Quote:
(And to be clear, I don't do personal attacks of any type. Just no point. Apologies if my comments caused offence)
The use of "bogus" was very certainly offensive. If it was used mistakenly for "wrong", and not to mean "a falsification" (as it really does), then I suppose I accept the apology.
Quote:
Quote:
And, as even Steve seems to agree, there are risks and disadvantages in being able to lock the wheels, even just the front ones, too easily. I would also argue that if you want to be able to easily lock the front wheels on a clean dry road (i.e. not race track), there's yet another personal problem that needs professional attention - at least one of the parties in that relationship should be certified.
Graham
Too right I do!
Steve,
I was, at first, unsure whether it was "too right" you think there are problems in it being too easy to lock-up, or "too right" about wanting "to be able to easily lock the front wheels on a clean dry road" and so needing professional attention. But that was soon resolved.
Clive,
And I also agree with the rest of what Steve wrote. But I don't see him as suggesting that bigger brakes necessarily stop you more quickly.
I have been down the route of thinking bigger brakes will be better, with the TR7s years ago - I've had TR8 and SD1 calipers, Big Princess 4-pots, spaced-out M16s on vented disks, and even a set of AP Racing Alloy calipers; with and without 4 speed rear cylinders. So I do know from experience that all they do is make it feel like it's easier to stop by changing the ratio between pedal pressure and brake force. And that, if you go far enough, it gets too easy to lock them, and that's no fun. But they don't, of themselves, shorten stopping distance or increase maximum deceleration. And anyone who suggests they do is simply wrong.
I also know that, in combination with enough increase in grip (on propper minilites), bigger front brakes can increase the risk of the rear wheels locking first and that that's no fun at all.
And on the issue of whether the Sprint brakes are good enough for a standard car on the road: Yesterday, I found a reasonably dry road (for round here) and locked the front wheels as a test, and it was no hardship at all - and that's with the small servo. It took deliberate intent, that's true. But that's what it
should take, especially on a dry road, etc. Because, given any wet or newness of tire, as we all know (or should), it gets even easier to lock the front wheels (but commensurately harder to lock the rear ones first).
And I'm not especially strong - quite the opposite. So I don't understand why the statements that the standard brakes on the Sprint are inadequate other than by way of what Jon Tilson wrote about poor maintenance, etc. I can't comment on Jon's implications about the suitability of the Sprint for women drivers (she won't let me).
However, I do accept I'm not used to driving modern cars - especially with ABS - that would be safe, brakewize, even when stolen by 12 year old girls. But while I write "used to" I am thinking "spoiled by", even if ABS would be an interesting addition to the Sprint.
As to this issue of changing pad size you keep harping back to: the point still remains that it wouldn't, on its own, make any difference to brake effort. And I proved that for myself, experimentally, before I even did O levels. We also had a test bench setup when I worked in the motor vehicle dept. of York College of Arts and Tech that let you experiment with aspects of brake setup in isolation, and was so safe we let apprentices play with it. So, whether it's possible or not to change pad size alone, without affecting any of the relevant parameters of brake specification,
it does not matter. And if it is or if it's not, that isn't proof of anything important, not even a flaw of logic.
And Steve, you surely didn't already know that one: that Force = Mass x Velocity - Newton should accelerate a 1 Kg mass by 1 meter per second squared in his grave.
Graham