Home » Public Forums » GMCnet » Re: [GMCnet] Gmclist Digest, Vol 29, Issue 94
| Re: [GMCnet] Gmclist Digest, Vol 29, Issue 94 [message #108956] |
Sun, 19 December 2010 09:44  |
Gary Casey
Messages: 448
Registered: September 2009
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Lots of good comments on the braking system - most of which I agree - but there
are a lot of things not explained. Sorry if I don't correctly acknowledge each
one. For example, Some might mistake brake sensitivity for brake
effectiveness. Sensitivity means that decceleration is available for less pedal
force. But a vacuum booster is capable of only so much force - at what pedal
force does it reach its limit and is it capable of locking the wheels at that
point? Don't know and no one has said. Cars of that era often required the
driver to "push through" the booster to get a maximum performance stop. I don't
know what the situation is on our coaches with either system. One can go to a
smaller diameter master cylinder and get lower pedal effort, giving the illusion
of increased brake effectiveness. But if one side of the system leaks is there
still enough pedal travel to stop on the others? I don't know and no one has
said. And some have implied that with a heavy vehicle like ours longer stopping
distances are to be expected - I disagree. Stopping distance is a function of
tire-to-road friction coefficient and our hard tires have only a little lower
coefficient than car tires. Certainly less than 10% different.
There have been lots of explanations given regarding the behavior of the
standard system with a leading/trailing arm design and some are good and some
are needlessly complex. But some lead to incorrect conclusions (example
below). First, all the braking effort (torque) created by the brake goes into
slowing the vehicle - none is magically "lost" by being converted to vertical
force. And the middles never generate enough force to lift the rears off the
ground. The geometry is such that almost 2 G's worth of braking would be
required to do that. I would guess that the traction coefficient of our tires
is less than 0.9, about half that required. Even the friction generated by a
locked rear is still slowing the coach - it's not "totally wasted."
Yes, during normal braking (before the rears lock) the reaction of the middle is
balanced by the reaction from the rear - no net lift is created. If the brake
balance is even everything is fine. Until the rears lock, that is. From then
on the imbalance is only the difference in braking between the middle and the
rears.
Why was such a seemingly inferior design allowed to be produced? I was working
at GM developing an advance braking system during that period. The prevailing
attitude was: First priority of a brake system was low pedal effort during
normal braking. Also first was noise reduction - no noise allowed. Also first
was low rotor/drum wear. For disks another first priority was no dusting
allowed. Next criteria was that only one stop from the speed limit on level
ground was required. Going down mountains? Just go slow. Faster than the
speed limit? Not required. The fact that the rears will always lock
prematurely certainly wasn't considered to be a big problem as it didn't effect
any of the top priority items.
There was one poster that admitted he was descending a 6% grade at high speed
(at low speed the resulting panic stop wouldn't have been required). He
reported that the brakes were faded at initial application, so they must have
been almost faded already. It is important to know the limitations of the
braking system and all will fade, even disks. But he was right in that with 4
or 6-wheel disks he probably would have had a larger fade margin. (short
anecdote: I was driving my car down Pikes Peak in second gear, not in a
particular hurry. At the halfway point I stopped at the "brake checkpoint" and
a guy shot an infrared temperature sensor at my front rotors. He waved me on,
but I asked him what he read. He said "150", so I asked about the usual
temperatures he sees. He said, "500 or more." So most people, probably
unknowingly, had used up way more than half their brake heat capacity at that
point.) My point is that a lot o)f people are in this mode - "using up" too
much of the heat capacity of the brakes without knowing it.
The one big advantage of disks is that they have more heat absorption/rejection
capability than drums.
The question still remains - can all 6 be locked up with the standard system?
With a 4-wheel disk system? With a 6-wheel disk system? With a system
failure(leak) is there still enough pedal travel? With a reaction arm system on
2 wheels? On 4? Apparently no one knows for sure, or at least are unwilling to
post the results. When someone gets around to measuring stopping distance from
60 mph, I suggest measuring stopping time - it's easier to measure. And measure
pedal force, too. If a constant 0.9 G's is attained the stopping time from 60
is 3.04 seconds - I don't think you'll get better than that with non-racing
tires. Distance is hard to measure, as the starting point is difficult to
establish. Then if anyone wants to get really thorough, measure the G's
attained at all different pedal forces and plot the results. I'd really like to
see that.
Thanks for reading.
Gary Casey
Previous post:
The rear wheel brakes act just opposite to the mid-axle brakes in
that the force vector from the tire/road contact point is pulling
down in a straight line on the rear suspension arm pen. Same as the
mid wheel, only approximately 1/2 of the forces generated by the
brakes is pushing rearward horizontally and is helping slow the
vehicle. The downward vertical force on the pen is reacting the
nearly opposite vertical force generated by the mid wheel and cancel
each other out during normal braking conditions. Thus, during normal
driving only approximately 1/2 of your braking ability is being
utilized in slowing your vehicle and the other 1/2 is totally wasted.
Things get much worse when you do a panic stop. Within a fraction of
a second after applying full brake pressure, the mid wheel brakes
lifts the rear of the coach until the shock bottoms out, shifting
most all the rear coach weight to the mid wheels and lifting most of
the weight off the rear wheels. That is the screeching that everyone
hears making them think they have good brakes. It is almost
impossible to slide the mid wheels with drum brakes unless you have 2
3/4" wide CM shoes and much larger brake cylinders.
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
List Information and Subscription Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] Gmclist Digest, Vol 29, Issue 94 [message #109066 is a reply to message #108956] |
Sun, 19 December 2010 21:47  |
Ken Henderson
Messages: 8726
Registered: March 2004
Location: Americus, GA
Karma: 9
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Gary,
Your comments on testing make me think perhaps you missed the EBC
yellow pad brake tests we did in '06. We could have benefited from
some of your suggestions, such as measuring time-to-stop instead of
distance (though that was pretty easy). And we were not testing the
Reaction Arms, boosters, or other brake improvements. But among the
test results are answers to some of the questions you pose.
http://www.bdub.net/Brake_Tests/
I think the "errors" you refer to in the quotation are the result of
trying to explain, in non-scientific or engineering terms, the benefit
of the reaction arm system. Even those of us for whom the principles
are immediately obvious have difficulty explaining it to those with no
training or experience in resolving force vectors.
Thank you for sharing your insight into how the inadequate braking
system was foisted on posterity. :-)
I've interspersed answers below with some of your questions, based on
my own experience and tests.
Ken H.
On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 10:44 AM, Gary Casey <casey.gary@yahoo.com> wrote:
...
> But a vacuum booster is capable of only so much force - at what pedal
> force does it reach its limit and is it capable of locking the wheels at that
> point? Don't know and no one has said.
I don't know how much pedal force is required to fully exercise the
booster -- that would vary with the installed reaction disc anyway.
But my tests have never provided line pressure of over 1100 psi. And
that requires "punching through" the booster. That pressure will NOT
lock more than two (rear) wheels on dry pavement. IMHO, only a
PowerMaster, HydroBoost, or similar will ever provide us enough line
pressure to lock the front wheels, and probably the centers; the rears
are easy.
>... But if one side of the system leaks is there
> still enough pedal travel to stop on the others? I don't know and no one has
> said.
Dave Mumert's study of MC's & Calipers at
http://www.gmcmotorhome.info/GMCBrakeCalcs.pdf is about the best we
can hope for with the information we have.
...
> There have been lots of explanations given regarding the behavior of the
> standard system with a leading/trailing arm design and some are good and some
> are needlessly complex. But some lead to incorrect conclusions (example
> below). First, all the braking effort (torque) created by the brake goes into
> slowing the vehicle - none is magically "lost" by being converted to vertical
> force.
> And the middles never generate enough force to lift the rears off the
> ground. The geometry is such that almost 2 G's worth of braking would be
> required to do that. I would guess that the traction coefficient of our tires
> is less than 0.9, about half that required. Even the friction generated by a
> locked rear is still slowing the coach - it's not "totally wasted."
I don't understand this statement. There's no question that the rear
wheels WILL slide easily during a hard stop. Some have calculated the
loading at that time as low as 125 lbf. Chuck Aulgur's videos make it
appear that actual separation occurs. Considering the low CG and long
wheelbase of the GMC, I'm convinced that "pole vaulting" over the
middle wheel is responsible for most of the transfer of weight from
the rear wheel. The reaction arm system effectively eliminates that
problem.
...
> The question still remains - can all 6 be locked up with the standard system?
No, not by a reasonably healthy 210# man with very strong incentive
(still doing 20 mph and about to T-bone a Freightliner 20' ahead).
> With a 4-wheel disk system? With a 6-wheel disk system?
Not in my 4 years experience with 4-wheel discs. Nor in the previous
6 years with 6-wheel discs -- which ALWAYS become effectively 4-wheel.
> With a system failure(leak) is there still enough pedal travel?
Mumert's study is the result of our trying to ensure that there is.
> With a reaction arm system on
> 2 wheels? On 4? Apparently no one knows for sure...
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
List Information and Subscription Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
Ken Henderson
Americus, GA
www.gmcwipersetc.com
Large Wiring Diagrams
76 X-Birchaven
76 X-Palm Beach
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Sun Nov 17 21:35:45 CST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.00800 seconds
|
GMCforum
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
