Home » Public Forums » GMCnet » [GMCnet] MATH QUESTION
| [GMCnet] MATH QUESTION [message #196516] |
Sat, 26 January 2013 13:23  |
Thomas Pryor
Messages: 143
Registered: January 2011
Karma: 1
|
Senior Member |
|
|
HI FOLKS,
I helped Jim K Develop the Manufacturing process of the Rear Brake
Drum Control Arm System which he now owns as well as the Patent which
has been applied for.
The "advertising" video uses selected scenes from many test stops at
45 MPH with and without the enhancement. Jim probably picked the
extremes to tell the story. I do know that the Panic stop output
data was based on count of revolutions after wheel skid.
WITHOUT CONTROL ARMS The intermediate wheel rotation after the rear
wheel stopped ranged from 8 to 11. 9 revolutions was the "sweet
spot". 8' circumference X 9 was given up as 75'.
WITH CONTROL ARMS The wheel skid alternated between intermediate and
the rear wheel. One of the 10 stops no wheels skidded. He elected to
use this one to best represent and "advertise" the system.
Regardless, the Data to reach the 32' stop derived from 10 stops which
ranged from 3.5 revolutions to 6.25 revolutions. 8 circumference X 4
was given up as 32'.
IN SHORT, a marked improvement was experienced and represented in the
videos. Could more controlled tests be done? Yes, but at what cost?
As for the skepticism or reality check on 32' in this discussion, yes
it could be studied and researched further. The obvious thing that
comes to mind is our vehicles have a 6 wheel contact patch VS an auto
with a 4 wheel contact patch. Now that all wheels contribute to
de-acceleration we might be pleasantly surprised.
--
Regards,
Tom Pryor
4188 Limerick Dr
Lake Wales, Fl 33859
Cell 248 470 9186
Living on a waterfront is not a matter of life or death. Its more
important than that.
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] MATH QUESTION [message #196517 is a reply to message #196516] |
Sat, 26 January 2013 13:33  |
Ronald Pottol
Messages: 505
Registered: September 2012
Location: Redwood City, California
Karma: -2
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Even a non skidding braked wheel turns slower than vehicle speed.
The skidding wheels still carry weight, but contribute little to
deceleration, so getting them involved should be a big win.
I'd like to see some pavement markings or a 5th (7th) instrument wheel.
Ron
On Jan 26, 2013 11:23 AM, "Thomas Pryor" <tepryor@gmail.com> wrote:
> HI FOLKS,
>
> I helped Jim K Develop the Manufacturing process of the Rear Brake
> Drum Control Arm System which he now owns as well as the Patent which
> has been applied for.
>
> The "advertising" video uses selected scenes from many test stops at
> 45 MPH with and without the enhancement. Jim probably picked the
> extremes to tell the story. I do know that the Panic stop output
> data was based on count of revolutions after wheel skid.
>
> WITHOUT CONTROL ARMS The intermediate wheel rotation after the rear
> wheel stopped ranged from 8 to 11. 9 revolutions was the "sweet
> spot". 8' circumference X 9 was given up as 75'.
>
> WITH CONTROL ARMS The wheel skid alternated between intermediate and
> the rear wheel. One of the 10 stops no wheels skidded. He elected to
> use this one to best represent and "advertise" the system.
> Regardless, the Data to reach the 32' stop derived from 10 stops which
> ranged from 3.5 revolutions to 6.25 revolutions. 8 circumference X 4
> was given up as 32'.
>
> IN SHORT, a marked improvement was experienced and represented in the
> videos. Could more controlled tests be done? Yes, but at what cost?
>
> As for the skepticism or reality check on 32' in this discussion, yes
> it could be studied and researched further. The obvious thing that
> comes to mind is our vehicles have a 6 wheel contact patch VS an auto
> with a 4 wheel contact patch. Now that all wheels contribute to
> de-acceleration we might be pleasantly surprised.
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Tom Pryor
> 4188 Limerick Dr
> Lake Wales, Fl 33859
> Cell 248 470 9186
>
> Living on a waterfront is not a matter of life or death. Its more
> important than that.
> _______________________________________________
> GMCnet mailing list
> Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
> http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
>
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
1973 26' GM outfitted
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] MATH QUESTION [message #196537 is a reply to message #196516] |
Sat, 26 January 2013 18:14 |
habbyguy
Messages: 896
Registered: May 2012
Location: Mesa, AZ
Karma: 3
|
Senior Member |
|
|
| Thomas Pryor wrote on Sat, 26 January 2013 12:23 |
HI FOLKS,
WITHOUT CONTROL ARMS The intermediate wheel rotation after the rear
wheel stopped ranged from 8 to 11. 9 revolutions was the "sweet
spot". 8' circumference X 9 was given up as 75'.
WITH CONTROL ARMS The wheel skid alternated between intermediate and
the rear wheel. One of the 10 stops no wheels skidded. He elected to
use this one to best represent and "advertise" the system.
Regardless, the Data to reach the 32' stop derived from 10 stops which
ranged from 3.5 revolutions to 6.25 revolutions. 8 circumference X 4
was given up as 32'.
IN SHORT, a marked improvement was experienced and represented in the
videos. Could more controlled tests be done? Yes, but at what cost?
As for the skepticism or reality check on 32' in this discussion, yes
it could be studied and researched further. The obvious thing that
comes to mind is our vehicles have a 6 wheel contact patch VS an auto
with a 4 wheel contact patch. Now that all wheels contribute to
de-acceleration we might be pleasantly surprised.
|
Tom, the last thing I'd try to say is that the system doesn't work. But Jim K would lose credibility if he claimed that the system would stop a GMC motorhome from 45mph in 32' (and I know he's looking into that claim now).
In fact, I'd bet anyone $1000 that you couldn't possibly stop a GMC motorhome in twice that 32' distance from 45mph (and I'd buy one of the RA systems with my winnings).  It's just not physically possible under the current laws of physics (and even our government doesn't seem likely to screw those up). Oh, I should mention that no steep hills or concrete walls will be allowed to influence that bet... 
The video shows that the wheels turn at least 11 revolutions from the initial application of the brakes (which can be seen by the movement of the rear of the bag into the rear wheelwell). That's about 85 feet, which is OUTSTANDING braking performance, and about as good as you'd do with a sports car with road tires in great shape, and a clean, smooth road (it corresponds to a coefficient of friction between the tires and road surface of about 0.8, which is about as good as you can realistically get in the real world). Stand on a 45mph road some day, and step off 32' (about 11 steps for me). Now try to imagine any of the cars driving by actually being able to stop in that distance.
Ain't gonna happen.
Again, I don't want to see this turn into an "issue", but hope that Jim can get the video corrected soon before any naysayers start taking him to task for over-promising on the performance of a great system that stands on its real results.
Mark Hickey
Mesa, AZ
1978 Royale Center Kitchen
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] MATH QUESTION [message #196539 is a reply to message #196537] |
Sat, 26 January 2013 18:47 |
James Hupy
Messages: 6806
Registered: May 2010
Karma: -62
|
Senior Member |
|
|
The only way that this will turn into a major competition of urination is
if we make it into one. Reaction arms work very well at transferring forces
from rotating to torqueing the hell out of the bogies and applying it in
the way of downforce on the rear tires. What they don't do is alter the
basic laws of physics. Force times distance is still the same. It just gets
applied onto 6 larger contact patches instead of 2 & 1/2. IF your coach is
at factory ride height, stopping distance is dramatically reduced. I have
installed a couple of disc brake reaction arm kits, have a new kit sitting
on my shop floor to install in my own coach along with quadra-bags and
wireless air control. I have driven coaches with the 1 ton front end and
disc brakes on all 6 wheels with the reaction arms and you better have
everything well stowed away when you jump on the whoa pedal. Anything not
nailed down is coming up front with you, including passengers not seat
belted in. 32 feet, nah maybe not. Welcome to the gmc net. where almost
anything is possible.(grin)
Jim Hupy
Salem, Or
78 gmc Royale 403
On Jan 26, 2013 4:14 PM, "Mark" <mark@habcycles.com> wrote:
>
>
> Thomas Pryor wrote on Sat, 26 January 2013 12:23
> > HI FOLKS,
> >
> > WITHOUT CONTROL ARMS The intermediate wheel rotation after the rear
> > wheel stopped ranged from 8 to 11. 9 revolutions was the "sweet
> > spot". 8' circumference X 9 was given up as 75'.
> >
> > WITH CONTROL ARMS The wheel skid alternated between intermediate and
> > the rear wheel. One of the 10 stops no wheels skidded. He elected to
> > use this one to best represent and "advertise" the system.
> > Regardless, the Data to reach the 32' stop derived from 10 stops which
> > ranged from 3.5 revolutions to 6.25 revolutions. 8 circumference X 4
> > was given up as 32'.
> >
> > IN SHORT, a marked improvement was experienced and represented in the
> > videos. Could more controlled tests be done? Yes, but at what cost?
> >
> > As for the skepticism or reality check on 32' in this discussion, yes
> > it could be studied and researched further. The obvious thing that
> > comes to mind is our vehicles have a 6 wheel contact patch VS an auto
> > with a 4 wheel contact patch. Now that all wheels contribute to
> > de-acceleration we might be pleasantly surprised.
>
>
> Tom, the last thing I'd try to say is that the system doesn't work. But
> Jim K would lose credibility if he claimed that the system would stop a GMC
> motorhome from 45mph in 32' (and I know he's looking into that claim now).
>
> In fact, I'd bet anyone $1000 that you couldn't possibly stop a GMC
> motorhome in twice that 32' distance from 45mph (and I'd buy one of the RA
> systems with my winnings). ;) It's just not physically possible under the
> current laws of physics (and even our government doesn't seem likely to
> screw those up). Oh, I should mention that no steep hills or concrete
> walls will be allowed to influence that bet... :?
>
> The video shows that the wheels turn at least 11 revolutions from the
> initial application of the brakes (which can be seen by the movement of the
> rear of the bag into the rear wheelwell). That's about 85 feet, which is
> OUTSTANDING braking performance, and about as good as you'd do with a
> sports car with road tires in great shape, and a clean, smooth road (it
> corresponds to a coefficient of friction between the tires and road surface
> of about 0.8, which is about as good as you can realistically get in the
> real world). Stand on a 45mph road some day, and step off 32' (about 11
> steps for me). Now try to imagine any of the cars driving by actually
> being able to stop in that distance.
>
> Ain't gonna happen.
>
> Again, I don't want to see this turn into an "issue", but hope that Jim
> can get the video corrected soon before any naysayers start taking him to
> task for over-promising on the performance of a great system that stands on
> its real results.
>
> --
> Mark Hickey
> Mesa, AZ
> 1978 Royale Center Kitchen
> _______________________________________________
> GMCnet mailing list
> Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
> http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
>
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] MATH QUESTION [message #196546 is a reply to message #196543] |
Sat, 26 January 2013 20:20 |
James Hupy
Messages: 6806
Registered: May 2010
Karma: -62
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Gary, good to hear from you. On Dwayne Jacobson,s coach, a line lock is
used. When I do Jay Rabe 's, I will use a Cadillac rear/rear caliper with a
mechanically applied fulcrum arm that is connected to the e-brake cables. I
have not used one of those yet, so I don't quite know what to expect as far
as performance. No more than most of us use the parking brake, it should
work fine. I have owned my coach since 2008 and I have used my parking
brake once. It hung up when I released it, and I burned up a pair of brake
shoes and wheel seals. The line lock is plumbed into the rear brakes, it
has either a push pull knob or an electro/mechanical solenoid controlled by
a switch on the dash. Both work the same. When you stop, press on the brake
pedal, energize the system; lift your foot. To cancel, re-apply pedal
pressure and flip the switch or depress the knob. We used line locks on
drag cars, but they work on the front brakes most of the time. Also used
trans brakes there. Those might work on a gmc too. I think they engaged low
and reverse at the same time. When you bring the rpm up to the stall speed
of the torque converter, the fluid really gets hot quick. When you snap
that baby off, you are leaving. Man, what a ride. Miss it still!
Jim Hupy
Salem, Or
78 Royale 403
On Jan 26, 2013 5:51 PM, "Gary Berry" <duallycc@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hey JimH;
>
> When you install the Disc Brake RA system, do you connect up the
> parking brakes on the rear discs, the middle discs, both rear and
> middle discs, or none at all?
> --
> Gary and Diana Berry
> 73 CL Stretch in Wa.
>
> On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 4:47 PM, James Hupy <jamesh1296@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > installed a couple of disc brake reaction arm kits, have a new kit
> sitting
> > on my shop floor to install in my own coach along with quadra-bags >and
> wireless air control.)
> > Jim Hupy
> _______________________________________________
> GMCnet mailing list
> Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
> http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
>
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] MATH QUESTION [message #196555 is a reply to message #196546] |
Sat, 26 January 2013 21:57 |
jimk
Messages: 6734
Registered: July 2006
Location: Belmont, CA
Karma: 9
|
Senior Member |
|
|
When Steve Fergason returns from the rally this weekend, you might ask him
how the Disc reaction arm performed when he and 3 others were in the coach
and test drove.
He made a statement comparing his pick up's braking to the Motorhome.
I welcome anyone to assist us to present a more accurate data,etc.
I as an engineer can not swear to the present dta, but based on what we
have experienced on the Reaction arm systems in the last 3 years have
amazed us on the results and other data that our tests have shown us.
We have had several sharp people bring their coaches here on weekends to
work on improving the rear parking calipers and others showing how to make
things that most cannot work, work.
Bottom line is that the reaction arm system will shorten the stopping
distance by 35% minimum and you can feel the differance. Have Steve F tell
us his experance.
I need to spend some time on the LSR (Land Speed Record) coach as were
planning a practice run in CA this month.
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
Jim Kanomata
Applied/GMC
jimk@appliedairfilters.com
www.appliedgmc.com
1-800-752-7502
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] MATH QUESTION [message #196560 is a reply to message #196555] |
Sat, 26 January 2013 22:23 |
Carl S.
Messages: 4186
Registered: January 2009
Location: Tucson, AZ.
Karma: 13
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Jim,
You are absolutely right about the reaction arm braking system. I know Steve Ferguson was most impressed, as was I when I test drove Rick Flanagan's coach at Las Vegas. I have a whole new level of confidence in my ability to stop the coach after installing your extremely well designed and executed kit. It has saved my bacon on more than one occasion, and I am an extremely cautious driver. If everyone else was, we wouldn't need such awesome brakes, but since other drivers can't always be counted upon, I would rather have a coach I KNOW I can stop in an emergency. Instead of planning out my stops, I now plan out how my coach is loaded so I don't end up with a bunch of gear hitting me in the back in case of an emergency stop.
Carl Stouffer
'75 ex Palm Beach
Tucson, AZ.
Chuck Aulgur Reaction Arm Disc Brakes, Quadrabags, 3.70 LSD final drive, Lenzi knuckles/hubs, Dodge Truck 16" X 8" front wheels, Rear American Eagles, Solar battery charging. GMCSJ and GMCMI member
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] MATH QUESTION [message #196625 is a reply to message #196560] |
Mon, 28 January 2013 01:17 |
jimk
Messages: 6734
Registered: July 2006
Location: Belmont, CA
Karma: 9
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Carl,
Thanks for the input.
On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 8:23 PM, Carl Stouffer <carljr3b@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> Jim,
>
> You are absolutely right about the reaction arm braking system. I know
> Steve Ferguson was most impressed, as was I when I test drove Rick
> Flanagan's coach at Las Vegas. I have a whole new level of confidence in
> my ability to stop the coach after installing your extremely well designed
> and executed kit. It has saved my bacon on more than one occasion, and I
> am an extremely cautious driver. If everyone else was, we wouldn't need
> such awesome brakes, but since other drivers can't always be counted upon,
> I would rather have a coach I KNOW I can stop in an emergency. Instead of
> planning out my stops, I now plan out how my coach is loaded so I don't end
> up with a bunch of gear hitting me in the back in case of an emergency stop.
> --
> Carl S.
> '75 ex Palm Beach
> Tucson, AZ.
> _______________________________________________
> GMCnet mailing list
> Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
> http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
>
--
Jim Kanomata
Applied/GMC, Fremont,CA
jimk@appliedairfilters.com
http://www.appliedgmc.com
1-800-752-7502
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
Jim Kanomata
Applied/GMC
jimk@appliedairfilters.com
www.appliedgmc.com
1-800-752-7502
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] MATH QUESTION [message #196638 is a reply to message #196555] |
Mon, 28 January 2013 08:44 |
Steven Ferguson
Messages: 3447
Registered: May 2006
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
I'll back up any claims Jim makes. That test drive convinced me that GM
missed the boat when it came to the rear brakes on a GMC. I don't see how
anyone can safely do without it. Plus, the price is right.
Steve
On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 8:57 PM, Jim Kanomata <jimkanomata@gmail.com> wrote:
> When Steve Fergason returns from the rally this weekend, you might ask him
> how the Disc reaction arm performed when he and 3 others were in the coach
> and test drove.
> He made a statement comparing his pick up's braking to the Motorhome.
> I welcome anyone to assist us to present a more accurate data,etc.
> I as an engineer can not swear to the present dta, but based on what we
> have experienced on the Reaction arm systems in the last 3 years have
> amazed us on the results and other data that our tests have shown us.
> We have had several sharp people bring their coaches here on weekends to
> work on improving the rear parking calipers and others showing how to make
> things that most cannot work, work.
> Bottom line is that the reaction arm system will shorten the stopping
> distance by 35% minimum and you can feel the differance. Have Steve F tell
> us his experance.
> I need to spend some time on the LSR (Land Speed Record) coach as were
> planning a practice run in CA this month.
> _______________________________________________
> GMCnet mailing list
> Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
> http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
>
--
Take care,
Steve
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] MATH QUESTION [message #196641 is a reply to message #196516] |
Mon, 28 January 2013 09:21 |
habbyguy
Messages: 896
Registered: May 2012
Location: Mesa, AZ
Karma: 3
|
Senior Member |
|
|
| Thomas Pryor wrote on Sat, 26 January 2013 12:23 |
I do know that the Panic stop output
data was based on count of revolutions after wheel skid.
WITHOUT CONTROL ARMS The intermediate wheel rotation after the rear
wheel stopped ranged from 8 to 11. 9 revolutions was the "sweet
spot". 8' circumference X 9 was given up as 75'.
WITH CONTROL ARMS The wheel skid alternated between intermediate and
the rear wheel. One of the 10 stops no wheels skidded. He elected to
use this one to best represent and "advertise" the system.
Regardless, the Data to reach the 32' stop derived from 10 stops which
ranged from 3.5 revolutions to 6.25 revolutions. 8 circumference X 4
was given up as 32'.
|
I went back and read the above more closely, and see what actually happened.
The numbers in the video came from the "wheel lockup to stop" measurement with and without the RA system.
But in the video, the stopping distance is listed as the stopping distance from application of the brakes.
So essentially, Jim's guys measured apples, and whoever put the video together claimed them as oranges.
I see the video is down, so I assume that means Jim will be fixing it.
This has been a funny thread - 95% of the input has been how great the RA system is, though that was never questioned.
Mark Hickey
Mesa, AZ
1978 Royale Center Kitchen
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] MATH QUESTION [message #196653 is a reply to message #196641] |
Mon, 28 January 2013 10:20 |
James Hupy
Messages: 6806
Registered: May 2010
Karma: -62
|
Senior Member |
|
|
I always get amused by "Monday morning quarterbacking " a system that is
new to the gmc community. Jim K., Chuck A., Frank Condos, Steve Ferguson,
were all at GMCWS rally at Auburn, Ca. in June 2010. I was there also when
a prototype reaction arm equipped coach was demonstrated. The reaction arms
at that time were not attached to crosslinking sway bars, but anchored to
the frame rails. Numerous gmc'ers drove Ricks coach around the steep hills
of Auburn and panic stopped it time and again. Each time they returned to
the fairgrounds, Steve F. and I checked the temperature of the brakes. I
did not have my I.R. thermometer with me, but I did blister the tips of two
fingers from touching the Alcoa wheels on the coach. Those brakes were
smoking hot, and it was still stopping very well. Everyone that drove the
coach that day did not require any more convincing. AND since that time,
the reaction arms have been cross linked with the sway bars and the system
has undergone other upgrades as well. I was told that "The proof of the
pudding is in the eating". Drive a reaction arm equipped coach. Then come
back on the gmc net and let us know what you think.
Jim Hupy
Salem, Or
78 Gmc Royale 403
On Jan 28, 2013 7:21 AM, "Mark" <mark@habcycles.com> wrote:
>
>
> Thomas Pryor wrote on Sat, 26 January 2013 12:23
> > I do know that the Panic stop output
> > data was based on count of revolutions after wheel skid.
> >
> > WITHOUT CONTROL ARMS The intermediate wheel rotation after the rear
> > wheel stopped ranged from 8 to 11. 9 revolutions was the "sweet
> > spot". 8' circumference X 9 was given up as 75'.
> >
> > WITH CONTROL ARMS The wheel skid alternated between intermediate and
> > the rear wheel. One of the 10 stops no wheels skidded. He elected to
> > use this one to best represent and "advertise" the system.
> > Regardless, the Data to reach the 32' stop derived from 10 stops which
> > ranged from 3.5 revolutions to 6.25 revolutions. 8 circumference X 4
> > was given up as 32'.
>
> I went back and read the above more closely, and see what actually
> happened.
>
> The numbers in the video came from the "wheel lockup to stop" measurement
> with and without the RA system.
>
> But in the video, the stopping distance is listed as the stopping distance
> from application of the brakes.
>
> So essentially, Jim's guys measured apples, and whoever put the video
> together claimed them as oranges.
>
> I see the video is down, so I assume that means Jim will be fixing it.
>
> This has been a funny thread - 95% of the input has been how great the RA
> system is, though that was never questioned.
>
> --
> Mark Hickey
> Mesa, AZ
> 1978 Royale Center Kitchen
> _______________________________________________
> GMCnet mailing list
> Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
> http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
>
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] MATH QUESTION [message #196655 is a reply to message #196653] |
Mon, 28 January 2013 10:39 |
 |
hnielsen2
Messages: 1434
Registered: February 2004
Location: Alpine CA
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Jim it's called
" Attracting the the new idea and the heck as to what you think or come up with"
It gets a little old and I'm tired of it .
I saw it with Chuck and now it's on to the reaction arm and braking.
Thanks
All is well with my Lord
Howard
Alpine CA
74 GMC with new one ton setup from Manny.
On Jan 28, 2013, at 8:20 AM, James Hupy <jamesh1296@gmail.com> wrote:
> I always get amused by "Monday morning quarterbacking " a system that is
> new to the gmc community. Jim K., Chuck A., Frank Condos, Steve Ferguson,
> were all at GMCWS rally at Auburn, Ca. in June 2010. I was there also when
> a prototype reaction arm equipped coach was demonstrated. The reaction arms
> at that time were not attached to crosslinking sway bars, but anchored to
> the frame rails. Numerous gmc'ers drove Ricks coach around the steep hills
> of Auburn and panic stopped it time and again. Each time they returned to
> the fairgrounds, Steve F. and I checked the temperature of the brakes. I
> did not have my I.R. thermometer with me, but I did blister the tips of two
> fingers from touching the Alcoa wheels on the coach. Those brakes were
> smoking hot, and it was still stopping very well. Everyone that drove the
> coach that day did not require any more convincing. AND since that time,
> the reaction arms have been cross linked with the sway bars and the system
> has undergone other upgrades as well. I was told that "The proof of the
> pudding is in the eating". Drive a reaction arm equipped coach. Then come
> back on the gmc net and let us know what you think.
> Jim Hupy
> Salem, Or
> 78 Gmc Royale 403
> On Jan 28, 2013 7:21 AM, "Mark" <mark@habcycles.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Thomas Pryor wrote on Sat, 26 January 2013 12:23
>>> I do know that the Panic stop output
>>> data was based on count of revolutions after wheel skid.
>>>
>>> WITHOUT CONTROL ARMS The intermediate wheel rotation after the rear
>>> wheel stopped ranged from 8 to 11. 9 revolutions was the "sweet
>>> spot". 8' circumference X 9 was given up as 75'.
>>>
>>> WITH CONTROL ARMS The wheel skid alternated between intermediate and
>>> the rear wheel. One of the 10 stops no wheels skidded. He elected to
>>> use this one to best represent and "advertise" the system.
>>> Regardless, the Data to reach the 32' stop derived from 10 stops which
>>> ranged from 3.5 revolutions to 6.25 revolutions. 8 circumference X 4
>>> was given up as 32'.
>>
>> I went back and read the above more closely, and see what actually
>> happened.
>>
>> The numbers in the video came from the "wheel lockup to stop" measurement
>> with and without the RA system.
>>
>> But in the video, the stopping distance is listed as the stopping distance
>> from application of the brakes.
>>
>> So essentially, Jim's guys measured apples, and whoever put the video
>> together claimed them as oranges.
>>
>> I see the video is down, so I assume that means Jim will be fixing it.
>>
>> This has been a funny thread - 95% of the input has been how great the RA
>> system is, though that was never questioned.
>>
>> --
>> Mark Hickey
>> Mesa, AZ
>> 1978 Royale Center Kitchen
>> _______________________________________________
>> GMCnet mailing list
>> Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
>> http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
>>
> _______________________________________________
> GMCnet mailing list
> Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
> http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
All is well with my Lord
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] MATH QUESTION [message #196656 is a reply to message #196655] |
Mon, 28 January 2013 10:43 |
James Hupy
Messages: 6806
Registered: May 2010
Karma: -62
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Howard, yep!
Jim Hupy
Salem, Or
78 Gmc Royale 403
On Jan 28, 2013 8:39 AM, "Howard" <hnielsen2@cox.net> wrote:
> Jim it's called
> " Attracting the the new idea and the heck as to what you think or come up
> with"
> It gets a little old and I'm tired of it .
> I saw it with Chuck and now it's on to the reaction arm and braking.
> Thanks
> All is well with my Lord
> Howard
> Alpine CA
> 74 GMC with new one ton setup from Manny.
> On Jan 28, 2013, at 8:20 AM, James Hupy <jamesh1296@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I always get amused by "Monday morning quarterbacking " a system that is
> > new to the gmc community. Jim K., Chuck A., Frank Condos, Steve Ferguson,
> > were all at GMCWS rally at Auburn, Ca. in June 2010. I was there also
> when
> > a prototype reaction arm equipped coach was demonstrated. The reaction
> arms
> > at that time were not attached to crosslinking sway bars, but anchored to
> > the frame rails. Numerous gmc'ers drove Ricks coach around the steep
> hills
> > of Auburn and panic stopped it time and again. Each time they returned to
> > the fairgrounds, Steve F. and I checked the temperature of the brakes. I
> > did not have my I.R. thermometer with me, but I did blister the tips of
> two
> > fingers from touching the Alcoa wheels on the coach. Those brakes were
> > smoking hot, and it was still stopping very well. Everyone that drove the
> > coach that day did not require any more convincing. AND since that time,
> > the reaction arms have been cross linked with the sway bars and the
> system
> > has undergone other upgrades as well. I was told that "The proof of the
> > pudding is in the eating". Drive a reaction arm equipped coach. Then come
> > back on the gmc net and let us know what you think.
> > Jim Hupy
> > Salem, Or
> > 78 Gmc Royale 403
> > On Jan 28, 2013 7:21 AM, "Mark" <mark@habcycles.com> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Thomas Pryor wrote on Sat, 26 January 2013 12:23
> >>> I do know that the Panic stop output
> >>> data was based on count of revolutions after wheel skid.
> >>>
> >>> WITHOUT CONTROL ARMS The intermediate wheel rotation after the rear
> >>> wheel stopped ranged from 8 to 11. 9 revolutions was the "sweet
> >>> spot". 8' circumference X 9 was given up as 75'.
> >>>
> >>> WITH CONTROL ARMS The wheel skid alternated between intermediate and
> >>> the rear wheel. One of the 10 stops no wheels skidded. He elected to
> >>> use this one to best represent and "advertise" the system.
> >>> Regardless, the Data to reach the 32' stop derived from 10 stops which
> >>> ranged from 3.5 revolutions to 6.25 revolutions. 8 circumference X 4
> >>> was given up as 32'.
> >>
> >> I went back and read the above more closely, and see what actually
> >> happened.
> >>
> >> The numbers in the video came from the "wheel lockup to stop"
> measurement
> >> with and without the RA system.
> >>
> >> But in the video, the stopping distance is listed as the stopping
> distance
> >> from application of the brakes.
> >>
> >> So essentially, Jim's guys measured apples, and whoever put the video
> >> together claimed them as oranges.
> >>
> >> I see the video is down, so I assume that means Jim will be fixing it.
> >>
> >> This has been a funny thread - 95% of the input has been how great the
> RA
> >> system is, though that was never questioned.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Mark Hickey
> >> Mesa, AZ
> >> 1978 Royale Center Kitchen
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> GMCnet mailing list
> >> Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
> >> http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > GMCnet mailing list
> > Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
> > http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
> _______________________________________________
> GMCnet mailing list
> Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
> http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
>
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] MATH QUESTION [message #196664 is a reply to message #196653] |
Mon, 28 January 2013 12:13 |
habbyguy
Messages: 896
Registered: May 2012
Location: Mesa, AZ
Karma: 3
|
Senior Member |
|
|
| James Hupy wrote on Mon, 28 January 2013 09:20 |
I always get amused by "Monday morning quarterbacking " a system that is
new to the gmc community.
|
Jeez, Jim... have you actually read anything I actually wrote?
I'll say it for the umpteenth time... the RA system is a great thing. Best thing since sliced bread. NO ONE IS ARGUING THAT, so it's a little silly to keep acting like I am.
I'm trying to look out for Jim K's best interests, and am getting taken to task for it.
Pretend that we were talking about a fuel injection system instead of a braking system. Pretend that this fuel injection system was returning 13.5mpg (a 35% improvement). We'd all be singing its praises (just like we ALL are with the RA system).
Now pretend that the vendor put out a video that claimed the system returned 28mpg. It's still a great system, and the developer will still deserve sainthood. But anyone who doesn't know the vendor will think he's selling snake oil, and his reputation will be tarnished for putting out a nonsensical and impossible claim. The FI system will forever be seen as "the one that claimed 28mpg", which won't be good for anyone (the vendor, obviously, as well as all the potential customers who will assume the claim is so silly that the system must be a hoax).
Sure, fewer people realize that stopping a 12,000 pound vehicle (or a 2,000 pound vehicle) in 32 feet from 45mph is as silly as a GMC getting 28mpg, but that doesn't mean that it's not in Jim's best interest to avoid the appearance of overpromising, even if y'all think it's best to just not mention to the naked king that he forgot his clothes today...
Mark Hickey
Mesa, AZ
1978 Royale Center Kitchen
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] MATH QUESTION [message #196666 is a reply to message #196664] |
Mon, 28 January 2013 12:40 |
James Hupy
Messages: 6806
Registered: May 2010
Karma: -62
|
Senior Member |
|
|
This reply is to Mark. I agree that Thirty Two feet is perhaps an error.
Don't know exactly where that came from. I do know that from viewing the
before and after video's, that the one in which the rear/rear wheel locks
up, one can easily count the wheel revolutions from that point until all
stop. I would not debate that. On the second video, it is impossible to
EXACTLY judge when the brakes are applied. If I cannot tell exactly when to
start counting wheel revolutions, I doubt whether Jim K. or anyone else can
either. Whether the circumference of the tire, or for that matter, the
radius of the wheel, or the diameter of the wheel is known, is moot. The
stopping distance is impossible to determine. So all calculations are
subjective and speculative. I was not being critical of you in particular,
Mark, or any one else in general. We ALL had only a video to look at, and
not enough critical data to make an informed judgement. I include myself in
that group. All the 5th wheel testing that I have seen uses a chalk gun
actuated by the brake light switch that fires when the brakes are applied.
They are usually located at the center of the spindle. After the vehicle
has come to a rest, all one has to do is drop a line from the center of the
wheel to the ground, and measure back to the chalk mark. That distance can
be interpreted as the stopping distance. Several stops are usually
performed, and average stopping distances can be determined as well as
brake fade and other information. With the videos that we are all looking
at, no such data is available. So, no conclusions can accurately be drawn
by ME or any one else with the same information to use. I know and
understand that you are a supporter of the reaction arm system, as I am.
Please do not be offended by my comments. It is not my intention to offend
anyone. I thought that viewing the second video would be self explanatory.
An error on my part for sure.
Jim Hupy
Salem, OR
78 GMC Royale 403
On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 10:13 AM, Mark <mark@habcycles.com> wrote:
>
>
> James Hupy wrote on Mon, 28 January 2013 09:20
> > I always get amused by "Monday morning quarterbacking " a system that is
> > new to the gmc community.
>
> Jeez, Jim... have you actually read anything I actually wrote?
>
> I'll say it for the umpteenth time... the RA system is a great thing.
> Best thing since sliced bread. NO ONE IS ARGUING THAT, so it's a little
> silly to keep acting like I am.
>
> I'm trying to look out for Jim K's best interests, and am getting taken to
> task for it.
>
> Pretend that we were talking about a fuel injection system instead of a
> braking system. Pretend that this fuel injection system was returning
> 13.5mpg (a 35% improvement). We'd all be singing its praises (just like we
> ALL are with the RA system).
>
> Now pretend that the vendor put out a video that claimed the system
> returned 28mpg. It's still a great system, and the developer will still
> deserve sainthood. But anyone who doesn't know the vendor will think he's
> selling snake oil, and his reputation will be tarnished for putting out a
> nonsensical and impossible claim. The FI system will forever be seen as
> "the one that claimed 28mpg", which won't be good for anyone (the vendor,
> obviously, as well as all the potential customers who will assume the claim
> is so silly that the system must be a hoax).
>
> Sure, fewer people realize that stopping a 12,000 pound vehicle (or a
> 2,000 pound vehicle) in 32 feet from 45mph is as silly as a GMC getting
> 28mpg, but that doesn't mean that it's not in Jim's best interest to avoid
> the appearance of overpromising, even if y'all think it's best to just not
> mention to the naked king that he forgot his clothes today... ;)
> --
> Mark Hickey
> Mesa, AZ
> 1978 Royale Center Kitchen
> _______________________________________________
> GMCnet mailing list
> Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
> http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
>
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] MATH QUESTION [message #196672 is a reply to message #196647] |
Mon, 28 January 2013 13:47 |
jhbridges
Messages: 8412
Registered: May 2011
Location: Braselton ga
Karma: -74
|
Senior Member |
|
|
I had to constantly remind the kid when we rebuilt the 340car, "Yes, everything under there is new. But the design and technology is 40 + years old. It >won't< stop like your Mom's Caravan." Fiortunately he and the car survived that experience.
From: Matt Colie <matt7323tze@gmail.com>
To: gmclist@temp.gmcnet.org
Sent: Monday, January 28, 2013 11:02 AM
Subject: Re: [GMCnet] MATH QUESTION
Steven Ferguson wrote on Mon, 28 January 2013 09:44
> I'll back up any claims Jim makes. That test drive convinced me that GM missed the boat when it came to the rear brakes on a GMC. I don't see how anyone can safely do without it. Plus, the price is right.
> Steve
Steve,
If you think GM missed something you may be right, but what they really missed was figuring out how to continue the program.
If you had been part of the RV world in the mid-seventies, you might just remember that when these hit the street, the first thing out of every reviewers mouth was "These things are fast and quiet and comfortable. They also stop as quickly as a car." The world was different forty years ago.
Matt
--
Matt & Mary Colie
'73 Glacier 23 Chaumière (say show-me-air) Just about as stock as you will find
SE Michigan - Twixt A2 and Detroit
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
Foolish Carriage, 76 26' Eleganza(?) with beaucoup mods and add - ons.
Braselton, Ga.
I forgive them all, save those who hurt the dogs. They must answer to me in hell
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Tue Oct 15 03:17:34 CDT 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.06642 seconds
|
GMCforum
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
