PaulB wrote:Sprint95 thank you for your reply. However......
You did not answer the question about the route cause for the 'problem' on the late tandem brake system and why it is poor compared with the early single line brakes.The reason for the post was that I am curious as to why they are different, not what modifications there may be.
I am well aware that the change was caused by legislation, but Triumph could have introduced a different change which might not have had a detrimental effect.
The brake systems are fundamentally the same, so the discs and calipers are capable of stopping the car for normal road use. Our late Sprint is a very original concours winning car so I don't want to fit anything like a trackerjack conversion.

I did answer the question surely?
Triumph, instead of specifying a small bore alternative, could have used the same BMC as Saab (and Audi, Volvo, etc).
Aside from the numbers on the casting, these all look the same externally (for the same production period).
From my experience, I think the brake pad material argument is a bit of a red herring....
in the 90s, when you could still buy OE pads, I tried both types on my Sprint. The much dearer Sprint ones (60% dearer) lasted longer but the brakes were no different.
Similarly we used to swap between Ford, Hillman, etc and feel no difference even though some had larger friction pad surfaces.
Re the EBC pads, I had these on a T2500 which had XJ12 calipers. I tried Unipart (non asbestos) pads and found no difference in braking.
With brake pads, what I have seen a couple of times is the linings detaching (on a Maestro and an Opel Manta). I think the main wear nowadays is to brake discs rather than pads.
If I need to replace discs, this is always done in conjunction with new pads.
Ian.