> actual measurements, is it really true? One thing for sure, the anti-lock
> >> activation of my F150 is far better than it was in the Frontier. The ABS in
> >> my '06 Frontier kicked in often on almost any surface but a paved road. It
> >> was pretty un-nerving at times.
> >>
> >> For comaprison, I took a look at the Consumer Reports Tests for 1/2 Ton Crew
> >> Cab Pick-ups:
> >> Braking Distance
> >> from 60 (ft)
> >> Vehicle Dry Wet
> >> 2009 F150 XLT V8 138 150
> >> 2009 Chevrolet Silverado 150 163
> >> 2007 Toyota Tundra 153 178
> >> 2009 Dodge Ram 137 155
> >> 2004 Nissan Titan 139 154
> >> 2002 F150 XLT 151 --- (older test)
> >>
> >> If you trust CR (hard to do I know) it seems that the F150 Brakes are as
> >> good as anyones. The 2009 F150 in the CR test had 20 inch wheels with
> >> Pirelli Scorpion Tires. I suspect these tires had a lot better braking
> >> performance than the 18 inch General Tires that came on my 2009 F150. Too
> >> bad they don't have a comparison of the same truck with different tire
> >> options installed. My truck seems better on the Bridgestones I installed
> >> last year. It might just be in my mind, but I am sure I have better off road
> >> traction.
> >>
> >> Ed
> >
> >I expect those numbers are for empty trucks. At least one of my friends
> >tows trailers that are heavy but within the rated spec for his F150
> >(with WD hitch), and he reports that the brakes truly are inadequate
> >with a load.
>
> What's wrong with the trailers brakes???

I couldn't tell you, the times I've been around when he's been towing a
heavy trailer we haven't had time to experiment with WD hitch settings
and whatnot. Putting the same trailer behind my F350 it's not even
noticeable.

On 06/04/2011 08:56 PM, Pete C. wrote:
>
> Ashton Crusher wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 31 May 2011 09:22:08 -0500, "Pete >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "C. E. White" wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "Pete > wrote in message
>>>> ter.com...
>>>>>
>>>>> Tom Del Rosso wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Top Gear, Jeremy said the F-150 is a POS. One key point was his claim
>>>>>> that the brake pads are "the size of bottle caps" and are inadequate for
>>>>>> a
>>>>>> vehicle of this weight and power. Is that a real issue or one man's
>>>>>> opinion?
>>>>
>>>> I love Top Gear, but as others have noted Clarkson seems to hate most
>>>> American vehicles (or at least pretends to - not sure when he is catering to
>>>> the audience and when he is sincere). But then he especially hates the
>>>> Prius, so he can't be all bad.
>>>>
>>>>> I don't have an F150, but based on the brake complaints from several
>>>>> friends who do, and their comments on how much better my F350 brakes
>>>>> are, I'd say that the F150 brakes are inadequate.
>>>>
>>>> I have a 2009 F150. The brakes take some getting used to compared to my old
>>>> Frontier. In my opinion. it is not the pad size, or rotor size, or the
>>>> ultimate braking ability that is an issue. It is the boost characteristics
>>>> and the way the suspension reacts to braking that are generating complaints.
>>>> The brake boost seems "soft" by comparison with my previous truck (an '06
>>>> Frontier). By that I mean the brakes feel soft - unless you really do want
>>>> to do a hard stop. Plus the truck seems to have a lot of "anti-dive" built
>>>> into the front suspension. By this I mean when you really stand on the
>>>> brakes, the front end doesn't dip down like some vehicles. This makes it
>>>> seem as if the brakes aren't working as well as in some vehicles where the
>>>> front end drops sharply under braking. I occasionally drive a neighboor
>>>> Silverado HD and his brakes seem to haul you down sharply with a relatively
>>>> light touch on the pedals (sort of like some of the old Chrsyler Products
>>>> that would almost throw you through the windshield if you touched the
>>>> brakes). This makes them seem a lot more powerful, but without any sort of
>>>> actual measurements, is it really true? One thing for sure, the anti-lock
>>>> activation of my F150 is far better than it was in the Frontier. The ABS in
>>>> my '06 Frontier kicked in often on almost any surface but a paved road. It
>>>> was pretty un-nerving at times.
>>>>
>>>> For comaprison, I took a look at the Consumer Reports Tests for 1/2 Ton Crew
>>>> Cab Pick-ups:
>>>> Braking Distance
>>>> from 60 (ft)
>>>> Vehicle Dry Wet
>>>> 2009 F150 XLT V8 138 150
>>>> 2009 Chevrolet Silverado 150 163
>>>> 2007 Toyota Tundra 153 178
>>>> 2009 Dodge Ram 137 155
>>>> 2004 Nissan Titan 139 154
>>>> 2002 F150 XLT 151 --- (older test)
>>>>
>>>> If you trust CR (hard to do I know) it seems that the F150 Brakes are as
>>>> good as anyones. The 2009 F150 in the CR test had 20 inch wheels with
>>>> Pirelli Scorpion Tires. I suspect these tires had a lot better braking
>>>> performance than the 18 inch General Tires that came on my 2009 F150. Too
>>>> bad they don't have a comparison of the same truck with different tire
>>>> options installed. My truck seems better on the Bridgestones I installed
>>>> last year. It might just be in my mind, but I am sure I have better off road
>>>> traction.
>>>>
>>>> Ed
>>>
>>> I expect those numbers are for empty trucks. At least one of my friends
>>> tows trailers that are heavy but within the rated spec for his F150
>>> (with WD hitch), and he reports that the brakes truly are inadequate
>>> with a load.
>>
>> What's wrong with the trailers brakes???
>
> I couldn't tell you, the times I've been around when he's been towing a
> heavy trailer we haven't had time to experiment with WD hitch settings
> and whatnot. Putting the same trailer behind my F350 it's not even
> noticeable.

it was an uninformed/smoke screen question - many trailers don't have
brakes at all.

getting back to the point, any vehicle with a cargo bed should be able
to stop a load. on a hill. more than once. whether that load is on
the bed or following behind is irrelevant.


--
nomina rutrum rutrum

"jim beam" > wrote in message
t...
> On 06/04/2011 08:56 PM, Pete C. wrote:
>>
>> Ashton Crusher wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, 31 May 2011 09:22:08 -0500, "Pete >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "C. E. White" wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> "Pete > wrote in message
>>>>> ter.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tom Del Rosso wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Top Gear, Jeremy said the F-150 is a POS. One key point was his
>>>>>>> claim
>>>>>>> that the brake pads are "the size of bottle caps" and are inadequate
>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>> vehicle of this weight and power. Is that a real issue or one man's
>>>>>>> opinion?
>>>>>
>>>>> I love Top Gear, but as others have noted Clarkson seems to hate most
>>>>> American vehicles (or at least pretends to - not sure when he is
>>>>> catering to
>>>>> the audience and when he is sincere). But then he especially hates the
>>>>> Prius, so he can't be all bad.
>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't have an F150, but based on the brake complaints from several
>>>>>> friends who do, and their comments on how much better my F350 brakes
>>>>>> are, I'd say that the F150 brakes are inadequate.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have a 2009 F150. The brakes take some getting used to compared to
>>>>> my old
>>>>> Frontier. In my opinion. it is not the pad size, or rotor size, or the
>>>>> ultimate braking ability that is an issue. It is the boost
>>>>> characteristics
>>>>> and the way the suspension reacts to braking that are generating
>>>>> complaints.
>>>>> The brake boost seems "soft" by comparison with my previous truck (an
>>>>> '06
>>>>> Frontier). By that I mean the brakes feel soft - unless you really do
>>>>> want
>>>>> to do a hard stop. Plus the truck seems to have a lot of "anti-dive"
>>>>> built
>>>>> into the front suspension. By this I mean when you really stand on the
>>>>> brakes, the front end doesn't dip down like some vehicles. This makes
>>>>> it
>>>>> seem as if the brakes aren't working as well as in some vehicles
>>>>> where the
>>>>> front end drops sharply under braking. I occasionally drive a
>>>>> neighboor
>>>>> Silverado HD and his brakes seem to haul you down sharply with a
>>>>> relatively
>>>>> light touch on the pedals (sort of like some of the old Chrsyler
>>>>> Products
>>>>> that would almost throw you through the windshield if you touched the
>>>>> brakes). This makes them seem a lot more powerful, but without any
>>>>> sort of
>>>>> actual measurements, is it really true? One thing for sure, the
>>>>> anti-lock
>>>>> activation of my F150 is far better than it was in the Frontier. The
>>>>> ABS in
>>>>> my '06 Frontier kicked in often on almost any surface but a paved
>>>>> road. It
>>>>> was pretty un-nerving at times.
>>>>>
>>>>> For comaprison, I took a look at the Consumer Reports Tests for 1/2
>>>>> Ton Crew
>>>>> Cab Pick-ups:
>>>>> Braking Distance
>>>>> from 60 (ft)
>>>>> Vehicle Dry Wet
>>>>> 2009 F150 XLT V8 138 150
>>>>> 2009 Chevrolet Silverado 150 163
>>>>> 2007 Toyota Tundra 153 178
>>>>> 2009 Dodge Ram 137 155
>>>>> 2004 Nissan Titan 139 154
>>>>> 2002 F150 XLT 151 --- (older test)
>>>>>
>>>>> If you trust CR (hard to do I know) it seems that the F150 Brakes are
>>>>> as
>>>>> good as anyones. The 2009 F150 in the CR test had 20 inch wheels with
>>>>> Pirelli Scorpion Tires. I suspect these tires had a lot better braking
>>>>> performance than the 18 inch General Tires that came on my 2009 F150.
>>>>> Too
>>>>> bad they don't have a comparison of the same truck with different tire
>>>>> options installed. My truck seems better on the Bridgestones I
>>>>> installed
>>>>> last year. It might just be in my mind, but I am sure I have better
>>>>> off road
>>>>> traction.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ed
>>>>
>>>> I expect those numbers are for empty trucks. At least one of my friends
>>>> tows trailers that are heavy but within the rated spec for his F150
>>>> (with WD hitch), and he reports that the brakes truly are inadequate
>>>> with a load.
>>>
>>> What's wrong with the trailers brakes???
>>
>> I couldn't tell you, the times I've been around when he's been towing a
>> heavy trailer we haven't had time to experiment with WD hitch settings
>> and whatnot. Putting the same trailer behind my F350 it's not even
>> noticeable.
>
> it was an uninformed/smoke screen question - many trailers don't have
> brakes at all.

Not a problem for relatively light trailers. But if you towing anything
close to then maximum tow capacity you need trailer brakes.

> getting back to the point, any vehicle with a cargo bed should be able to
> stop a load. on a hill. more than once. whether that load is on the bed
> or following behind is irrelevant.

Not irrelevant. A load in the bed increases the tire traction available for
braking. The same load on a trailer without trialer brakes doesn't load the
tow vehicle tires nearly as much (maybe 20% as much if you have the tongue
weight right). Therfore, you have less tire traction available to stop the
combination. If you don't have anti-lock brakes, then you can easily lock
the rear brakes on the tow vehicle when trying to stop the vehicle plus
trailer (with the dire consequences that follow). If you do have antilock
brakes, then you can't lock the rear wheels, but you also won't have as much
braking force available (comparded to having the load in the bed). And then
there is the whole problem with jack-knifing a trailer with no trialer
brakes. Certainly stopping a vehicle with a trailer without trailer brakes
is much different than stopping a vehicle with the load in the bed.

I looked into brakes of the current F150 some more. It seems Ford claims
they have a dual diaphram brake booster and electronic brake force
distribution. Neither claim is made for the SuperDuties. Not sure of the
implications. The biggest difference at the wheel end is that the
SuperDuties have dual piston rear calipers, the F150's have single piston
rear calipers. Brake disc sizes are similar, total swept area is similar. I
really don't see any reason to think that the F150 brakes are inadequate if
you tow trailers that don't exceed the rated GCVW.

Ed

"C. E. White" > wrote in message
...
>
> "jim beam" > wrote in message
> t...
>> On 06/04/2011 08:56 PM, Pete C. wrote:
>>>
>>> Ashton Crusher wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, 31 May 2011 09:22:08 -0500, "Pete >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "C. E. White" wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Pete > wrote in message
>>>>>> ter.com...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Tom Del Rosso wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Top Gear, Jeremy said the F-150 is a POS. One key point was his
>>>>>>>> claim
>>>>>>>> that the brake pads are "the size of bottle caps" and are
>>>>>>>> inadequate for
>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>> vehicle of this weight and power. Is that a real issue or one
>>>>>>>> man's
>>>>>>>> opinion?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I love Top Gear, but as others have noted Clarkson seems to hate most
>>>>>> American vehicles (or at least pretends to - not sure when he is
>>>>>> catering to
>>>>>> the audience and when he is sincere). But then he especially hates
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> Prius, so he can't be all bad.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't have an F150, but based on the brake complaints from several
>>>>>>> friends who do, and their comments on how much better my F350 brakes
>>>>>>> are, I'd say that the F150 brakes are inadequate.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have a 2009 F150. The brakes take some getting used to compared to
>>>>>> my old
>>>>>> Frontier. In my opinion. it is not the pad size, or rotor size, or
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> ultimate braking ability that is an issue. It is the boost
>>>>>> characteristics
>>>>>> and the way the suspension reacts to braking that are generating
>>>>>> complaints.
>>>>>> The brake boost seems "soft" by comparison with my previous truck (an
>>>>>> '06
>>>>>> Frontier). By that I mean the brakes feel soft - unless you really do
>>>>>> want
>>>>>> to do a hard stop. Plus the truck seems to have a lot of "anti-dive"
>>>>>> built
>>>>>> into the front suspension. By this I mean when you really stand on
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> brakes, the front end doesn't dip down like some vehicles. This makes
>>>>>> it
>>>>>> seem as if the brakes aren't working as well as in some vehicles
>>>>>> where the
>>>>>> front end drops sharply under braking. I occasionally drive a
>>>>>> neighboor
>>>>>> Silverado HD and his brakes seem to haul you down sharply with a
>>>>>> relatively
>>>>>> light touch on the pedals (sort of like some of the old Chrsyler
>>>>>> Products
>>>>>> that would almost throw you through the windshield if you touched the
>>>>>> brakes). This makes them seem a lot more powerful, but without any
>>>>>> sort of
>>>>>> actual measurements, is it really true? One thing for sure, the
>>>>>> anti-lock
>>>>>> activation of my F150 is far better than it was in the Frontier. The
>>>>>> ABS in
>>>>>> my '06 Frontier kicked in often on almost any surface but a paved
>>>>>> road. It
>>>>>> was pretty un-nerving at times.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For comaprison, I took a look at the Consumer Reports Tests for 1/2
>>>>>> Ton Crew
>>>>>> Cab Pick-ups:
>>>>>> Braking Distance
>>>>>> from 60 (ft)
>>>>>> Vehicle Dry Wet
>>>>>> 2009 F150 XLT V8 138 150
>>>>>> 2009 Chevrolet Silverado 150 163
>>>>>> 2007 Toyota Tundra 153 178
>>>>>> 2009 Dodge Ram 137 155
>>>>>> 2004 Nissan Titan 139 154
>>>>>> 2002 F150 XLT 151 --- (older test)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you trust CR (hard to do I know) it seems that the F150 Brakes
>>>>>> are as
>>>>>> good as anyones. The 2009 F150 in the CR test had 20 inch wheels with
>>>>>> Pirelli Scorpion Tires. I suspect these tires had a lot better
>>>>>> braking
>>>>>> performance than the 18 inch General Tires that came on my 2009 F150.
>>>>>> Too
>>>>>> bad they don't have a comparison of the same truck with different
>>>>>> tire
>>>>>> options installed. My truck seems better on the Bridgestones I
>>>>>> installed
>>>>>> last year. It might just be in my mind, but I am sure I have better
>>>>>> off road
>>>>>> traction.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ed
>>>>>
>>>>> I expect those numbers are for empty trucks. At least one of my
>>>>> friends
>>>>> tows trailers that are heavy but within the rated spec for his F150
>>>>> (with WD hitch), and he reports that the brakes truly are inadequate
>>>>> with a load.
>>>>
>>>> What's wrong with the trailers brakes???
>>>
>>> I couldn't tell you, the times I've been around when he's been towing a
>>> heavy trailer we haven't had time to experiment with WD hitch settings
>>> and whatnot. Putting the same trailer behind my F350 it's not even
>>> noticeable.
>>
>> it was an uninformed/smoke screen question - many trailers don't have
>> brakes at all.
>
> Not a problem for relatively light trailers. But if you towing anything
> close to then maximum tow capacity you need trailer brakes.
>
>> getting back to the point, any vehicle with a cargo bed should be able to
>> stop a load. on a hill. more than once. whether that load is on the
>> bed or following behind is irrelevant.
>
> Not irrelevant. A load in the bed increases the tire traction available
> for braking. The same load on a trailer without trialer brakes doesn't
> load the tow vehicle tires nearly as much (maybe 20% as much if you have
> the tongue weight right). Therfore, you have less tire traction available
> to stop the combination. If you don't have anti-lock brakes, then you can
> easily lock the rear brakes on the tow vehicle when trying to stop the
> vehicle plus trailer (with the dire consequences that follow). If you do
> have antilock brakes, then you can't lock the rear wheels, but you also
> won't have as much braking force available (comparded to having the load
> in the bed). And then there is the whole problem with jack-knifing a
> trailer with no trialer brakes. Certainly stopping a vehicle with a
> trailer without trailer brakes is much different than stopping a vehicle
> with the load in the bed.
>
> I looked into brakes of the current F150 some more. It seems Ford claims
> they have a dual diaphram brake booster and electronic brake force
> distribution. Neither claim is made for the SuperDuties. Not sure of the
> implications. The biggest difference at the wheel end is that the
> SuperDuties have dual piston rear calipers, the F150's have single piston
> rear calipers. Brake disc sizes are similar, total swept area is similar.
> I really don't see any reason to think that the F150 brakes are inadequate
> if you tow trailers that don't exceed the rated GCVW.
>
> Ed

Assuming both rotors have the same swept area, and that
the pads are of the same size and material, would you
expect the addition of a second piston alone to have a
major effect on the stopping power? Pressure applied
to the pads should be the same whether you use one or
two pistons. You dont double the pressure when you
apply pressure to both sides, versus deadheading the
same pressure on one side only.

"hls" > wrote in message
...
>
> "C. E. White" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "jim beam" > wrote in message
>> t...
>>> On 06/04/2011 08:56 PM, Pete C. wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Ashton Crusher wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 31 May 2011 09:22:08 -0500, "Pete >
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "C. E. White" wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Pete > wrote in message
>>>>>>> ter.com...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Tom Del Rosso wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Top Gear, Jeremy said the F-150 is a POS. One key point was
>>>>>>>>> his claim
>>>>>>>>> that the brake pads are "the size of bottle caps" and are
>>>>>>>>> inadequate for
>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>> vehicle of this weight and power. Is that a real issue or one
>>>>>>>>> man's
>>>>>>>>> opinion?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I love Top Gear, but as others have noted Clarkson seems to hate
>>>>>>> most
>>>>>>> American vehicles (or at least pretends to - not sure when he is
>>>>>>> catering to
>>>>>>> the audience and when he is sincere). But then he especially hates
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> Prius, so he can't be all bad.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I don't have an F150, but based on the brake complaints from
>>>>>>>> several
>>>>>>>> friends who do, and their comments on how much better my F350
>>>>>>>> brakes
>>>>>>>> are, I'd say that the F150 brakes are inadequate.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have a 2009 F150. The brakes take some getting used to compared to
>>>>>>> my old
>>>>>>> Frontier. In my opinion. it is not the pad size, or rotor size, or
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> ultimate braking ability that is an issue. It is the boost
>>>>>>> characteristics
>>>>>>> and the way the suspension reacts to braking that are generating
>>>>>>> complaints.
>>>>>>> The brake boost seems "soft" by comparison with my previous truck
>>>>>>> (an '06
>>>>>>> Frontier). By that I mean the brakes feel soft - unless you really
>>>>>>> do want
>>>>>>> to do a hard stop. Plus the truck seems to have a lot of "anti-dive"
>>>>>>> built
>>>>>>> into the front suspension. By this I mean when you really stand on
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> brakes, the front end doesn't dip down like some vehicles. This
>>>>>>> makes it
>>>>>>> seem as if the brakes aren't working as well as in some vehicles
>>>>>>> where the
>>>>>>> front end drops sharply under braking. I occasionally drive a
>>>>>>> neighboor
>>>>>>> Silverado HD and his brakes seem to haul you down sharply with a
>>>>>>> relatively
>>>>>>> light touch on the pedals (sort of like some of the old Chrsyler
>>>>>>> Products
>>>>>>> that would almost throw you through the windshield if you touched
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> brakes). This makes them seem a lot more powerful, but without any
>>>>>>> sort of
>>>>>>> actual measurements, is it really true? One thing for sure, the
>>>>>>> anti-lock
>>>>>>> activation of my F150 is far better than it was in the Frontier. The
>>>>>>> ABS in
>>>>>>> my '06 Frontier kicked in often on almost any surface but a paved
>>>>>>> road. It
>>>>>>> was pretty un-nerving at times.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For comaprison, I took a look at the Consumer Reports Tests for 1/2
>>>>>>> Ton Crew
>>>>>>> Cab Pick-ups:
>>>>>>> Braking Distance
>>>>>>> from 60 (ft)
>>>>>>> Vehicle Dry Wet
>>>>>>> 2009 F150 XLT V8 138 150
>>>>>>> 2009 Chevrolet Silverado 150 163
>>>>>>> 2007 Toyota Tundra 153 178
>>>>>>> 2009 Dodge Ram 137 155
>>>>>>> 2004 Nissan Titan 139 154
>>>>>>> 2002 F150 XLT 151 --- (older test)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you trust CR (hard to do I know) it seems that the F150 Brakes
>>>>>>> are as
>>>>>>> good as anyones. The 2009 F150 in the CR test had 20 inch wheels
>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>> Pirelli Scorpion Tires. I suspect these tires had a lot better
>>>>>>> braking
>>>>>>> performance than the 18 inch General Tires that came on my 2009
>>>>>>> F150. Too
>>>>>>> bad they don't have a comparison of the same truck with different
>>>>>>> tire
>>>>>>> options installed. My truck seems better on the Bridgestones I
>>>>>>> installed
>>>>>>> last year. It might just be in my mind, but I am sure I have better
>>>>>>> off road
>>>>>>> traction.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ed
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I expect those numbers are for empty trucks. At least one of my
>>>>>> friends
>>>>>> tows trailers that are heavy but within the rated spec for his F150
>>>>>> (with WD hitch), and he reports that the brakes truly are inadequate
>>>>>> with a load.
>>>>>
>>>>> What's wrong with the trailers brakes???
>>>>
>>>> I couldn't tell you, the times I've been around when he's been towing a
>>>> heavy trailer we haven't had time to experiment with WD hitch settings
>>>> and whatnot. Putting the same trailer behind my F350 it's not even
>>>> noticeable.
>>>
>>> it was an uninformed/smoke screen question - many trailers don't have
>>> brakes at all.
>>
>> Not a problem for relatively light trailers. But if you towing anything
>> close to then maximum tow capacity you need trailer brakes.
>>
>>> getting back to the point, any vehicle with a cargo bed should be able
>>> to stop a load. on a hill. more than once. whether that load is on
>>> the bed or following behind is irrelevant.
>>
>> Not irrelevant. A load in the bed increases the tire traction available
>> for braking. The same load on a trailer without trialer brakes doesn't
>> load the tow vehicle tires nearly as much (maybe 20% as much if you have
>> the tongue weight right). Therfore, you have less tire traction available
>> to stop the combination. If you don't have anti-lock brakes, then you can
>> easily lock the rear brakes on the tow vehicle when trying to stop the
>> vehicle plus trailer (with the dire consequences that follow). If you do
>> have antilock brakes, then you can't lock the rear wheels, but you also
>> won't have as much braking force available (comparded to having the load
>> in the bed). And then there is the whole problem with jack-knifing a
>> trailer with no trialer brakes. Certainly stopping a vehicle with a
>> trailer without trailer brakes is much different than stopping a vehicle
>> with the load in the bed.
>>
>> I looked into brakes of the current F150 some more. It seems Ford claims
>> they have a dual diaphram brake booster and electronic brake force
>> distribution. Neither claim is made for the SuperDuties. Not sure of the
>> implications. The biggest difference at the wheel end is that the
>> SuperDuties have dual piston rear calipers, the F150's have single piston
>> rear calipers. Brake disc sizes are similar, total swept area is similar.
>> I really don't see any reason to think that the F150 brakes are
>> inadequate if you tow trailers that don't exceed the rated GCVW.
>>
>> Ed
>
> Assuming both rotors have the same swept area, and that
> the pads are of the same size and material, would you
> expect the addition of a second piston alone to have a
> major effect on the stopping power? Pressure applied
> to the pads should be the same whether you use one or
> two pistons. You dont double the pressure when you
> apply pressure to both sides, versus deadheading the
> same pressure on one side only.

In this context, the dual pistons are on the same side of the caliper. The
brakes are still sliding caliper types, just with two pistons side by side
on one side of the caliper. I haven't found the actual piston sizes, but I
assume the F250+ brakes can apply significantly more pressure on the rear
pads than the F150 single piston calipers

Ed

On 06/06/2011 08:20 AM, C. E. White wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "C. E. > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> "jim > wrote in message
>>> t...
>>>> On 06/04/2011 08:56 PM, Pete C. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Ashton Crusher wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, 31 May 2011 09:22:08 -0500, "Pete >
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "C. E. White" wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Pete > wrote in message
>>>>>>>> ter.com...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Tom Del Rosso wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Top Gear, Jeremy said the F-150 is a POS. One key point was
>>>>>>>>>> his claim
>>>>>>>>>> that the brake pads are "the size of bottle caps" and are
>>>>>>>>>> inadequate for
>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>> vehicle of this weight and power. Is that a real issue or one
>>>>>>>>>> man's
>>>>>>>>>> opinion?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I love Top Gear, but as others have noted Clarkson seems to hate
>>>>>>>> most
>>>>>>>> American vehicles (or at least pretends to - not sure when he is
>>>>>>>> catering to
>>>>>>>> the audience and when he is sincere). But then he especially hates
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> Prius, so he can't be all bad.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I don't have an F150, but based on the brake complaints from
>>>>>>>>> several
>>>>>>>>> friends who do, and their comments on how much better my F350
>>>>>>>>> brakes
>>>>>>>>> are, I'd say that the F150 brakes are inadequate.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I have a 2009 F150. The brakes take some getting used to compared to
>>>>>>>> my old
>>>>>>>> Frontier. In my opinion. it is not the pad size, or rotor size, or
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> ultimate braking ability that is an issue. It is the boost
>>>>>>>> characteristics
>>>>>>>> and the way the suspension reacts to braking that are generating
>>>>>>>> complaints.
>>>>>>>> The brake boost seems "soft" by comparison with my previous truck
>>>>>>>> (an '06
>>>>>>>> Frontier). By that I mean the brakes feel soft - unless you really
>>>>>>>> do want
>>>>>>>> to do a hard stop. Plus the truck seems to have a lot of "anti-dive"
>>>>>>>> built
>>>>>>>> into the front suspension. By this I mean when you really stand on
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> brakes, the front end doesn't dip down like some vehicles. This
>>>>>>>> makes it
>>>>>>>> seem as if the brakes aren't working as well as in some vehicles
>>>>>>>> where the
>>>>>>>> front end drops sharply under braking. I occasionally drive a
>>>>>>>> neighboor
>>>>>>>> Silverado HD and his brakes seem to haul you down sharply with a
>>>>>>>> relatively
>>>>>>>> light touch on the pedals (sort of like some of the old Chrsyler
>>>>>>>> Products
>>>>>>>> that would almost throw you through the windshield if you touched
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> brakes). This makes them seem a lot more powerful, but without any
>>>>>>>> sort of
>>>>>>>> actual measurements, is it really true? One thing for sure, the
>>>>>>>> anti-lock
>>>>>>>> activation of my F150 is far better than it was in the Frontier. The
>>>>>>>> ABS in
>>>>>>>> my '06 Frontier kicked in often on almost any surface but a paved
>>>>>>>> road. It
>>>>>>>> was pretty un-nerving at times.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> For comaprison, I took a look at the Consumer Reports Tests for 1/2
>>>>>>>> Ton Crew
>>>>>>>> Cab Pick-ups:
>>>>>>>> Braking Distance
>>>>>>>> from 60 (ft)
>>>>>>>> Vehicle Dry Wet
>>>>>>>> 2009 F150 XLT V8 138 150
>>>>>>>> 2009 Chevrolet Silverado 150 163
>>>>>>>> 2007 Toyota Tundra 153 178
>>>>>>>> 2009 Dodge Ram 137 155
>>>>>>>> 2004 Nissan Titan 139 154
>>>>>>>> 2002 F150 XLT 151 --- (older test)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If you trust CR (hard to do I know) it seems that the F150 Brakes
>>>>>>>> are as
>>>>>>>> good as anyones. The 2009 F150 in the CR test had 20 inch wheels
>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>> Pirelli Scorpion Tires. I suspect these tires had a lot better
>>>>>>>> braking
>>>>>>>> performance than the 18 inch General Tires that came on my 2009
>>>>>>>> F150. Too
>>>>>>>> bad they don't have a comparison of the same truck with different
>>>>>>>> tire
>>>>>>>> options installed. My truck seems better on the Bridgestones I
>>>>>>>> installed
>>>>>>>> last year. It might just be in my mind, but I am sure I have better
>>>>>>>> off road
>>>>>>>> traction.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ed
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I expect those numbers are for empty trucks. At least one of my
>>>>>>> friends
>>>>>>> tows trailers that are heavy but within the rated spec for his F150
>>>>>>> (with WD hitch), and he reports that the brakes truly are inadequate
>>>>>>> with a load.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What's wrong with the trailers brakes???
>>>>>
>>>>> I couldn't tell you, the times I've been around when he's been towing a
>>>>> heavy trailer we haven't had time to experiment with WD hitch settings
>>>>> and whatnot. Putting the same trailer behind my F350 it's not even
>>>>> noticeable.
>>>>
>>>> it was an uninformed/smoke screen question - many trailers don't have
>>>> brakes at all.
>>>
>>> Not a problem for relatively light trailers. But if you towing anything
>>> close to then maximum tow capacity you need trailer brakes.
>>>
>>>> getting back to the point, any vehicle with a cargo bed should be able
>>>> to stop a load. on a hill. more than once. whether that load is on
>>>> the bed or following behind is irrelevant.
>>>
>>> Not irrelevant. A load in the bed increases the tire traction available
>>> for braking. The same load on a trailer without trialer brakes doesn't
>>> load the tow vehicle tires nearly as much (maybe 20% as much if you have
>>> the tongue weight right). Therfore, you have less tire traction available
>>> to stop the combination. If you don't have anti-lock brakes, then you can
>>> easily lock the rear brakes on the tow vehicle when trying to stop the
>>> vehicle plus trailer (with the dire consequences that follow). If you do
>>> have antilock brakes, then you can't lock the rear wheels, but you also
>>> won't have as much braking force available (comparded to having the load
>>> in the bed). And then there is the whole problem with jack-knifing a
>>> trailer with no trialer brakes. Certainly stopping a vehicle with a
>>> trailer without trailer brakes is much different than stopping a vehicle
>>> with the load in the bed.
>>>
>>> I looked into brakes of the current F150 some more. It seems Ford claims
>>> they have a dual diaphram brake booster and electronic brake force
>>> distribution. Neither claim is made for the SuperDuties. Not sure of the
>>> implications. The biggest difference at the wheel end is that the
>>> SuperDuties have dual piston rear calipers, the F150's have single piston
>>> rear calipers. Brake disc sizes are similar, total swept area is similar.
>>> I really don't see any reason to think that the F150 brakes are
>>> inadequate if you tow trailers that don't exceed the rated GCVW.
>>>
>>> Ed
>>
>> Assuming both rotors have the same swept area, and that
>> the pads are of the same size and material, would you
>> expect the addition of a second piston alone to have a
>> major effect on the stopping power? Pressure applied
>> to the pads should be the same whether you use one or
>> two pistons. You dont double the pressure when you
>> apply pressure to both sides, versus deadheading the
>> same pressure on one side only.
>
> In this context, the dual pistons are on the same side of the caliper. The
> brakes are still sliding caliper types, just with two pistons side by side
> on one side of the caliper. I haven't found the actual piston sizes, but I
> assume the F250+ brakes can apply significantly more pressure on the rear
> pads than the F150 single piston calipers
>
> Ed
>
>

you, of all people ed, shouldn't "assume" a damned thing.

piston count does not "increase" pressure. it can improve braking
because mechanical elasticity becomes less of a concern, and thus you
can have a more effective brake for less weight [and money].

and as for "weight improving traction" [this is going to be a classic] -
why exactly does increasing weight increase stopping distance ed? go
on, give it a shot.


--
nomina rutrum rutrum

jim beam wrote:
>
> On 06/06/2011 08:20 AM, C. E. White wrote:
> > > wrote in message
> > ...
> >>
> >> "C. E. > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >>>
> >>> "jim > wrote in message
> >>> t...
> >>>> On 06/04/2011 08:56 PM, Pete C. wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Ashton Crusher wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Tue, 31 May 2011 09:22:08 -0500, "Pete >
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> "C. E. White" wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> "Pete > wrote in message
> >>>>>>>> ter.com...
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Tom Del Rosso wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> On Top Gear, Jeremy said the F-150 is a POS. One key point was
> >>>>>>>>>> his claim
> >>>>>>>>>> that the brake pads are "the size of bottle caps" and are
> >>>>>>>>>> inadequate for
> >>>>>>>>>> a
> >>>>>>>>>> vehicle of this weight and power. Is that a real issue or one
> >>>>>>>>>> man's
> >>>>>>>>>> opinion?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I love Top Gear, but as others have noted Clarkson seems to hate
> >>>>>>>> most
> >>>>>>>> American vehicles (or at least pretends to - not sure when he is
> >>>>>>>> catering to
> >>>>>>>> the audience and when he is sincere). But then he especially hates
> >>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>> Prius, so he can't be all bad.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I don't have an F150, but based on the brake complaints from
> >>>>>>>>> several
> >>>>>>>>> friends who do, and their comments on how much better my F350
> >>>>>>>>> brakes
> >>>>>>>>> are, I'd say that the F150 brakes are inadequate.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I have a 2009 F150. The brakes take some getting used to compared to
> >>>>>>>> my old
> >>>>>>>> Frontier. In my opinion. it is not the pad size, or rotor size, or
> >>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>> ultimate braking ability that is an issue. It is the boost
> >>>>>>>> characteristics
> >>>>>>>> and the way the suspension reacts to braking that are generating
> >>>>>>>> complaints.
> >>>>>>>> The brake boost seems "soft" by comparison with my previous truck
> >>>>>>>> (an '06
> >>>>>>>> Frontier). By that I mean the brakes feel soft - unless you really
> >>>>>>>> do want
> >>>>>>>> to do a hard stop. Plus the truck seems to have a lot of "anti-dive"
> >>>>>>>> built
> >>>>>>>> into the front suspension. By this I mean when you really stand on
> >>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>> brakes, the front end doesn't dip down like some vehicles. This
> >>>>>>>> makes it
> >>>>>>>> seem as if the brakes aren't working as well as in some vehicles
> >>>>>>>> where the
> >>>>>>>> front end drops sharply under braking. I occasionally drive a
> >>>>>>>> neighboor
> >>>>>>>> Silverado HD and his brakes seem to haul you down sharply with a
> >>>>>>>> relatively
> >>>>>>>> light touch on the pedals (sort of like some of the old Chrsyler
> >>>>>>>> Products
> >>>>>>>> that would almost throw you through the windshield if you touched
> >>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>> brakes). This makes them seem a lot more powerful, but without any
> >>>>>>>> sort of
> >>>>>>>> actual measurements, is it really true? One thing for sure, the
> >>>>>>>> anti-lock
> >>>>>>>> activation of my F150 is far better than it was in the Frontier. The
> >>>>>>>> ABS in
> >>>>>>>> my '06 Frontier kicked in often on almost any surface but a paved
> >>>>>>>> road. It
> >>>>>>>> was pretty un-nerving at times.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> For comaprison, I took a look at the Consumer Reports Tests for 1/2
> >>>>>>>> Ton Crew
> >>>>>>>> Cab Pick-ups:
> >>>>>>>> Braking Distance
> >>>>>>>> from 60 (ft)
> >>>>>>>> Vehicle Dry Wet
> >>>>>>>> 2009 F150 XLT V8 138 150
> >>>>>>>> 2009 Chevrolet Silverado 150 163
> >>>>>>>> 2007 Toyota Tundra 153 178
> >>>>>>>> 2009 Dodge Ram 137 155
> >>>>>>>> 2004 Nissan Titan 139 154
> >>>>>>>> 2002 F150 XLT 151 --- (older test)
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> If you trust CR (hard to do I know) it seems that the F150 Brakes
> >>>>>>>> are as
> >>>>>>>> good as anyones. The 2009 F150 in the CR test had 20 inch wheels
> >>>>>>>> with
> >>>>>>>> Pirelli Scorpion Tires. I suspect these tires had a lot better
> >>>>>>>> braking
> >>>>>>>> performance than the 18 inch General Tires that came on my 2009
> >>>>>>>> F150. Too
> >>>>>>>> bad they don't have a comparison of the same truck with different
> >>>>>>>> tire
> >>>>>>>> options installed. My truck seems better on the Bridgestones I
> >>>>>>>> installed
> >>>>>>>> last year. It might just be in my mind, but I am sure I have better
> >>>>>>>> off road
> >>>>>>>> traction.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Ed
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I expect those numbers are for empty trucks. At least one of my
> >>>>>>> friends
> >>>>>>> tows trailers that are heavy but within the rated spec for his F150
> >>>>>>> (with WD hitch), and he reports that the brakes truly are inadequate
> >>>>>>> with a load.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> What's wrong with the trailers brakes???
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I couldn't tell you, the times I've been around when he's been towing a
> >>>>> heavy trailer we haven't had time to experiment with WD hitch settings
> >>>>> and whatnot. Putting the same trailer behind my F350 it's not even
> >>>>> noticeable.
> >>>>
> >>>> it was an uninformed/smoke screen question - many trailers don't have
> >>>> brakes at all.
> >>>
> >>> Not a problem for relatively light trailers. But if you towing anything
> >>> close to then maximum tow capacity you need trailer brakes.
> >>>
> >>>> getting back to the point, any vehicle with a cargo bed should be able
> >>>> to stop a load. on a hill. more than once. whether that load is on
> >>>> the bed or following behind is irrelevant.
> >>>
> >>> Not irrelevant. A load in the bed increases the tire traction available
> >>> for braking. The same load on a trailer without trialer brakes doesn't
> >>> load the tow vehicle tires nearly as much (maybe 20% as much if you have
> >>> the tongue weight right). Therfore, you have less tire traction available
> >>> to stop the combination. If you don't have anti-lock brakes, then you can
> >>> easily lock the rear brakes on the tow vehicle when trying to stop the
> >>> vehicle plus trailer (with the dire consequences that follow). If you do
> >>> have antilock brakes, then you can't lock the rear wheels, but you also
> >>> won't have as much braking force available (comparded to having the load
> >>> in the bed). And then there is the whole problem with jack-knifing a
> >>> trailer with no trialer brakes. Certainly stopping a vehicle with a
> >>> trailer without trailer brakes is much different than stopping a vehicle
> >>> with the load in the bed.
> >>>
> >>> I looked into brakes of the current F150 some more. It seems Ford claims
> >>> they have a dual diaphram brake booster and electronic brake force
> >>> distribution. Neither claim is made for the SuperDuties. Not sure of the
> >>> implications. The biggest difference at the wheel end is that the
> >>> SuperDuties have dual piston rear calipers, the F150's have single piston
> >>> rear calipers. Brake disc sizes are similar, total swept area is similar.
> >>> I really don't see any reason to think that the F150 brakes are
> >>> inadequate if you tow trailers that don't exceed the rated GCVW.
> >>>
> >>> Ed
> >>
> >> Assuming both rotors have the same swept area, and that
> >> the pads are of the same size and material, would you
> >> expect the addition of a second piston alone to have a
> >> major effect on the stopping power? Pressure applied
> >> to the pads should be the same whether you use one or
> >> two pistons. You dont double the pressure when you
> >> apply pressure to both sides, versus deadheading the
> >> same pressure on one side only.
> >
> > In this context, the dual pistons are on the same side of the caliper. The
> > brakes are still sliding caliper types, just with two pistons side by side
> > on one side of the caliper. I haven't found the actual piston sizes, but I
> > assume the F250+ brakes can apply significantly more pressure on the rear
> > pads than the F150 single piston calipers
> >
> > Ed
> >
> >
>
> you, of all people ed, shouldn't "assume" a damned thing.
>
> piston count does not "increase" pressure. it can improve braking
> because mechanical elasticity becomes less of a concern, and thus you
> can have a more effective brake for less weight [and money].

Increasing the total piston area increases the applied force for a given
brake line hydraulic pressure. If for example the F150 calipers had a
single 40mm dia piston and the F250+ calipers had dual 40mm dia pistons,
the applied clamping force on the rotor would double given the same
hydraulic pressure. The displacement and required fluid of course would
also double.

>
> and as for "weight improving traction" [this is going to be a classic] -
> why exactly does increasing weight increase stopping distance ed? go
> on, give it a shot.

The short answer is that increasing weight does not automatically
increase stopping distance. There is something of a dip in the stopping
distance where the stopping distance decreases as weight is added up to
a point before the stopping distance begins to increase again as further
weight is added.

What happens is that an axle that is too lightly loaded (such as the
rear in an unloaded pickup) is not able to apply the full available
braking force without wheel lockup so that the effective braking
capacity is limited by the lack of traction. As weight is added,
traction improves allowing more brake force to be applied without
lockup, resulting in shorter stopping distances. Once there is enough
weigh to provide sufficient traction to match the maximum braking force
available, that will be the shorted stopping distance in the graph.
Additional weight past this point will again increase the stopping
distance.

On 06/06/2011 10:25 AM, Pete C. wrote:
>
> jim beam wrote:
>>
>> On 06/06/2011 08:20 AM, C. E. White wrote:
>>> > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> "C. E. > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>> "jim > wrote in message
>>>>> t...
>>>>>> On 06/04/2011 08:56 PM, Pete C. wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ashton Crusher wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Tue, 31 May 2011 09:22:08 -0500, "Pete >
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "C. E. White" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Pete > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>> ter.com...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Tom Del Rosso wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Top Gear, Jeremy said the F-150 is a POS. One key point was
>>>>>>>>>>>> his claim
>>>>>>>>>>>> that the brake pads are "the size of bottle caps" and are
>>>>>>>>>>>> inadequate for
>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>> vehicle of this weight and power. Is that a real issue or one
>>>>>>>>>>>> man's
>>>>>>>>>>>> opinion?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I love Top Gear, but as others have noted Clarkson seems to hate
>>>>>>>>>> most
>>>>>>>>>> American vehicles (or at least pretends to - not sure when he is
>>>>>>>>>> catering to
>>>>>>>>>> the audience and when he is sincere). But then he especially hates
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> Prius, so he can't be all bad.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I don't have an F150, but based on the brake complaints from
>>>>>>>>>>> several
>>>>>>>>>>> friends who do, and their comments on how much better my F350
>>>>>>>>>>> brakes
>>>>>>>>>>> are, I'd say that the F150 brakes are inadequate.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I have a 2009 F150. The brakes take some getting used to compared to
>>>>>>>>>> my old
>>>>>>>>>> Frontier. In my opinion. it is not the pad size, or rotor size, or
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> ultimate braking ability that is an issue. It is the boost
>>>>>>>>>> characteristics
>>>>>>>>>> and the way the suspension reacts to braking that are generating
>>>>>>>>>> complaints.
>>>>>>>>>> The brake boost seems "soft" by comparison with my previous truck
>>>>>>>>>> (an '06
>>>>>>>>>> Frontier). By that I mean the brakes feel soft - unless you really
>>>>>>>>>> do want
>>>>>>>>>> to do a hard stop. Plus the truck seems to have a lot of "anti-dive"
>>>>>>>>>> built
>>>>>>>>>> into the front suspension. By this I mean when you really stand on
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> brakes, the front end doesn't dip down like some vehicles. This
>>>>>>>>>> makes it
>>>>>>>>>> seem as if the brakes aren't working as well as in some vehicles
>>>>>>>>>> where the
>>>>>>>>>> front end drops sharply under braking. I occasionally drive a
>>>>>>>>>> neighboor
>>>>>>>>>> Silverado HD and his brakes seem to haul you down sharply with a
>>>>>>>>>> relatively
>>>>>>>>>> light touch on the pedals (sort of like some of the old Chrsyler
>>>>>>>>>> Products
>>>>>>>>>> that would almost throw you through the windshield if you touched
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> brakes). This makes them seem a lot more powerful, but without any
>>>>>>>>>> sort of
>>>>>>>>>> actual measurements, is it really true? One thing for sure, the
>>>>>>>>>> anti-lock
>>>>>>>>>> activation of my F150 is far better than it was in the Frontier. The
>>>>>>>>>> ABS in
>>>>>>>>>> my '06 Frontier kicked in often on almost any surface but a paved
>>>>>>>>>> road. It
>>>>>>>>>> was pretty un-nerving at times.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> For comaprison, I took a look at the Consumer Reports Tests for 1/2
>>>>>>>>>> Ton Crew
>>>>>>>>>> Cab Pick-ups:
>>>>>>>>>> Braking Distance
>>>>>>>>>> from 60 (ft)
>>>>>>>>>> Vehicle Dry Wet
>>>>>>>>>> 2009 F150 XLT V8 138 150
>>>>>>>>>> 2009 Chevrolet Silverado 150 163
>>>>>>>>>> 2007 Toyota Tundra 153 178
>>>>>>>>>> 2009 Dodge Ram 137 155
>>>>>>>>>> 2004 Nissan Titan 139 154
>>>>>>>>>> 2002 F150 XLT 151 --- (older test)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If you trust CR (hard to do I know) it seems that the F150 Brakes
>>>>>>>>>> are as
>>>>>>>>>> good as anyones. The 2009 F150 in the CR test had 20 inch wheels
>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>> Pirelli Scorpion Tires. I suspect these tires had a lot better
>>>>>>>>>> braking
>>>>>>>>>> performance than the 18 inch General Tires that came on my 2009
>>>>>>>>>> F150. Too
>>>>>>>>>> bad they don't have a comparison of the same truck with different
>>>>>>>>>> tire
>>>>>>>>>> options installed. My truck seems better on the Bridgestones I
>>>>>>>>>> installed
>>>>>>>>>> last year. It might just be in my mind, but I am sure I have better
>>>>>>>>>> off road
>>>>>>>>>> traction.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Ed
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I expect those numbers are for empty trucks. At least one of my
>>>>>>>>> friends
>>>>>>>>> tows trailers that are heavy but within the rated spec for his F150
>>>>>>>>> (with WD hitch), and he reports that the brakes truly are inadequate
>>>>>>>>> with a load.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What's wrong with the trailers brakes???
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I couldn't tell you, the times I've been around when he's been towing a
>>>>>>> heavy trailer we haven't had time to experiment with WD hitch settings
>>>>>>> and whatnot. Putting the same trailer behind my F350 it's not even
>>>>>>> noticeable.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> it was an uninformed/smoke screen question - many trailers don't have
>>>>>> brakes at all.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not a problem for relatively light trailers. But if you towing anything
>>>>> close to then maximum tow capacity you need trailer brakes.
>>>>>
>>>>>> getting back to the point, any vehicle with a cargo bed should be able
>>>>>> to stop a load. on a hill. more than once. whether that load is on
>>>>>> the bed or following behind is irrelevant.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not irrelevant. A load in the bed increases the tire traction available
>>>>> for braking. The same load on a trailer without trialer brakes doesn't
>>>>> load the tow vehicle tires nearly as much (maybe 20% as much if you have
>>>>> the tongue weight right). Therfore, you have less tire traction available
>>>>> to stop the combination. If you don't have anti-lock brakes, then you can
>>>>> easily lock the rear brakes on the tow vehicle when trying to stop the
>>>>> vehicle plus trailer (with the dire consequences that follow). If you do
>>>>> have antilock brakes, then you can't lock the rear wheels, but you also
>>>>> won't have as much braking force available (comparded to having the load
>>>>> in the bed). And then there is the whole problem with jack-knifing a
>>>>> trailer with no trialer brakes. Certainly stopping a vehicle with a
>>>>> trailer without trailer brakes is much different than stopping a vehicle
>>>>> with the load in the bed.
>>>>>
>>>>> I looked into brakes of the current F150 some more. It seems Ford claims
>>>>> they have a dual diaphram brake booster and electronic brake force
>>>>> distribution. Neither claim is made for the SuperDuties. Not sure of the
>>>>> implications. The biggest difference at the wheel end is that the
>>>>> SuperDuties have dual piston rear calipers, the F150's have single piston
>>>>> rear calipers. Brake disc sizes are similar, total swept area is similar.
>>>>> I really don't see any reason to think that the F150 brakes are
>>>>> inadequate if you tow trailers that don't exceed the rated GCVW.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ed
>>>>
>>>> Assuming both rotors have the same swept area, and that
>>>> the pads are of the same size and material, would you
>>>> expect the addition of a second piston alone to have a
>>>> major effect on the stopping power? Pressure applied
>>>> to the pads should be the same whether you use one or
>>>> two pistons. You dont double the pressure when you
>>>> apply pressure to both sides, versus deadheading the
>>>> same pressure on one side only.
>>>
>>> In this context, the dual pistons are on the same side of the caliper. The
>>> brakes are still sliding caliper types, just with two pistons side by side
>>> on one side of the caliper. I haven't found the actual piston sizes, but I
>>> assume the F250+ brakes can apply significantly more pressure on the rear
>>> pads than the F150 single piston calipers
>>>
>>> Ed
>>>
>>>
>>
>> you, of all people ed, shouldn't "assume" a damned thing.
>>
>> piston count does not "increase" pressure. it can improve braking
>> because mechanical elasticity becomes less of a concern, and thus you
>> can have a more effective brake for less weight [and money].
>
> Increasing the total piston area increases the applied force for a given
> brake line hydraulic pressure.

absolutely, but absent ed's "actual piston sizes", we can't say that.


> If for example the F150 calipers had a
> single 40mm dia piston and the F250+ calipers had dual 40mm dia pistons,
> the applied clamping force on the rotor would double given the same
> hydraulic pressure.

if the master piston diameter stays the same. but because of the
leverage ratio, and the limited amount of brake pedal travel available,
ratios typically remain close. [given a long enough pedal travel, you
could dispense with brake boosters.]


> The displacement and required fluid of course would
> also double.
>
>>
>> and as for "weight improving traction" [this is going to be a classic] -
>> why exactly does increasing weight increase stopping distance ed? go
>> on, give it a shot.
>
> The short answer is that increasing weight does not automatically
> increase stopping distance. There is something of a dip in the stopping
> distance where the stopping distance decreases as weight is added up to
> a point before the stopping distance begins to increase again as further
> weight is added.
>
> What happens is that an axle that is too lightly loaded (such as the
> rear in an unloaded pickup) is not able to apply the full available
> braking force without wheel lockup so that the effective braking
> capacity is limited by the lack of traction. As weight is added,
> traction improves allowing more brake force to be applied without
> lockup, resulting in shorter stopping distances. Once there is enough
> weigh to provide sufficient traction to match the maximum braking force
> available, that will be the shorted stopping distance in the graph.
> Additional weight past this point will again increase the stopping
> distance.

that's a function of two things: tire contact area and control. if
tires are over-inflated relative to load, contact area is reduced.
that's introducing an additional variable rather than talking braking
physics. same for control - if it's too cheap or ineffective to not be
proportioning relative to weight, again, the solution is not to load
more weight, it's to exercise better control.


--
nomina rutrum rutrum

jim beam wrote:
>
> On 06/06/2011 10:25 AM, Pete C. wrote:
> >
> > jim beam wrote:
> >>
> >> On 06/06/2011 08:20 AM, C. E. White wrote:
> >>> > wrote in message
> >>> ...
> >>>>
> >>>> "C. E. > wrote in message
> >>>> ...
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "jim > wrote in message
> >>>>> t...
> >>>>>> On 06/04/2011 08:56 PM, Pete C. wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Ashton Crusher wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On Tue, 31 May 2011 09:22:08 -0500, "Pete >
> >>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> "C. E. White" wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> "Pete > wrote in message
> >>>>>>>>>> ter.com...
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Tom Del Rosso wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Top Gear, Jeremy said the F-150 is a POS. One key point was
> >>>>>>>>>>>> his claim
> >>>>>>>>>>>> that the brake pads are "the size of bottle caps" and are
> >>>>>>>>>>>> inadequate for
> >>>>>>>>>>>> a
> >>>>>>>>>>>> vehicle of this weight and power. Is that a real issue or one
> >>>>>>>>>>>> man's
> >>>>>>>>>>>> opinion?
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> I love Top Gear, but as others have noted Clarkson seems to hate
> >>>>>>>>>> most
> >>>>>>>>>> American vehicles (or at least pretends to - not sure when he is
> >>>>>>>>>> catering to
> >>>>>>>>>> the audience and when he is sincere). But then he especially hates
> >>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>> Prius, so he can't be all bad.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> I don't have an F150, but based on the brake complaints from
> >>>>>>>>>>> several
> >>>>>>>>>>> friends who do, and their comments on how much better my F350
> >>>>>>>>>>> brakes
> >>>>>>>>>>> are, I'd say that the F150 brakes are inadequate.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> I have a 2009 F150. The brakes take some getting used to compared to
> >>>>>>>>>> my old
> >>>>>>>>>> Frontier. In my opinion. it is not the pad size, or rotor size, or
> >>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>> ultimate braking ability that is an issue. It is the boost
> >>>>>>>>>> characteristics
> >>>>>>>>>> and the way the suspension reacts to braking that are generating
> >>>>>>>>>> complaints.
> >>>>>>>>>> The brake boost seems "soft" by comparison with my previous truck
> >>>>>>>>>> (an '06
> >>>>>>>>>> Frontier). By that I mean the brakes feel soft - unless you really
> >>>>>>>>>> do want
> >>>>>>>>>> to do a hard stop. Plus the truck seems to have a lot of "anti-dive"
> >>>>>>>>>> built
> >>>>>>>>>> into the front suspension. By this I mean when you really stand on
> >>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>> brakes, the front end doesn't dip down like some vehicles. This
> >>>>>>>>>> makes it
> >>>>>>>>>> seem as if the brakes aren't working as well as in some vehicles
> >>>>>>>>>> where the
> >>>>>>>>>> front end drops sharply under braking. I occasionally drive a
> >>>>>>>>>> neighboor
> >>>>>>>>>> Silverado HD and his brakes seem to haul you down sharply with a
> >>>>>>>>>> relatively
> >>>>>>>>>> light touch on the pedals (sort of like some of the old Chrsyler
> >>>>>>>>>> Products
> >>>>>>>>>> that would almost throw you through the windshield if you touched
> >>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>> brakes). This makes them seem a lot more powerful, but without any
> >>>>>>>>>> sort of
> >>>>>>>>>> actual measurements, is it really true? One thing for sure, the
> >>>>>>>>>> anti-lock
> >>>>>>>>>> activation of my F150 is far better than it was in the Frontier. The
> >>>>>>>>>> ABS in
> >>>>>>>>>> my '06 Frontier kicked in often on almost any surface but a paved
> >>>>>>>>>> road. It
> >>>>>>>>>> was pretty un-nerving at times.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> For comaprison, I took a look at the Consumer Reports Tests for 1/2
> >>>>>>>>>> Ton Crew
> >>>>>>>>>> Cab Pick-ups:
> >>>>>>>>>> Braking Distance
> >>>>>>>>>> from 60 (ft)
> >>>>>>>>>> Vehicle Dry Wet
> >>>>>>>>>> 2009 F150 XLT V8 138 150
> >>>>>>>>>> 2009 Chevrolet Silverado 150 163
> >>>>>>>>>> 2007 Toyota Tundra 153 178
> >>>>>>>>>> 2009 Dodge Ram 137 155
> >>>>>>>>>> 2004 Nissan Titan 139 154
> >>>>>>>>>> 2002 F150 XLT 151 --- (older test)
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> If you trust CR (hard to do I know) it seems that the F150 Brakes
> >>>>>>>>>> are as
> >>>>>>>>>> good as anyones. The 2009 F150 in the CR test had 20 inch wheels
> >>>>>>>>>> with
> >>>>>>>>>> Pirelli Scorpion Tires. I suspect these tires had a lot better
> >>>>>>>>>> braking
> >>>>>>>>>> performance than the 18 inch General Tires that came on my 2009
> >>>>>>>>>> F150. Too
> >>>>>>>>>> bad they don't have a comparison of the same truck with different
> >>>>>>>>>> tire
> >>>>>>>>>> options installed. My truck seems better on the Bridgestones I
> >>>>>>>>>> installed
> >>>>>>>>>> last year. It might just be in my mind, but I am sure I have better
> >>>>>>>>>> off road
> >>>>>>>>>> traction.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Ed
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I expect those numbers are for empty trucks. At least one of my
> >>>>>>>>> friends
> >>>>>>>>> tows trailers that are heavy but within the rated spec for his F150
> >>>>>>>>> (with WD hitch), and he reports that the brakes truly are inadequate
> >>>>>>>>> with a load.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> What's wrong with the trailers brakes???
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I couldn't tell you, the times I've been around when he's been towing a
> >>>>>>> heavy trailer we haven't had time to experiment with WD hitch settings
> >>>>>>> and whatnot. Putting the same trailer behind my F350 it's not even
> >>>>>>> noticeable.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> it was an uninformed/smoke screen question - many trailers don't have
> >>>>>> brakes at all.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Not a problem for relatively light trailers. But if you towing anything
> >>>>> close to then maximum tow capacity you need trailer brakes.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> getting back to the point, any vehicle with a cargo bed should be able
> >>>>>> to stop a load. on a hill. more than once. whether that load is on
> >>>>>> the bed or following behind is irrelevant.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Not irrelevant. A load in the bed increases the tire traction available
> >>>>> for braking. The same load on a trailer without trialer brakes doesn't
> >>>>> load the tow vehicle tires nearly as much (maybe 20% as much if you have
> >>>>> the tongue weight right). Therfore, you have less tire traction available
> >>>>> to stop the combination. If you don't have anti-lock brakes, then you can
> >>>>> easily lock the rear brakes on the tow vehicle when trying to stop the
> >>>>> vehicle plus trailer (with the dire consequences that follow). If you do
> >>>>> have antilock brakes, then you can't lock the rear wheels, but you also
> >>>>> won't have as much braking force available (comparded to having the load
> >>>>> in the bed). And then there is the whole problem with jack-knifing a
> >>>>> trailer with no trialer brakes. Certainly stopping a vehicle with a
> >>>>> trailer without trailer brakes is much different than stopping a vehicle
> >>>>> with the load in the bed.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I looked into brakes of the current F150 some more. It seems Ford claims
> >>>>> they have a dual diaphram brake booster and electronic brake force
> >>>>> distribution. Neither claim is made for the SuperDuties. Not sure of the
> >>>>> implications. The biggest difference at the wheel end is that the
> >>>>> SuperDuties have dual piston rear calipers, the F150's have single piston
> >>>>> rear calipers. Brake disc sizes are similar, total swept area is similar.
> >>>>> I really don't see any reason to think that the F150 brakes are
> >>>>> inadequate if you tow trailers that don't exceed the rated GCVW.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Ed
> >>>>
> >>>> Assuming both rotors have the same swept area, and that
> >>>> the pads are of the same size and material, would you
> >>>> expect the addition of a second piston alone to have a
> >>>> major effect on the stopping power? Pressure applied
> >>>> to the pads should be the same whether you use one or
> >>>> two pistons. You dont double the pressure when you
> >>>> apply pressure to both sides, versus deadheading the
> >>>> same pressure on one side only.
> >>>
> >>> In this context, the dual pistons are on the same side of the caliper. The
> >>> brakes are still sliding caliper types, just with two pistons side by side
> >>> on one side of the caliper. I haven't found the actual piston sizes, but I
> >>> assume the F250+ brakes can apply significantly more pressure on the rear
> >>> pads than the F150 single piston calipers
> >>>
> >>> Ed
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> you, of all people ed, shouldn't "assume" a damned thing.
> >>
> >> piston count does not "increase" pressure. it can improve braking
> >> because mechanical elasticity becomes less of a concern, and thus you
> >> can have a more effective brake for less weight [and money].
> >
> > Increasing the total piston area increases the applied force for a given
> > brake line hydraulic pressure.
>
> absolutely, but absent ed's "actual piston sizes", we can't say that.

Nope, but we can reasonably assume that the total piston area is larger
on the Super Duty series calipers than on the F150 calipers.

>
> > If for example the F150 calipers had a
> > single 40mm dia piston and the F250+ calipers had dual 40mm dia pistons,
> > the applied clamping force on the rotor would double given the same
> > hydraulic pressure.
>
> if the master piston diameter stays the same. but because of the
> leverage ratio, and the limited amount of brake pedal travel available,
> ratios typically remain close. [given a long enough pedal travel, you
> could dispense with brake boosters.]

Larger brake boosters (or hydroboost) allow for larger master cylinder
diameters increasing volume without increasing pedal travel.

>
> > The displacement and required fluid of course would
> > also double.
> >
> >>
> >> and as for "weight improving traction" [this is going to be a classic] -
> >> why exactly does increasing weight increase stopping distance ed? go
> >> on, give it a shot.
> >
> > The short answer is that increasing weight does not automatically
> > increase stopping distance. There is something of a dip in the stopping
> > distance where the stopping distance decreases as weight is added up to
> > a point before the stopping distance begins to increase again as further
> > weight is added.
> >
> > What happens is that an axle that is too lightly loaded (such as the
> > rear in an unloaded pickup) is not able to apply the full available
> > braking force without wheel lockup so that the effective braking
> > capacity is limited by the lack of traction. As weight is added,
> > traction improves allowing more brake force to be applied without
> > lockup, resulting in shorter stopping distances. Once there is enough
> > weigh to provide sufficient traction to match the maximum braking force
> > available, that will be the shorted stopping distance in the graph.
> > Additional weight past this point will again increase the stopping
> > distance.
>
> that's a function of two things: tire contact area and control. if
> tires are over-inflated relative to load, contact area is reduced.
> that's introducing an additional variable rather than talking braking
> physics. same for control - if it's too cheap or ineffective to not be
> proportioning relative to weight, again, the solution is not to load
> more weight, it's to exercise better control.

It has nothing to do with control, it has everything to do with a light
weight which provides insufficient traction weight on the axle to give
the traction necessary to utilize the brakes full capacity.
Proportioning and ABS both work to limit the applied brake force to a
level that the traction can support, in effect reducing the braking
capacity. When added weight adds traction, more of the available braking
force can be utilized.