Recovered my M927 truck

[Ignoramus29060]

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-lWxzlkgNX_k/UbIedQ_kbFI/AAAAAAAACjc/UGKI6FHmwfU/w596-h447-no/20130607_122827.jpg

It was jump started prior to my arrival, I just drove it on my
beavertail trailer in 6WD low. No problem. It looked pretty new to me,
we could not believe it when we saw it. The batteries are dead 100%
and it would not restart. I am going to Chicago right now (as a
passenger) with the truck in the lowboy trailer.

i

[dpb]

Well, just how kewl is that!!!???? :)

Sometimes even a blind hog... :) Looks like ya' scored on that one.

One imagines there's going to be a "veritable plethora" over the next
few years unless they just scrap/abandon everything over there and don't
even ship it home--nothing they could do would surprise me.

--

[Gunner Asch]

Based on the milegae etc etc..it IS a new truck. Thats how the
government does things.

You did very very well!

Gunner

--
"You guess the truth hurts?

Really?

"Hurt" aint the word.

For Liberals, the truth is like salt to a slug.
Sunlight to a vampire.
RaidŽ to a cockroach.
Sheriff Brody to a shark
Bush to a Liberal

The truth doesn't just hurt. It's painful, like a red hot poker shoved
up their ass. Like sliding down a hundred foot razor blade using their
dick as a brake.

They HATE the truth."

[Ignoramus29060]

I figured out the battery problem. There are four batteries in the
battery compartment. Only two were connected and one of them was
bad. I swapped it with another battery that was not connected, and the
truck starts and runs good.

I drove the truck off the lowboy trailer:

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-NBb4CjzYojI/UbJ-rn5ZItI/AAAAAAAACjw/OdjfjSKkWMY/w825-h619-no/20130607_190346.jpg

i

[Ignoramus29060]

On 2013-06-07, Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 07 Jun 2013 15:51:55 -0500, Ignoramus29060
><ignoram...@NOSPAM.29060.invalid> wrote:
>
>>https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-lWxzlkgNX_k/UbIedQ_kbFI/AAAAAAAACjc/UGKI6FHmwfU/w596-h447-no/20130607_122827.jpg
>>
>>It was jump started prior to my arrival, I just drove it on my
>>beavertail trailer in 6WD low. No problem. It looked pretty new to me,
>>we could not believe it when we saw it. The batteries are dead 100%
>>and it would not restart. I am going to Chicago right now (as a
>>passenger) with the truck in the lowboy trailer.
>>
>>i
>
> Based on the milegae etc etc..it IS a new truck. Thats how the
> government does things.
>
> You did very very well!

Thanks. I will see how it goes. It seems to have a few problems, the
driver's door stopped opening, the ABS light is on, and it seems to
drop air pressure in the airbrake system. The first and last one I am
sure will be an easy fix. The ABS, I am not so sure, you can drive it
without ABS, just brake lightly to avoid wheel lock-up, and avoid
tailgating.

i

[cl...@snyder.on.ca]

If you know HOW to drive, driving without ABS does not require making
any adjustment to your driving style. Just don't lock the brakes.
Same as driving a pre-ABS vehicle.

[Ignoramus29060]

THis is how I always drive. I just replaced the rear brake pads for the
first time in my pick-up truck, at 88,000 miles. The front brake pads
were less than halfwork and did not need replacing.

I almost never brake hard, I do not need to, I keep the distance and
drive on cruise control, pleasantly contemplating stuff, instead of
being glued to the gas pedal, weaving in and out of traffic.

i

[Ignoramus29060]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ half worn

[Larry Jaques]

On Fri, 07 Jun 2013 15:51:55 -0500, Ignoramus29060
<ignoram...@NOSPAM.29060.invalid> wrote:

Way cool, Iggy!

--
I have never understood why it is "greed" to want to keep the money you
have earned, but it is not greed to want take someone else's money.
--Thomas Sowell

[Larry Jaques]

On Fri, 07 Jun 2013 21:29:57 -0500, Ignoramus29060
<ignoram...@NOSPAM.29060.invalid> wrote:

>On 2013-06-07, Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 07 Jun 2013 15:51:55 -0500, Ignoramus29060
>><ignoram...@NOSPAM.29060.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-lWxzlkgNX_k/UbIedQ_kbFI/AAAAAAAACjc/UGKI6FHmwfU/w596-h447-no/20130607_122827.jpg
>>>
>>>It was jump started prior to my arrival, I just drove it on my
>>>beavertail trailer in 6WD low. No problem. It looked pretty new to me,
>>>we could not believe it when we saw it. The batteries are dead 100%
>>>and it would not restart. I am going to Chicago right now (as a
>>>passenger) with the truck in the lowboy trailer.
>>>
>>>i
>>
>> Based on the milegae etc etc..it IS a new truck. Thats how the
>> government does things.
>>
>> You did very very well!

That he did. Damned well!

>Thanks. I will see how it goes. It seems to have a few problems, the
>driver's door stopped opening, the ABS light is on, and it seems to
>drop air pressure in the airbrake system. The first and last one I am
>sure will be an easy fix. The ABS, I am not so sure, you can drive it
>without ABS, just brake lightly to avoid wheel lock-up, and avoid
>tailgating.

Is that ABS "anti-lock brake system" or "air brake system"? If it's
an antilock system, someone may have bled the brakes wrong and
uncentered the warning piston. (Remembering way back when I did
wrenchin'...) OR it could be that some ancient air line is cracked
and leaking, which set off the ABS light.

Do a thorough lube job on all hinges, latches, etc. with spray lithium
grease. I've fixed more dead old-car latches with that stuff than you
can imagine. Available at Home Depot, AutoZone, Pep Boys, etc. Just
spray it inside the latch assembly without removal, bang it around a
dozen times or so, and it magically starts working again. Unless the
handle/rod was disconnected from the latch itself, which is easily
possible. Pop the inner door cover off and see. 90% of dead latches
I've worked on were just stuck or disconnected. Few actually broke.
YMMV.

[Steve W.]

Larry Jaques wrote:
> On Fri, 07 Jun 2013 15:51:55 -0500, Ignoramus29060
> <ignoram...@NOSPAM.29060.invalid> wrote:
>
>> https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-lWxzlkgNX_k/UbIedQ_kbFI/AAAAAAAACjc/UGKI6FHmwfU/w596-h447-no/20130607_122827.jpg
>>
>> It was jump started prior to my arrival, I just drove it on my
>> beavertail trailer in 6WD low. No problem. It looked pretty new to me,
>> we could not believe it when we saw it. The batteries are dead 100%
>> and it would not restart. I am going to Chicago right now (as a
>> passenger) with the truck in the lowboy trailer.
>
> Way cool, Iggy!
>

Very possible the ABS light is related to the air leak.


"
The safety of the M939 series of trucks has been criticized, especially
braking performance and stability when loaded. In 1999 the US Army began
refitting anti-lock brake systems to the M939 trucks. Until the trucks
were modified, they were limited to a 40 mph (65 km/h) top speed by an
Army-wide safety order.

Prior to that improvement, 26% of all Army vehicle accidents and 53% of
all Army vehicle accident fatalities were in M939 series trucks. From
1987 to 1998 the series made up 9% of the total US Army vehicle
inventory, but accounted for 34% of all fatal accidents.

The problem seemed to be that the torque converter would "lock up" in
2nd gear, and would not unlock easily. When the driver attempted to
brake hard, often in a sudden or 'panic' stop, and accidentally locked
the brakes (no wheel movement, tires skidding), this would kill the
engine; this also killed the power steering, and the driver would
suddenly be unable to steer. Too often, the truck would veer sideways
and either hit something or roll over.
"


--
Steve W.

[Gunner Asch]

Did they paint over all the military markings?

--
"You guess the truth hurts?

Really?

"Hurt" aint the word.

For Liberals, the truth is like salt to a slug.
Sunlight to a vampire.

Raid® to a cockroach.

[Karl Townsend]

>> I almost never brake hard, I do not need to, I keep the distance and
>> drive on cruise control, pleasantly contemplating stuff, instead of
>> being glued to the gas pedal, weaving in and out of traffic.
>>
>> i

Shoot, I thought you lived in Chicago. You're out of line there.

[Ignoramus20041]

Not really, only about half of the people here drive like crazy.

i

[Ignoramus20041]

On 2013-06-08, Steve W. <csr...@NOTyahoo.com> wrote:
> Larry Jaques wrote:
>> On Fri, 07 Jun 2013 15:51:55 -0500, Ignoramus29060
>> <ignoram...@NOSPAM.29060.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-lWxzlkgNX_k/UbIedQ_kbFI/AAAAAAAACjc/UGKI6FHmwfU/w596-h447-no/20130607_122827.jpg
>>>
>>> It was jump started prior to my arrival, I just drove it on my
>>> beavertail trailer in 6WD low. No problem. It looked pretty new to me,
>>> we could not believe it when we saw it. The batteries are dead 100%
>>> and it would not restart. I am going to Chicago right now (as a
>>> passenger) with the truck in the lowboy trailer.
>>
>> Way cool, Iggy!
>>
>
> Very possible the ABS light is related to the air leak.

That would be great, as air leaks are easy to find and fix.

i

[Ignoramus20041]

It has air brakes and anti-lock braking system. ABS refers to antilock
braking system.

> Do a thorough lube job on all hinges, latches, etc. with spray lithium
> grease. I've fixed more dead old-car latches with that stuff than you
> can imagine. Available at Home Depot, AutoZone, Pep Boys, etc. Just
> spray it inside the latch assembly without removal, bang it around a
> dozen times or so, and it magically starts working again. Unless the
> handle/rod was disconnected from the latch itself, which is easily
> possible. Pop the inner door cover off and see. 90% of dead latches
> I've worked on were just stuck or disconnected. Few actually broke.
> YMMV.
>
>

Yep, will do.

i

[Ignoramus20041]

On 2013-06-08, Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 07 Jun 2013 21:24:44 -0500, Ignoramus29060
><ignoram...@NOSPAM.29060.invalid> wrote:
>
>>On 2013-06-07, Ignoramus29060 <ignoram...@NOSPAM.29060.invalid> wrote:
>>> https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-lWxzlkgNX_k/UbIedQ_kbFI/AAAAAAAACjc/UGKI6FHmwfU/w596-h447-no/20130607_122827.jpg
>>>
>>> It was jump started prior to my arrival, I just drove it on my
>>> beavertail trailer in 6WD low. No problem. It looked pretty new to me,
>>> we could not believe it when we saw it. The batteries are dead 100%
>>> and it would not restart. I am going to Chicago right now (as a
>>> passenger) with the truck in the lowboy trailer.
>>>
>>> i
>>
>>I figured out the battery problem. There are four batteries in the
>>battery compartment. Only two were connected and one of them was
>>bad. I swapped it with another battery that was not connected, and the
>>truck starts and runs good.
>>
>>I drove the truck off the lowboy trailer:
>>
>>https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-NBb4CjzYojI/UbJ-rn5ZItI/AAAAAAAACjw/OdjfjSKkWMY/w825-h619-no/20130607_190346.jpg
>>
>>i
> Did they paint over all the military markings?
>

I think so, I did not really have a lot of time to look in detail, though.

i

[Bob Engelhardt]

On 6/8/2013 12:05 AM, Ignoramus29060 wrote:

> ... I just replaced the rear brake pads for the

> first time in my pick-up truck, at 88,000 miles. The front brake pads

> were less than half [worn] and did not need replacing.
>...

That's interesting: on every vehicle that I (or my wife) have ever had,
the front brakes wear 2 or 3 times as fast as the back. 'Cause that's
where the weight is - especially on stopping, with the inertial weight
transfer. Do you generally have a lot of weight in the back?

Bob

[Bob Engelhardt]

On 6/8/2013 2:17 AM, Steve W. wrote:
...

> The problem seemed to be that the torque converter would "lock up" in
> 2nd gear, and would not unlock easily. When the driver attempted to
> brake hard, often in a sudden or 'panic' stop, and accidentally locked
> the brakes (no wheel movement, tires skidding), this would kill the
> engine; this also killed the power steering, and the driver would
> suddenly be unable to steer. Too often, the truck would veer sideways
> and either hit something or roll over.

Well, that would be exciting! So they "fixed" it by adding ABS. Why
does that not surprise me? Bob

[cl...@snyder.on.ca]

Not part of ABS - you are thinking WAY back to the first fual
ballanced systems - failsafe so if one half of the system loses
pressure you still have SOME brake.

[Ignoramus20041]

Not really. It is a pick-up, most weight is in front. Actually what
you said does not make sense.

i

[Ed Huntress]

On Sat, 08 Jun 2013 14:56:23 -0500, Ignoramus20041

In most vehicles, front brakes wear far faster than rear brakes. And
it's because the weight shifts to the front upon braking. It applies
even to rear-engined cars.

--
Ed Huntress

[dpb]

On 6/8/2013 4:04 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
> On Sat, 08 Jun 2013 14:56:23 -0500, Ignoramus20041

...

>> Not really. It is a pick-up, most weight is in front. Actually what
>> you said does not make sense.
>
> In most vehicles, front brakes wear far faster than rear brakes. And
> it's because the weight shifts to the front upon braking. It applies
> even to rear-engined cars.

Ayup, ever notice how the front end dips on stopping; the harder stop
the more pronounced?

Iggy may be the exception given the way he says he drives and that many
light trucks still have rear drums and disk front which can change the
wear rate considerable.

[Ed Huntress]

I've never seen a car or a light truck that wears its rear brakes
faster than the fronts. If the rear drums are really feeble, it may be
that there are some out there. But I haven't seen one. And I've had a
bunch (including my current 2004 focus) that have disks on front and
really sad little drums on the rear.

--
Ed Huntress

[whoyakidding's ghost]

Except in snow/salt country where rear discs can need service twice as
often as front. Especially on lightly driven vehicles. The rears don't
get hot enough to dry out and it's rust city. One friend who doesn't
drive much is working on his rears almost annually. I remember reading
that some maker had returned to rear drums because of the issue.
http://www.tegger.com/hondafaq/rustybrakes/brakes3.html

[Gunner Asch]

On Sat, 08 Jun 2013 16:47:01 -0500, dpb <no...@non.net> wrote:

My various Ford Rangers go through 2 front pad changes for every 1
rear drum brake shoe change. And I dont drive hard, but I am often
pulling a trailer and have about 500-800 lbs of gear on/in the truck
all the time.

Gunner

--
"You guess the truth hurts?

Really?

"Hurt" aint the word.

For Liberals, the truth is like salt to a slug.
Sunlight to a vampire.

Raid® to a cockroach.

[PrecisionmachinisT]

"Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:g077r8p6u860bobl8...@4ax.com...

Brakes not bear any vehicle weight; that is what axle bearings are for.

Brake wear is due solely to torque, which is going to identical on all four
wheels until one of them locks up.

[BQ340]

Is that true allowing for the proportioning valve front/rear pressure
difference? I would think less pressure on rear = less wear?

MikeB

--
Email is valid

[Bob Engelhardt]

On 6/8/2013 9:07 PM, PrecisionmachinisT wrote:

> Brakes not bear any vehicle weight; that is what axle bearings are for.
>
> Brake wear is due solely to torque, which is going to identical on all four
> wheels until one of them locks up.

Ah, but ... the amount of torque that brakes can apply is proportional
to the weight on the wheel. Lightly loaded wheels will lock up before
heavily loaded ones, with the same torque. So, lightly loaded wheels
(the back ones) are torqued less than the front - it's proportional braking.

Bob

[Ed Huntress]

Then let's put this another way. Because rear wheels are so lightly
loaded in braking, maintaining balance (near balance; you want front
brakes to lock up first) means that the brake bias runs from 70% front
up to 90% front.

Rear wheels will skid first if you apply more brake friction to them
than that. That's bad. So the friction you need on the rear brakes is
a fraction of the friction you need on the fronts. Because either
wheel diameter or brake weight limits the size of the front brakes
(but not the rear; the demand for braking effort there is so much
less), the brakes on the front wear faster.

The ability of the tires to produce that braking effort without
skidding -- again, 70% - 90% on the front -- determines how much
friction you can apply to the brakes at each end. That's a direct
product of the weight shift to the front upon braking.

You can measure the weight shift by measuring the load on the
suspension. It's not exactly equal ro suspension travel, because of a
geometric suspension feature called "anti-dive." . But the load is
still there, even if the actual travel is less than the weight shift
would indicate.

--
Ed Huntress
>

[PrecisionmachinisT]

"BQ340" <BQ...@Roadrunner.com> wrote in message
news:51b3d973$0$7717$a826...@newsreader.readnews.com...

The cylinder with the higher pressure will lock up first, given identical
road traction and shoe contact surface area at all four (assuming that dual
wheels aren't being used)

Less pressure in the rear is a very bad situation; you cannot steer an arc
if the front wheels lock up, it'll just keep going straigt forward no matter
which direction you point the front wheels.

[PrecisionmachinisT]

"Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote in message

news:uim7r8106t47ltt55...@4ax.com...

Yes I know....

And thanks for clarifying.

--what you had written earlier had the potential to make lot of people even
more clueless that they had been before.

[PrecisionmachinisT]

"PrecisionmachinisT" <precisionm...@notmail.com> wrote in message
news:75KdnR-okpJXfy7M...@scnresearch.com...

Although, reading your reply again, I have to say that the reason for
biasing to the front is NOT so that they will "lock up first"....in fact, if
any wheels lock up it is way better for them to be the rear....

In other words, the reason brakes are biased towards the front is simply
because they can be, due to the increased traction that results when the
vehicle weight shifts forward.

[cl...@snyder.on.ca]

On Sat, 08 Jun 2013 17:04:39 -0400, Ed Huntress
<hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:

If the rear PADS wore out (rear disk brakes) there is a very strong
chance there is either a problem with the parking brake cable or
actuator,(caliper) or someone has a habit of driving with the parking
brake on. General rule of thumb is 2 or 3 sets of front brakes to one
set of rear brakes. My ranger got new front brakes at about 166,00
(0km (8 years) - but that's highway miles, no load, and standard
transmission. Still origional rears at 314,000km - and about half
lining left. - well over half pads left too. They were changed because
of a thump - not because they were worn out.

[cl...@snyder.on.ca]

On Sat, 08 Jun 2013 16:47:01 -0500, dpb <no...@non.net> wrote:

Yes - the drum brakes last a whole lot longer than the disks

[Ed Huntress]

Oh, no. Never, ever.

Front-wheel lockup occurring first causes the car to lose steering but
to plow straight ahead. Rear-wheel lockup occurring first causes the
rear wheel adhesion to drop to a value less than the moment of the
rear end attempting to go forward (around the front wheels as a
"pivot") while the front end is being braked by the front wheels.

In other words, a simple spinout, or an oscillating fishtail, and
complete loss of control.

Take it from an old road racer. <g> Seriously, you could look this up
in any discussion of tire adhesion, cornering, and braking. Front
wheels must lock up first. In a race car, particularly a road-racing
car, you want the differential to be very small, but never for the
rear to lock first. That's deadly.

>
>In other words, the reason brakes are biased towards the front is simply
>because they can be, due to the increased traction that results when the
>vehicle weight shifts forward.

Well, that's most of it. But when you're proportioning front verus
rear, you proportion them so the fronts lock first. Or you should.

--
Ed Huntress

[cl...@snyder.on.ca]

On Sat, 8 Jun 2013 18:07:13 -0700, "PrecisionmachinisT"
<precisionm...@notmail.com> wrote:

>

Shows how much you know about vehicles and brakes.

You are PARTLY right- but mostly wrong.
The amount of weight on the wheels affects the amount of friction
between tire and road. If you put the same amount of stopping power on
the rear wheels as the front, when the weight distribution is 60/40
front /back, you will be backing into things or hitting things with
your rear quarter panels on a regular basis as the rear end will be
sliding around uncontrollably. That's why trucks had load sensing
proportioning valves to cut the pressure to the rear wheels when they
unloaded LONG before anti-lock brakes were common.

This is also why, for instance, drum brake vehicles had wider shoes on
the front than the back, and MUCH larger cyls on the front than the
rear - Example - 1971 Dodge Dart with drum brakes - 9 inch diameter
front and rear, front shoes 2.25" wide, rear shoes 2 inches wide,
front cyls 1 inch diameter, rear cyls 0.8125" diameter
On a '68 or '69 Ford Falcon V8 with drum brakes, 10 inch drums, 2,25
inch wide front linings, 1.75 rear, and 1.125" front cyl and .906 rear
in 68, and .875 in '69 ( due to rear brake lockup problems)

On a '68 or '69 Mustang with 390 V8, 10 inch diameter brakes, 2.5"
wide front shoes, 1.5" wide rear shoes, 1.094" diameter front cyls and
.813" diameter rears

This is to reduce the amount of braking torque the rear wheels can
develop so they do not break the rear tires loose from the road before
the front ones, due to reduced friction between the tires and the road
due to reduced weight.

[cl...@snyder.on.ca]

On Sat, 08 Jun 2013 21:25:15 -0400, BQ340 <BQ...@Roadrunner.com>
wrote:

That's not all he missed.

[cl...@snyder.on.ca]

Assuming the cyls are the same size - which they virtually NEVER are.

>Less pressure in the rear is a very bad situation; you cannot steer an arc
>if the front wheels lock up, it'll just keep going straigt forward no matter
>which direction you point the front wheels.
>

A whole lot worse to have the rears lock up first, letting the rear
slide uncontrolled past the front which is still firmly planted to the
road, and slowing down. If the fronts lock first, the rears drag
behind, giving stability and allowing you to release the brakes enough
to let the front wheels hold again before the rear wheels BECOME the
front wheels.( which happens failrly quickly if the rears lock up
first - particularly on a curve. Terminal oversteer.

[Ed Huntress]

This would be a good place for some of those vector diagrams they use
to explain tire adhesion, cornering, braking, and accelerating. They
make the whole thing brilliantly clear.

Or you can go take an old Corvette around a track and see how many
different ways you can spin out or swap ends. It's amazing. <g>

--
Ed Huntress

[PrecisionmachinisT]

"Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote in message

news:98t7r81ddfivv5ds4...@4ax.com...

Aww well I guess I'll stand corrected then.

[Ed Huntress]

On Sun, 9 Jun 2013 07:35:54 -0700, "PrecisionmachinisT"

It's a common misunderstanding and it's an easy thing to get wrong, so
don't feel bad about it.

I have a funny story about a personal experience with this phenomenon,
concerning my MG Midget and the old NJ state safety inspection
procedure, and me spinning off into one of the turf farms on Meadow
Road south of Princeton, but I'll spare everyone the bytes. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

>

[Jim Wilkins]

"PrecisionmachinisT" <precisionm...@notmail.com> wrote in
message news:xfGdnVZQCsvFdC7M...@scnresearch.com...

>
> Although, reading your reply again, I have to say that the reason
> for biasing to the front is NOT so that they will "lock up
> first"....in fact, if any wheels lock up it is way better for them
> to be the rear....

Think about what will happen if you brake too hard while turning, for
example if a kid unexpectedly runs into the intersection in front of
you.

If you've never raced on dirt or ice, the answer is that locking the
fronts makes you slide straight ahead until you let off, locking the
rears makes you spin out of control unless you've practiced a lot. The
dynamics are much more evident on a dirt bike with separate front and
rear brakes that you have to learn to operate differently, while
clutching and downshifting.
jsw

[dpb]

I've seen it because the pad material on the sorry-ass drums is also
sorry whereas the disk pads are at least ok...I was hypothesizing
something of that nature combined w/ Iggy's propensity to not brake hard
might generate his observation...when asbestos first went away there
were some really poor pads for awhile, indeed, although they've done
pretty well since. Brakes go in a hurry on trucks/cars here 'cuz of all
the sand/grit that gets in them from the dirt roads that cuts
rotors/drums up in hurry. Not unusual to have to replace the metal
parts as just can't face them enough to last life of rest of vehicle
before run out of material...

--

[John B.]

On Sat, 8 Jun 2013 18:07:13 -0700, "PrecisionmachinisT"
<precisionm...@notmail.com> wrote:

>

True of course.

>Brake wear is due solely to torque, which is going to identical on all four
>wheels until one of them locks up.
>

Nope. Half true. When the brakes are applied the vehicle weight
transfers toward the front of the vehicle. Thus with a higher percent
of the vehicle weight on the front wheels there is more traction and
thus you can apply more braking force.

You can prove this theory easily with a bicycle or a motorcycle. make
a stop with only the rear brake and than repeat the maneuver with only
the front brake.

--
Cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

On Sat, 8 Jun 2013 19:33:00 -0700, "PrecisionmachinisT"
<precisionm...@notmail.com> wrote:

>

Exactly :-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

[dpb]

On 6/8/2013 8:07 PM, PrecisionmachinisT wrote:
...

> Brake wear is due solely to torque, which is going to identical on all four
> wheels until one of them locks up.

As has been pointed out, weight transfer from the momentum transfer
during deceleration means front can transfer more force to the road than
rear (relative to static balance at rest/zero acceleration).

There's a nice explanation of the physics w/o getting excessively
mathematically involved at the following link...

<http://www.centricparts.com/files/Centric%20White%20Paper%20A1-The%20Physics%20of%20Braking%20Systems.pdf>

--

[PrecisionmachinisT]

"Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote in message

news:j059r8hnpn93nt65j...@4ax.com...

I've also got too many things going on at the moment but I'll just say that
the ABS performance on my 98 silverado is either broken or is so badly
engineered that when it activates, it takes about 3 times as long to come to
a complete stop when driving on snow or ice...I know this because I can pull
the electrical plug from the ABS system and actually test with the ABS
disabled.....for this reason, I've taken to unplugging the system during
wintertime.

[Ed Huntress]

On Sun, 9 Jun 2013 11:20:18 -0700, "PrecisionmachinisT"

I've had only one car with ABS -- my Hyundai Sonata -- and although I
like it, and I'm glad my wife drives that car in bad weather, I'm
pretty sure I could beat it. It seems to be better at maintaining
control than at actual stopping distance.

But I have a pretty sensitive foot, having learned trail-braking back
when I raced, and I used the Moss method of initiating a turn with the
brakes when I raced on ice at Rose Lake, MI.

Maybe, or maybe I'm deluding myself that I could beat it. I should try
it sometime.

--
Ed Huntress
>

[Leon Fisk]

On Sun, 09 Jun 2013 14:37:09 -0400
Ed Huntress <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:

<snip>

>I've had only one car with ABS -- my Hyundai Sonata -- and although I
>like it, and I'm glad my wife drives that car in bad weather, I'm
>pretty sure I could beat it. It seems to be better at maintaining
>control than at actual stopping distance.
>
>But I have a pretty sensitive foot, having learned trail-braking back
>when I raced, and I used the Moss method of initiating a turn with the
>brakes when I raced on ice at Rose Lake, MI.
>
>Maybe, or maybe I'm deluding myself that I could beat it. I should try
>it sometime.

My brain isn't programmed for ABS so I don't/can't use it like it was
intended to be. Sometimes a four wheel lockup is helpful, most of the
time it isn't but with ABS doing the thinking you lose these other
options that some of us have developed, sometimes called "muscle
memory".

I don't want (nor have) a vehicle with ABS, traction control, airbags,
rear view camera, air conditioning...

--
Leon Fisk
Grand Rapids MI/Zone 5b
Remove no.spam for email

[Ignoramus20041]

I urge you to change your opinion on airbags.

i

[cl...@snyder.on.ca]

On Sun, 9 Jun 2013 11:20:18 -0700, "PrecisionmachinisT"

Virtually EVERy car or truck with ABS will take significantly longer
to come to a stop under "normal winter driving conditions" I like to
say all ABS does is help guarantee you hit what you hit SQUARE ON.
(instead of somewhat sideways)

[cl...@snyder.on.ca]

It's a good bet with your experience you could outbrake ABS by a
significant margin - even with "old guy" reflexes!!!!

I've got a story I could tell about DOT safety lanes and a Morris Mini
that relates to brake bias too.

I'll tell it if anyone asks.

[BQ340]

On 6/9/2013 8:12 PM, cl...@snyder.on.ca wrote:

> Virtually EVERy car or truck with ABS will take significantly longer
> to come to a stop under "normal winter driving conditions" I like to
> say all ABS does is help guarantee you hit what you hit SQUARE ON.
> (instead of somewhat sideways)
>

Yes, I call them Anti-Stop brakes! I could have avodid hitting a deer
once, but no.....

[David Billington]

IIRC snow and gravel are something that ABS doesn't go well with as the
wedging actions of snow and gravel under a locked wheel help slow the
vehicle and that doesn't occur with ABS causing an increased stopping
distance. Some early ABS cars allowed for it to be turned off manually
for these reasons but I suspect laws mandating ABS will have removed
that option. So maybe maintaining a rotating wheel and preserving some
steering is seen as the best compromise.

[cl...@snyder.on.ca]

On Sun, 09 Jun 2013 15:54:15 -0500, Ignoramus20041

He doesn't need them if he never hits anything, and if he always wears
his seat belts properly the advantage to airbags dissapears pretty
quickly even in a moderate colission. If he is under 5'4" the airbags
become a serious liability.

In a minor front end colission you can write off a GM compact or
intermediate car without doing ANY body damage in a 7mph frontal
colission. The cost to replace the air bags, instrument panel, (dash)
air bag controls and windsheild excedes the salvage value of a 5 year
old car in many cases. If you manage to damage the bumper, grille, or
front header panel it's pretty well a certainty.

As for anti-lock brakes they help maintain control in a panic stop on
bare or wet pavement when they work properly - but are useless on
light snow covered or slushy roads, and even worse in heavy wet snow
or snow-pack. And they are expensive to trouble-shoot and repair, as
even most mechanics don't understand how they work adequately.

I've had ABS equipment failures cause total loss of front braking,
total loss of rear braking, unpredictable pull to either left or right
under moderate braking at highway speeds (which could get real ugly in
a light rain after a long dry spell - rubber dust and oil emulsion
making the roads slick - and brake grabbing) - and NONE of the
problems could be diagnosed by the dealer's diagnostic code readers.

I found and repaired each of the problems with a combination of
deductive reasoning and a good helping of LUCK. ( and the outlay of a
fair number of bucks for required replacement parts in 2 cases )

[Phil Kangas]

<cl...@snyder.on.ca>
wrote in message

> I've got a story I could tell about DOT safety
> lanes and a Morris Mini
> that relates to brake bias too.
>
> I'll tell it if anyone asks.

I'll ask. Please tell us the story, Clare... ;>)}

[ATP]

"PrecisionmachinisT" <precisionm...@notmail.com> wrote in message

news:nOGdnXUWi_zBWinM...@scnresearch.com...

>
>>
>
> I've also got too many things going on at the moment but I'll just say
> that the ABS performance on my 98 silverado is either broken or is so
> badly engineered that when it activates, it takes about 3 times as long to
> come to a complete stop when driving on snow or ice...I know this because
> I can pull the electrical plug from the ABS system and actually test with
> the ABS disabled.....for this reason, I've taken to unplugging the system
> during wintertime.

Check the TSB's, when I was working on the '99 Suburban brakes, I found a
few bulletins about a brake proportioning problem that they only fixed if
they got complaints. There might be a TSB on the ABS.

[Ed Huntress]

OK. Phil asled.

--
Ed Huntress

[Gunner Asch]

In 2003 I bought the wife a 1997 Saturn with 78,000 miles on the odo
for $1500 in georgious shape. 6 yr old car that had been stolen just
for the airbags. A local guy was buying the cars as salvage for about
$800, doing a wax, oil change, new floor mats etc etc and selling them
after advising the buyers they were "salvaged" and no airbags were
included. He had me sign a statement to that effect. Shrug

I think he must have sold at least 100 of these Saturns over a couple
years out of his farm. All nice cars. The wife currently is still
driving it with 257,000 (miles) on the odo...with no serious issues
noted.

Seems at that time the Saturns air bags were in great demand and
stolen ones were getting upwards of $1000 each...x (2). I should try
to find out if the guy is still selling similar cars.....shrug.


--
"You guess the truth hurts?

Really?

"Hurt" aint the word.

For Liberals, the truth is like salt to a slug.
Sunlight to a vampire.
Raid® to a cockroach.
Sheriff Brody to a shark
Bush to a Liberal

The truth doesn't just hurt. It's painful, like a red hot poker shoved
up their ass. Like sliding down a hundred foot razor blade using their
dick as a brake.

They HATE the truth."

[cl...@snyder.on.ca]

I had just gotten my 1961 mini on the road - with new brakes,
including cyls and lines all around, when I got pulled over on a
highway safety check and the car was taken over the brake testing pad
- and failed. The inspector said "no rear brakes" and I had a week to
get them fixed and come back to have them re-checked. I went straight
to the shop, put the car on the hoist, and checked the brakes. The
rear wheels locked up perfectly - So I went out to the gravel parking
lot and did a few brake skids. All 4 wheels left skid tracks . So I
did it on the pavement with a buddy watching. He started to laugh. The
rear wheels stopped turning immediately when I hit the brakes - but
there was no skid-mark on the pavement because the wheels were not
touching the ground when I braked real hard.

We went back to the inspection lane and I told the inspector to stop
more slowly - he said that wouldn't have any effect. So I told him to
do the test again, and then to do the test with myself and my friend
in the back to prove a point. He finally agreed and was surprised to
see how much braking the rear wheels did with a load. The front brakes
unloaded the rear wheels to the point the rear tires were just
skimming the surface when braked hard. He then tried a less agressive
stop, and everything was fine.

He was trying to cause any weak brake lines to blow when he was
testing the brakes (the car had 196,000 miles on it and he was BOUND
he was going to get it failed, one way or another!!

[PrecisionmachinisT]

"Jim Wilkins" <murat...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:kp250p$93o$1...@dont-email.me...

> "PrecisionmachinisT" <precisionm...@notmail.com> wrote in
> message news:xfGdnVZQCsvFdC7M...@scnresearch.com...
>>
>> Although, reading your reply again, I have to say that the reason
>> for biasing to the front is NOT so that they will "lock up
>> first"....in fact, if any wheels lock up it is way better for them
>> to be the rear....
>
> Think about what will happen if you brake too hard while turning, for
> example if a kid unexpectedly runs into the intersection in front of
> you.
>
> If you've never raced on dirt or ice, the answer is that locking the

I have, but it's been ~45 years ago.

> fronts makes you slide straight ahead until you let off, locking the
> rears makes you spin out of control unless you've practiced a lot. The
> dynamics are much more evident on a dirt bike with separate front and
> rear brakes that you have to learn to operate differently, while
> clutching and downshifting.
>

Mostly, the rear end wanted to lift, possibly tossing the driver over the handlebars in the process...

[Ed Huntress]

Oh, jeez, that sounds a lot like my story.

In NJ, we used to have an annual safety inspection that included a
brake test. The tester would accelerate the car for about 25 feet and
then slam on the brakes. On the floor were four suspended grates that
were connected to manometers, which had "go, no-go" lines on their
tubes.

So in '67 I took my MG Midget Mk III (around 1400 lb. dry) in for its
first inspection. The rear wheels wouldn't even register -- the
manometers on the rear wheels didn't budge. So they failed me and I
had two weeks to correct it.

The rear brakes were manually adjusted, and they had little
square-headed bolt adjusters. I took a crescent wrench with me when I
went back for re-inspection. While I was waiting in line, I tightened
the suckers down until they were just touching the drums.

I went through the line. Again, they failed. The manometers just
registered, but not into the "safe" zone.

I expressed my frustration. The inspectors were sympathetic and told
me I could cut into the line for another try. So I tightened the rears
down until they were squealing and hobbled around to cut into the
line. This time I passed.

When I got out I drove about ten feet, took out my wrench, and
adjusted them back where they were supposed to be. The inspectors were
not amused. They said I shouldn't do that. "OK," I said, and pretended
to tighten them up again.

Anyway, the following year I knew what to do, so I tightened them to
the squealing point just before going in. I passed again. But, not
wanting to raise their ire, I just kept driving and decided I'd make
it home -- it was only a few miles -- and I'd adjust them properly
there. The squealing had stopped. I probably put 5,000 miles of wear
on the rears.

On the way home, up US 1, there was a curved turnoff to the right that
I like to hit at about 50 mph and just start a slide, practicing
powering out to see how much power I could apply without spinning (I
don't do that anymore). Not thinking about my brakes, I hit it at my
usual speed. Hee-haw! The rear end came around and I couldn't steer
out of it -- off the road I went, into the nicely manicured Reed Turf
Farm owned by my buddy Bill Reed's family. <g>

I plowed some great furrows, mostly sideways, and barely got out of
the soft ground. Then I crawled the rest of the way home, reminding
myself of the brakes about every 100 feet.

The next day I told my friend Bill that I was the culprit, and offered
to pay for the damage. Not to worry, he said. It happens all the time,
and they were getting ready to put up a thick steel-and-concrete guard
rail, anyway. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

[Phil Kangas]

<cl...@snyder.on.ca> wrote in message
news:0ssbr8l9vus9htued...@4ax.com...

Heh heh, that's a good story! ;>)}

[Larry Jaques]

On Mon, 10 Jun 2013 11:50:06 -0400, cl...@snyder.on.ca wrote:

Why does a mere ounce of authority give so -many- people delusions of
Godhood?

--
I have never understood why it is "greed" to want to keep the money you
have earned, but it is not greed to want take someone else's money.
--Thomas Sowell

[Larry Jaques]

On Mon, 10 Jun 2013 11:50:06 -0400, cl...@snyder.on.ca wrote:

>On Sun, 9 Jun 2013 20:31:33 -0400, "Phil Kangas"
><pka...@upalphacomm.net> wrote:
>
>>
>><cl...@snyder.on.ca>
>> wrote in message
>>> I've got a story I could tell about DOT safety
>>> lanes and a Morris Mini
>>> that relates to brake bias too.
>>>
>>> I'll tell it if anyone asks.
>>
>>I'll ask. Please tell us the story, Clare... ;>)}
>>
>>
>>
>
>I had just gotten my 1961 mini on the road - with new brakes,
>including cyls and lines all around, when I got pulled over on a
>highway safety check and the car was taken over the brake testing pad
>- and failed. The inspector said "no rear brakes" and I had a week to
>get them fixed and come back to have them re-checked. I went straight
>to the shop, put the car on the hoist, and checked the brakes. The
>rear wheels locked up perfectly - So I went out to the gravel parking
>lot and did a few brake skids. All 4 wheels left skid tracks . So I
>did it on the pavement with a buddy watching. He started to laugh. The
>rear wheels stopped turning immediately when I hit the brakes - but
>there was no skid-mark on the pavement because the wheels were not
>touching the ground when I braked real hard.

I forgot to add "That little Mini's brakes really -could- stand it on
its nose, couldn't they?"

[technomaNge]

On 06/09/2013 10:15 AM, John B. wrote:
>
> You can prove this theory easily with a bicycle or a motorcycle. make
> a stop with only the rear brake and than repeat the maneuver with only
> the front brake.
>

Many years ago when I lived in California, some bastard stole my
Honda motorcycle right out of my front yard.

Insurance paid enough to buy a replacement Honda one year older.
About this same time, I started using the front brake with minimal
rear brake. After riding that way for several months, I found that
my riding friends thought I was nuts and should ALWAYS use ONLY the rear
brake.

So I sabotaged my replacement bike by adjusting the brake lever on
the rear hub to where it had NO braking ability at all. I took to
leaving the keys in the ignition, hoping the bastard would return
to steal my bike. I lived very close to the best get-away option,
the interstate. So if someone stole it, they wouldn't use the brakes
until miles way, probably on an exit ramp.

Unfortunately, I never got to report that bike stolen, never got to
hear that there was a semi-human smear on the asphalt.


technomaNge
--

[Steve W.]

The best option on a bike is using both brakes. My antique Yamaha even
has linked braking along with anti-dive.

--
Steve W.

[Jon Elson]

Gunner Asch wrote:

> On Sun, 09 Jun 2013 20:29:19 -0400, cl...@snyder.on.ca wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 09 Jun 2013 15:54:15 -0500, Ignoramus20041
>><ignoram...@NOSPAM.20041.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>On 2013-06-09, Leon Fisk <lf...@no.spam.iserv.net> wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 09 Jun 2013 14:37:09 -0400
>>>> Ed Huntress <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>><snip>
>>>>>I've had only one car with ABS -- my Hyundai Sonata -- and although I
>>>>>like it, and I'm glad my wife drives that car in bad weather, I'm
>>>>>pretty sure I could beat it. It seems to be better at maintaining
>>>>>control than at actual stopping distance.

That's why they call it antiSKID braking system. To hell with stopping
distance, but don't allow the driver to lose control.

Sometimes, on marginal and patchy surfaces, it doesn't really worsen
stopping distance much, but when it is very slippery on all 4 wheels,
it is bound to take longer to stop. The ABS can control braking
independently on each wheel, which is better than you can do with only
one pedal.

Jon

[Pete C.]

ABS unfortunately has a serious flaw - In an unloaded vehicle with stiff
suspension i.e. a 1T pickup with no cargo, a bump in the road can easily
bounce the rear axle out of contact with the road. If this occurs during
breaking the rear wheels will momentarily stop turning, the ABS system
improperly activates and you *loose braking*.

[Ignoramus5948]

Happens with my pickup too.

I feel, extremely strongly, that the proper cure for all those braking
issues, is to, one, drive at a speed safe for conditions, and two,
maintain a safe distance.

I

[Pete C.]

Those certainly help, but in the case of my previous truck (Chev K3500)
you had to be in the habit of scanning the road surface when braking to
a stop like coming to a light and you would see the bump and momentarily
release the brake when you went over it and then reapply to avoid the
ABS flaw. If you were coming to a stop at a light and hit a bump there
was a real danger of hitting the vehicle ahead of you due to the flaw,
and that was driving a reasonable speed and braking at a reasonable
distance and rate, not racing up and slamming on the brake as some
people do.

[Ed Huntress]

On Tue, 11 Jun 2013 19:05:44 -0500, "Pete C." <auxRe...@wpnet.us>
wrote:

I can't imagine ABS on a vehicle with such an extreme weight variation
as a pickup truck -- front-to-rear variation as well as overall
variation. It sounds like a nightmare.

--
Ed Huntress

[cl...@snyder.on.ca]

On Tue, 11 Jun 2013 16:56:19 -0500, "Pete C." <auxRe...@wpnet.us>
wrote:

>

Which is why you want 4 channel ABS if you get ABS - particularly on
a truck. 3 channel ABS controls front brakes separately - but treats
the rears as one.

[Steve W.]

Could also be the same problem that plagues a lot of ABS systems. Faulty
sensors.

FYI: Common ABS problem on GM products (mainly the trucks)- Rust between
the sensor and the mounting hole on the front hub(s).
Symptoms = NO ABS light but ABS applies during very slow speed brake
applications regardless of surface traction.
Cure = Clean around the sensors very well, remove them, plug the hole
with rag or cork, clean the rust off of the hub and sensor mount. Apply
a light film of silicone sealer to the sensor and reinstall it. Then
brush a coat of sealer around the sensor as a corrosion block.

--
Steve W.

[Jim Wilkins]

"Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote in message

news:u6ifr81cirld6s551...@4ax.com...

>
> I can't imagine ABS on a vehicle with such an extreme weight
> variation
> as a pickup truck -- front-to-rear variation as well as overall
> variation. It sounds like a nightmare.
>
> --
> Ed Huntress

In the mid 70's DOT mandated that semis be able to stop within a
certain distance, full or empty, without sliding outside a 12' lane.
The only practical way to comply was to put ABS on the rear trailer
wheels. The analog systems of the time monitored the rate of wheel
deceleration and either prevented brake line pressure from increasing
or momentarily released it if deceleration exceeded an estimate of
what tire friction would permit, lets call it 3/4 of a 'g' since they
never told me the actual design value and I signed an NDA covering
what little I did know.

If the wheel decelerated more rapidly the system assumed it was
skidding. There was no way to compensate for stickier tires that could
stop faster, and even if it did the car behind with stock tires would
run into you. There is a tradeoff between stopping as quickly as
possible when you are out alone, and everyone slowing down at the same
controlled rate in a line of heavy traffic.

I was a test engineer building the production test stations for these
modules, for several GM suppliers. We got to play with ABS and learn
how to use and misuse it. In general it hindered an experienced
dirt-track driver but helped most people, who hadn't learned to
control a slide. I could do most of the tricks, but not at a
competitive speed.

When it worked it did allow the trucks to stop faster without sliding
sideways whether full or empty. Do you remember the straight dashed
tire streaks their ABS would leave from panic stops?
jsw

[Bruce L. Bergman (munged human readable)]

On Mon, 10 Jun 2013 01:27:02 +0100, David Billington
<d...@djbillington.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:


>IIRC snow and gravel are something that ABS doesn't go well with as the
>wedging actions of snow and gravel under a locked wheel help slow the
>vehicle and that doesn't occur with ABS causing an increased stopping
>distance. Some early ABS cars allowed for it to be turned off manually
>for these reasons but I suspect laws mandating ABS will have removed
>that option. So maybe maintaining a rotating wheel and preserving some
>steering is seen as the best compromise.

That's why they invented.... The Fuse.

On all cars with ABS, there's always at least one little fuse in the
fuse-block you can pull and Presto! No more ABS interfering with what
your right foot want.

Might have to pull the ABS FAIL bulb, but that's a separate issue.

--<< Bruce >>--

[Steve W.]

One catch to that. Check your insurance close. Many have out written in
there stating if you intentionally disable any of the factory "safety
devices" they won't pay if an investigation shows that device should
have operated. Stupid but it could be there.

--
Steve W.