If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Bill Putney wrote:
> Daniel J. Stern wrote: > >> On Fri, 28 Jan 2005, Steve wrote: >> >> >>> Bill Putney wrote: >>> >>> >>>> The downside of power brakes, which is a necessity with disk brakes >>>> because they do not have the designed-in mechanical amplification, >>> >>> >>> Why do people keep saying this? >> >> >> >> The parrot effect, I'm guessing. > > > No. The reality of modern consumer vehicles that will be driven by > quite a range of ages, mental quickness, and physical strength. And the pedal effort in a 4400-lb 1969 vehicle with manual disk brakes is NOT significantly higher than the pedal effort in a Honda Accord of today. And disk vs. drum makes no difference at all. I just don't see whay the staement that power boost "is a necessity with disk brakes" keeps popping into discussions. |
Ads |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Bill Putney wrote:
> Daniel J. Stern wrote: > >> On Sun, 30 Jan 2005, Bill Putney wrote: >> >> >>>> AMC bought their automatics from other makers (GM Hydramatics from the >>>> early mid '60s through '71, Chrysler Torqueflites starting in '72). >>> >>> >>> In either case where does the "never existed" part come in? >> >> >> >> The part where there was any such a thing as an "AMC automatic >> transmission". > > > Any reasonable person would accept referring to a transmission that was > used in AMC vehicles as an AMC transmission. Key word being "reasonable". 'Scuse me while I pick my jaw up off the floor! I've *NEVER* run anto anyone who thought AMC ever built their own transmissions before. |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Steve wrote:
> Bill Putney wrote: > >> Daniel J. Stern wrote: >> >>> On Fri, 28 Jan 2005, Steve wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Bill Putney wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> The downside of power brakes, which is a necessity with disk brakes >>>>> because they do not have the designed-in mechanical amplification, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Why do people keep saying this? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> The parrot effect, I'm guessing. >> >> >> >> No. The reality of modern consumer vehicles that will be driven by >> quite a range of ages, mental quickness, and physical strength. > > > And the pedal effort in a 4400-lb 1969 vehicle with manual disk brakes > is NOT significantly higher than the pedal effort in a Honda Accord of > today. And disk vs. drum makes no difference at all. I just don't see > whay the staement that power boost "is a necessity with disk brakes" > keeps popping into discussions. > *sigh* I'm not typing my explanation of it again. It is far more likely to be necessary with discs than with drums. search this thread for it. nate -- replace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Matthew Russotto wrote:
> John David Galt > wrote: > > > >I'd have paid extra to get my car without power steering, but > >that wasn't even an available option. Power steering is great > >until your enginestalls in the middle of an intersection; then > >even a wrestler will have trouble avoiding a wreck. > > Your engine stalls in the middle of an intersection and loss of power > steering causes a wreck? Just how likely is that, anyway? Not that uncommon for engines to stall when you let off the throttle. I've had the problem in both of my current cars, when there were various minor problems with the engines. Fortunately you can still steer when the engine is stalled, you just have to use a bit of muscle. It's loss of power braking that worries me more (in a previous car, you simply could not slow down the car with the brake pedal, once you'd used up the bit of boost that was saved up. Either that or I have weak legs). I liked my 900kg car with no PS (it was easy to do power-u-turns in), but when I'm steering my 1300kg PS car with the engine stalled, I feel like I'm about to rip the steering wheel off. |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
"Bill Putney" > wrote in message ... > Daniel J. Stern wrote: >> On Sun, 30 Jan 2005, Bill Putney wrote: >> >> >>>>AMC bought their automatics from other makers (GM Hydramatics from the >>>>early mid '60s through '71, Chrysler Torqueflites starting in '72). >>> >>>In either case where does the "never existed" part come in? >> >> >> The part where there was any such a thing as an "AMC automatic >> transmission". > > Any reasonable person would accept referring to a transmission that was > used in AMC vehicles as an AMC transmission. Key word being "reasonable". Only if they had no clue how parts are sourced and put together, or what the difference between a part made by a company & just installed. Anyone who thinks International Harvester products were *under* engineered has no concept of what they are talking about. I say this as the owner of a forty year old four cyl. scout that came factory with sodium filled valves, just because it seemed like the way to do it. Bernard |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Scott en Aztlán wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 09:54:38 -0500, Bill Putney > > wrote: > > >>>...which means the original owner didn't order power steering. QED. >> >>Obviously (I guess that's what "QED" means?). > > > QED stands for a Latin phrase which translates as > > "Which was to be proved." > > It's a standard closing remark to mathematical proofs. > Why, thank you! Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my adddress with the letter 'x') |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 1 Feb 2005, Bernard farquart wrote:
> Anyone who thinks International Harvester products were *under* > engineered has no concept of what they are talking about. There is that, but I didn't pick on Putney for it 'cause his claim that "AMC automatic transmissions" was crying out louder for attention. They did have their downsides, chief amongst which was parts interchangeability. Ever look at the Hollander Interchange Manual for just about any "light duty" IH product? Six different and non-interchangeable front brake drums for one model, for instance, depending on production date! But yeah, IH was never *ever* known for putting out marginally-engineered products before the company failed and was reborn as "Navistar". > I say this as the owner of a forty year old four cyl. scout that came > factory with sodium filled valves, just because it seemed like the way > to do it. Yup. Very typical of IH. DS |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Nate Nagel wrote:
> Steve wrote: >> >> And the pedal effort in a 4400-lb 1969 vehicle with manual disk brakes >> is NOT significantly higher than the pedal effort in a Honda Accord of >> today. And disk vs. drum makes no difference at all. I just don't see >> whay the staement that power boost "is a necessity with disk brakes" >> keeps popping into discussions. >> > > *sigh* > > I'm not typing my explanation of it again. It is far more likely to be > necessary with discs than with drums. search this thread for it. > > nate > Nate, there's absolutely NO engineering basis for that statement! That was my whole objection in the first place. The fact that there have been several (incorrect) assertions made in this thread about "why" disk brakes "need" power assist does not make it true. Disk brakes do not "need" power assist any more than drum brakes, whether or not the drum brakes are of the self-energizing variety. |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Bernard farquart wrote:
> > Anyone who thinks International Harvester products were > *under* engineered has no concept of what they are talking about. > 100% agreed on that one. The IH 345 is one of the most amazingly tough engines I've ever seen. Pretty comparable overall to the truck/industrial versions of the Mopar big-blocks of the 60s and 70s (the 413 and 361 in particular). |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
Steve wrote: > Nate Nagel wrote: > > Steve wrote: > > >> > >> And the pedal effort in a 4400-lb 1969 vehicle with manual disk brakes > >> is NOT significantly higher than the pedal effort in a Honda Accord of > >> today. And disk vs. drum makes no difference at all. I just don't see > >> whay the staement that power boost "is a necessity with disk brakes" > >> keeps popping into discussions. > >> > > > > *sigh* > > > > I'm not typing my explanation of it again. It is far more likely to be > > necessary with discs than with drums. search this thread for it. > > > > nate > > > > Nate, there's absolutely NO engineering basis for that statement! That > was my whole objection in the first place. The fact that there have been > several (incorrect) assertions made in this thread about "why" disk > brakes "need" power assist does not make it true. Disk brakes do not > "need" power assist any more than drum brakes, whether or not the drum > brakes are of the self-energizing variety. So you're saying that all those years of engineering school and experience actually working as an engineer with automotive braking systems were for naught. The fact that you don't like my explanation doesn't mean it's not true. Discs *do* require more line pressure for a given brake torque than self-energizing drums, assuming similar diameters and normal piston sizes. Simple, indisputable fact. nate (damn, I really hate it when I have to play the "credentials" card, but willfully ignorant people just **** me the f**k off!) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|