Gorilla Performance Bal-Bar Balance Bar Dual MC's NO BOOSTER Required
05-13-2010, 11:46 AM
#21
3rd Gear Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location:
Posts: 939
But to remain on track, my ENTIRE POINT originally is that a balance bar assembly while superior for controlling bias under maximum braking, can not change to a different bias to account for reduced front tire loading during light-medium braking. That can POTENTIALLY lead to a car with an unbalanced brake system at light-medium braking, and depending on the conditions and the severity of the imbalance, it could lead to a loss of vehicle control. That is EXACTLY why that setup, even though much cheaper and far more reliable, is NOT used any any production car on Earth.
At the very least it will accelerate the wear of the front pads by under utilizing the rear brakes in normal driving. And while that may be acceptable for a weekend warrior that doesn't spend a lot of time driving around, on a daily driven street car it is an area of concern.
At the very least it will accelerate the wear of the front pads by under utilizing the rear brakes in normal driving. And while that may be acceptable for a weekend warrior that doesn't spend a lot of time driving around, on a daily driven street car it is an area of concern.
I'v been using dual CNC MC's with a balance bar on the street and the track for years, in all kinds of driving situations. It's a light weight car with a short wheel base and huge Wilwood brakes; doesn't get any trickier than that. I'v driven on very hot track days, and snowy mountain passes; high speed, low speed, bad roads, rain, snow, clean warm and dry. Carefull feathering coming down a wet 11,000' pass, and panic braking on a dry city street. You name it, this car has been there.
It just plain works, each and every time. I'v never found a street situation where it felt dangerous, or the balance was off.
The front pads wear faster than the rear. But that's the same on my Dodge truck, wifes Cougar, and my motorcycle. I don't see any differance.
Theory is good. Experiance is better. I don't know what else to tell you.
05-13-2010, 03:14 PM
#22
6th Gear Member
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: California
Posts: 10,468
In a properly designed system most of the bias control comes from the system design, master cylinder size, pad size/friction, rotor diameter, caliper/drum piston diameter etc. When the system is properly designed to the car(as all factory brake systems are on production vehicles, barring the occasional failure of design by the factory), a hydraulic proportioning valve simply provides the last bit of control to vary the bias as necessary over the wide range of conditions. But it's mainly assisting an already balanced system.
Some production cars on occasion have even left a proportioning valve out to save cost, but those are usually on small economy cars with small tires and limited braking ability and suspension. So the general design of the brake system is adequate to control the car, though not optimal. But those cars are not designed for their performance and are often known for having poor braking ability.
But pretty much all cars(I'm not aware of any modern car designed without one), and especially performance street cars, use prop valves due to the large changes in load transfer that can occur from light braking up to maximum braking. It's the only way to effectively account for the large changes in tire loading that occur across the whole spectrum of braking conditions. Granted, prop valves have their limitations though.
I'm sure you're setup works fine, I have no reason to believe you're lying. In your case the whole system is obviously well balanced, but that doesn't mean that it's providing as good of a braking condition that it can under light braking, whether or not that matters to you. The problem with balance bar setups for street use is the whole brake system MUST be very well balanced to work across the whole range of conditions, but even then it will be less than optimal under some conditions than it would with a prop valve. It's simply the nature of the system. And I'm sure it works extremely well in track conditions, that's what that type of system is designed for.
As far as pad wear, yes, front pads always wear faster. But without a prop valve in street use, you WILL have situations where the front brakes work harder than they need to, so they'll wear even faster than they would normally. Whether you care or not is up to you. But the whole reason for prop valves in street cars is to try and balance the system as well as can be achieved across the whole range of braking conditions, though usually at the expense of completely maximizing performance under any 1 given condition.
Balance bar setups with 2 small m/c are more compact, cheaper and more reliable than a single tandem with a booster. Yet factories do not use them. The reason is as I stated, their goals for a street production(even high performance) car is different than a race car. They have different braking requirements so they need different systems. But for the average person running a balance bar setup in a street car, if they don't know what they're getting into when it comes to balancing a brake system, they can get themselves into major trouble. That and most people are unwilling to keep changing calipers and m/c to get different piston sizes until they find the optimal balance.
When it comes to automotive design, everything on a car is at best, a compromise. Street cars are street cars, race cars are race cars, and they each have to sacrifice something to gain something. Race cars are generally purpose built though to operate under very narrowly defined conditions, so the compromises they make are acceptable for increasing performance int he narrow range in which they operate. Street cars on the other hand generally have to sacrifice some performance everywhere in order to work well across a wider range of conditions.
Some production cars on occasion have even left a proportioning valve out to save cost, but those are usually on small economy cars with small tires and limited braking ability and suspension. So the general design of the brake system is adequate to control the car, though not optimal. But those cars are not designed for their performance and are often known for having poor braking ability.
But pretty much all cars(I'm not aware of any modern car designed without one), and especially performance street cars, use prop valves due to the large changes in load transfer that can occur from light braking up to maximum braking. It's the only way to effectively account for the large changes in tire loading that occur across the whole spectrum of braking conditions. Granted, prop valves have their limitations though.
I'm sure you're setup works fine, I have no reason to believe you're lying. In your case the whole system is obviously well balanced, but that doesn't mean that it's providing as good of a braking condition that it can under light braking, whether or not that matters to you. The problem with balance bar setups for street use is the whole brake system MUST be very well balanced to work across the whole range of conditions, but even then it will be less than optimal under some conditions than it would with a prop valve. It's simply the nature of the system. And I'm sure it works extremely well in track conditions, that's what that type of system is designed for.
As far as pad wear, yes, front pads always wear faster. But without a prop valve in street use, you WILL have situations where the front brakes work harder than they need to, so they'll wear even faster than they would normally. Whether you care or not is up to you. But the whole reason for prop valves in street cars is to try and balance the system as well as can be achieved across the whole range of braking conditions, though usually at the expense of completely maximizing performance under any 1 given condition.
Balance bar setups with 2 small m/c are more compact, cheaper and more reliable than a single tandem with a booster. Yet factories do not use them. The reason is as I stated, their goals for a street production(even high performance) car is different than a race car. They have different braking requirements so they need different systems. But for the average person running a balance bar setup in a street car, if they don't know what they're getting into when it comes to balancing a brake system, they can get themselves into major trouble. That and most people are unwilling to keep changing calipers and m/c to get different piston sizes until they find the optimal balance.
When it comes to automotive design, everything on a car is at best, a compromise. Street cars are street cars, race cars are race cars, and they each have to sacrifice something to gain something. Race cars are generally purpose built though to operate under very narrowly defined conditions, so the compromises they make are acceptable for increasing performance int he narrow range in which they operate. Street cars on the other hand generally have to sacrifice some performance everywhere in order to work well across a wider range of conditions.
05-14-2010, 10:29 AM
#23
6th Gear Member
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: state of confusion
Posts: 7,635
I really doubt that you could qualify an unassisted brake system to FMVSS pedal force requirements, and I'm having a little difficulty believing that the total force required at two separate M/C's in parallel is any different from that required in a tandem arrangement providing the same brake line pressures and volumes.
What happens if one brake circuit loses pressure boundary integrity? The long pedal would be expected just as in a tandem setup, but what about the consequences of the linkage geometry changing as that happens?
I'm somewhat familiar with the various parameters involved in this, and have a brake balance (with hydraulic proportioning) spreadsheet on another computer that covers everything mentioned so far (and I think a couple of things that haven't).
I see one of the differences here being whether you wish to set your braking up to optimize braking at one specific rate of deceleration or need to optimize for a wider range of conditions.
I can also see where somebody with only a little knowledge might find reason to add rear braking for certain very specific uses, and subsequently forget to reset it to the "normal" setting afterward. An overbraked rear axle can result in a rather unpleasant situation, and it cannot be said that it couldn't happen. Anybody who can't figure out pretty quickly the sorts of situations that I'm getting at shouldn't be playing with brake balance in the first place. PERIOD. So I won't flat-out say what they are (and hope that nobody else does - hint, hint).
Norm
What happens if one brake circuit loses pressure boundary integrity? The long pedal would be expected just as in a tandem setup, but what about the consequences of the linkage geometry changing as that happens?
I'm somewhat familiar with the various parameters involved in this, and have a brake balance (with hydraulic proportioning) spreadsheet on another computer that covers everything mentioned so far (and I think a couple of things that haven't).
I see one of the differences here being whether you wish to set your braking up to optimize braking at one specific rate of deceleration or need to optimize for a wider range of conditions.
I can also see where somebody with only a little knowledge might find reason to add rear braking for certain very specific uses, and subsequently forget to reset it to the "normal" setting afterward. An overbraked rear axle can result in a rather unpleasant situation, and it cannot be said that it couldn't happen. Anybody who can't figure out pretty quickly the sorts of situations that I'm getting at shouldn't be playing with brake balance in the first place. PERIOD. So I won't flat-out say what they are (and hope that nobody else does - hint, hint).
Norm
Last edited by Norm Peterson; 05-14-2010 at 10:43 AM.
05-15-2010, 12:22 AM
#24
Former Sponsor
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2010
Location: NV
Posts: 54
I really doubt that you could qualify an unassisted brake system to FMVSS pedal force requirements, and I'm having a little difficulty believing that the total force required at two separate M/C's in parallel is any different from that required in a tandem arrangement providing the same brake line pressures and volumes.
What happens if one brake circuit loses pressure boundary integrity? The long pedal would be expected just as in a tandem setup, but what about the consequences of the linkage geometry changing as that happens?
I'm somewhat familiar with the various parameters involved in this, and have a brake balance (with hydraulic proportioning) spreadsheet on another computer that covers everything mentioned so far (and I think a couple of things that haven't).
I see one of the differences here being whether you wish to set your braking up to optimize braking at one specific rate of deceleration or need to optimize for a wider range of conditions.
I can also see where somebody with only a little knowledge might find reason to add rear braking for certain very specific uses, and subsequently forget to reset it to the "normal" setting afterward. An overbraked rear axle can result in a rather unpleasant situation, and it cannot be said that it couldn't happen. Anybody who can't figure out pretty quickly the sorts of situations that I'm getting at shouldn't be playing with brake balance in the first place. PERIOD. So I won't flat-out say what they are (and hope that nobody else does - hint, hint).
Norm
What happens if one brake circuit loses pressure boundary integrity? The long pedal would be expected just as in a tandem setup, but what about the consequences of the linkage geometry changing as that happens?
I'm somewhat familiar with the various parameters involved in this, and have a brake balance (with hydraulic proportioning) spreadsheet on another computer that covers everything mentioned so far (and I think a couple of things that haven't).
I see one of the differences here being whether you wish to set your braking up to optimize braking at one specific rate of deceleration or need to optimize for a wider range of conditions.
I can also see where somebody with only a little knowledge might find reason to add rear braking for certain very specific uses, and subsequently forget to reset it to the "normal" setting afterward. An overbraked rear axle can result in a rather unpleasant situation, and it cannot be said that it couldn't happen. Anybody who can't figure out pretty quickly the sorts of situations that I'm getting at shouldn't be playing with brake balance in the first place. PERIOD. So I won't flat-out say what they are (and hope that nobody else does - hint, hint).
Norm
You brought some good points up and I am glad you showed interest in responding to the thread. Anyone willing to learn and understand more about how brakes work is a blessing. Any additional knowledge you learn will assist you in make good decisions and assist you should your brake system need repair or upgrade. I will try to explain this in terms you can understand, some times by mind goes to fast for my fingers or I forget that not everybody has the knowledge of hydraulics. BTW I learn most of the fundamental Hydraulic principles from by irrigation back ground.
In the case of complete lost of brake fluid in the front or rear braking system. The remaining master cylinder would then receive all the resistance on the balance bar. The pedal will have travel a little further than without the resistance of the failed master cylinder. Never stated or quoted a FMVSS pedal requirement in my posting. There is no requirement by the FMVSS for pedal force. Section 105 FMVSS Hydraulic and Electrical Brake Systems. I only stated to lock up the wheel it takes about 1,000 psi. In regards to the force required it is just physics and math, i.e. The bore size of 3/4" requires less pressure than 1" to have the same output pressure. Let me explain it a different way. When you put your thumb over the end of a garden hose you reduce the size of the hole so, the you have more pressure. You received the "MORE PRESSURE" without increasing the flow at the faucet. Same thing in a brake system it is simple Hydraulics. Bore size is a direct related to output pressure. All of this will not work correctly without the proper "pedal ratio". Pedal Ratio, Bore Size and Applied Pressure with your foot are direct related and part of the formula to determine your output pressure from the master cylinder. No matter what anybody says you can not change physics and math.
Here is how the balance bar is engineered:
1. The master cylinders are placed 2.625" on center apart.
2. The threaded rod on each side is 1.3125" long x 0.375" diameter.
3. The sleeve is 1.5" long or 50% is 0.75" and 0.5" inside diameter..
4. The clevis is 0.75" or 50% is 0.375"
5. Most master cylinders have a maximum travel of 1.0 to 1.2 inches. In order for the master cylinder to move 1" your 6:1 Pedal has to move 6". So when your pedal move 3" the MC is only moving 0.50" or 1/2". This is the same as the travel of the MC(s) rod(s).
If you would think of a triangle and the distance traveled towards the firewall as the "height" of the triangle, length of the sleeve as the base and the balance bar as the hypotenuse (long length). The threaded rod will hit the inside of the sleeve after 0.3125" of travel. OR the sleeve's inside radius of 0.500" - 0.1875" (radius of the rod). This would mean with a 6:1 pedal ratio the brake pedal (at the brake pad) would have to move 0.3125" x 6 = 1.875" before the balance bar would lock up.
The 1.875" is a minimum amount of travel, on a street application. If you want this travel reduced all you have to do is put a 3/8" I.D. hose over the threaded rod between the bearing inside the sleeve and the clevis. This will increase the diameter of the threaded rod, thus reducing the distance of travel before it locks up. However when you do that it limits your overall balance adjustment should you want a race setup. I do not think you need to do this, but for the sake of argument this distance is less than a failed Tandem MC (OEM Type) will travel.
I repeat again: Once you set up the balance bar system you are done on a street application. It is no different than setting up your brake proportion through an adjustable proportional valve. On a street car you do not change your adjustable type proportional valve (with a ****) every time you get in the car. Same thing on a balance bar system. Once you set it you leave it alone. The balance bar offers an additional adjustment for the advance driver.
In regards to your spread sheet information on hydraulic brake proportioning. This data is only good for a specific application and should be used in general. It will not apply unless all of the fixed factors are the same for the application you are comparing it to.
Example:
Car 1: 67 Mustang FB, using same size tires front and back, small block Ford w/4sp and single piston caliper in front and single piston caliper in the back and using a manual 1" bore mc.
Car 2: 67 Mustang FB, using 428CJ w/C6, everything else the same.
Car 2 will need more braking engineered into the front brake system than the back because of the weight of the car. Any change weight, size tires, mc, bore size of the pistons, ....anything will effect how much front to rear balance a car needs vs another car.
When adjusting the balance between the front and rear you have to talk in general because of this factor. There is no set percentage or pounds or whatever to set the balance front/rear on your car. The reason the factory can do it, is because all the cars are the same. That is why you should NEVER ever install a universal proportioning valve or what I call a combination valve (brass block) because the are just that universal The factory has different combo valves for different model cars. Why all of a sudden we can put the same combo valve in for a pickup and a Lincoln? There is no substitute for actually testing and adjusting your specific car.
Regarding your last paragraph. As so stated many times. Once you make the initial setting your are done. NO different than setting up an adjustable prop valve.
The brake article tries to explain this in simple terms. An engineer will tell you that all the formula so stated in this thread and the brake article are correct. Physics and math will not change. Everything stated can be proven with theses factors. The only debate is the guy who plays with it after the initial adjustment is made......
No where in this thread did I state everybody should take off what they have installed in their car and replace it with this product. This product and the CNC product gives you Mustang Owners another way to stop your car. The optimum application is fixed 4 or 6 piston calipers in the front and back and/or drums in back. This is because we are sizing down the MC's to 3/4" bore to get the 1400 psi. Up until the CNC master cylinder set up was introduced the only way you could mount this is with custom aftermarket pedals. This system allows you to keep the stock pedals. When your engine does not produce the vacuum required to operate a booster this will provide you with high output pressure without having to install a band-aid like vacuum pumps and hydro-boosters. There is nothing wrong with the CNC setup it is nice, clean, high quality and has an easy screw on fill cap. Our unit does not have the screw on fill cap, but it is more compact and this is a must in a Mustang.
Norm, if you need specific information I would be glad to provide it to you. Any thing regarding understanding formulas or the physics and how it works I should be able to answer. Questions on you car? I don't know, but should be able to point you in the right direction. Please keep this thread limited to balance bar and dual master cylinder. If you have another brake problem and do a new thread email me and I will look for it and answer you.
Last edited by Gorilla Performance; 05-15-2010 at 02:51 PM.
05-15-2010, 08:48 AM
#25
6th Gear Member
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: state of confusion
Posts: 7,635
As you push the pedal when there's a bad hydraulic circuit, the good side will see very little force until the bad side bottoms, so your long pedal is going to be extremely soft initially as well (about like having no brakes at all). There isn't enough mass rotational moment of inertia or just mass to dynamically generate much resistance on the bad side. At best, you've got whatever force it takes to force fluid out through the leak. So you can't generate much pedal force F from the tiny "m" times "a", and due to human limitations on foot speed, you can't even develop much "a". Less than "not much pedal force F" is what you end up with on the good M/C.
My point in mentioning FMVSS wasn't intended to suggest that aftermarket products must meet it. But it is a good general guideline to follow. I think the force criteria is more on the order of 50 lbs than 100.
In regards to your spread sheet information on hydraulic brake proportioning. This data is only good for a specific application and should be used in general. It will not apply unless all of the fixed factors are the same for the application you are comparing it to.
Just so you know, prop valve initial and secondary slopes and knee points are all basic inputs to that sheet, (I opened one of them up on the other computer). IOW, it is intended to handle a wide variety of adjustable prop valves, not just somebody's OE part number (though obviously it can work with those, too). There's another version that does an iterative solution for some setting or other (haven't used that one in a while).
My last paragraph - don't ever underestimate what other people might do to solve what they think is one problem without considering the impact of whatever actions they take on what happens under different circumstances. When adjustments can be made to the advantage of some particular situation, sooner or later somebody will do just that. IOW, with regard to leave a setting alone once it's been set, it's not what they should do (or not do, as the case may be) that I'm getting at here, it's what they might do.
BTW, don't feel that you have to dumb any of this stuff down for me. Let's just say that I've been in engineering for a while, and interested in vehicle dynamics for a few years longer than that. Dunno, there might still be a crude hint on my profile page.
Norm
Last edited by Norm Peterson; 05-15-2010 at 09:04 AM.
05-15-2010, 11:38 AM
#26
Former Sponsor
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2010
Location: NV
Posts: 54
Not until the dead side's pushrod has bottomed out against something. When that happens, the good side will still only see its preset proportion of the force applied to the balance bar from the pedal. IOW, you cannot gain anything on the good side unless the bottoming out somehow changes the proportioning favorably to it. I'm a little more concerned about the good side pushrod being pulled laterally out of alignment with the M/C piston due to that pesky hypotenuse thingy.
As you push the pedal when there's a bad hydraulic circuit, the good side will see very little force until the bad side bottoms, so your long pedal is going to be extremely soft initially as well (about like having no brakes at all). There isn't enough mass rotational moment of inertia or just mass to dynamically generate much resistance on the bad side. At best, you've got whatever force it takes to force fluid out through the leak. So you can't generate much pedal force F from the tiny "m" times "a", and due to human limitations on foot speed, you can't even develop much "a". Less than "not much pedal force F" is what you end up with on the good M/C.
As you push the pedal when there's a bad hydraulic circuit, the good side will see very little force until the bad side bottoms, so your long pedal is going to be extremely soft initially as well (about like having no brakes at all). There isn't enough mass rotational moment of inertia or just mass to dynamically generate much resistance on the bad side. At best, you've got whatever force it takes to force fluid out through the leak. So you can't generate much pedal force F from the tiny "m" times "a", and due to human limitations on foot speed, you can't even develop much "a". Less than "not much pedal force F" is what you end up with on the good M/C.
Here is how the balance bar is engineered:
1. The master cylinders are placed 2.625" on center apart.
2. The threaded rod on each side is 1.3125" long x 0.375" diameter.
3. The sleeve is 1.5" long or 50% is 0.75" and 0.5" inside diameter..
4. The clevis is 0.75" or 50% is 0.375"
5. Most master cylinders have a maximum travel of 1.0 to 1.2 inches. In order for the master cylinder to move 1" your 6:1 Pedal has to move 6". So when your pedal move 3" the MC is only moving 0.50" or 1/2". This is the same as the travel of the MC(s) rod(s).
If you would think of a triangle and the distance traveled towards the firewall as the "height" of the triangle, length of the sleeve as the base and the balance bar as the hypotenuse (long length). The threaded rod will hit the inside of the sleeve after 0.3125" of travel. OR the sleeve's inside radius of 0.500" - 0.1875" (radius of the rod). This would mean with a 6:1 pedal ratio the brake pedal (at the brake pad) would have to move 0.3125" x 6 = 1.875" before the balance bar would lock up.
The 1.875" is a minimum amount of travel, on a street application. If you want this travel reduced all you have to do is put a 3/8" I.D. hose over the threaded rod between the bearing inside the sleeve and the clevis. This will increase the diameter of the threaded rod, thus reducing the distance of travel before it locks up. However when you do that it limits your overall balance adjustment should you want a race setup. I do not think you need to do this, but for the sake of argument this distance is less than with a failed Tandem MC (OEM type) will travel.
The dead master cylinder does not have anything to do with travel of the good master cylinder. You do not have to hook up a master cylinder on one side. After 1.875" of pedal travel (at the brake pad) the bar will lock up. It only takes 0.3125" of travel towards the firewall for this to happen. The main factor is the inside diameter of the sleeve and the diameter of the threaded rod.
My point in mentioning FMVSS wasn't intended to suggest that aftermarket products must meet it. But it is a good general guideline to follow. I think the force criteria is more on the order of 50 lbs than 100.
Only a handful of people have seen any version of that sheet, and obviously you're not one of them, else you wouldn't make that sort of comment.
Only a handful of people have seen any version of that sheet, and obviously you're not one of them, else you wouldn't make that sort of comment.
I only know what Section 105 of the FMVSS states and regulates. If you want to email me a copy I would be glad to take the time to look over the data. I was speaking in general. Any data sheet you have on proportion ratios and adjustment can only be applied to a specific vehicle. So, you can not take the exact percentage of front vs rear adjustment and apply it to every vehicle.
Just so you know, prop valve initial and secondary slopes and knee points are all basic inputs to that sheet, (I opened one of them up on the other computer). IOW, it is intended to handle a wide variety of adjustable prop valves, not just somebody's OE part number (though obviously it can work with those, too). There's another version that does an iterative solution for some setting or other (haven't used that one in a while).
My last paragraph - don't ever underestimate what other people might do to solve what they think is one problem without considering the impact of whatever actions they take on what happens under different circumstances. When adjustments can be made to the advantage of some particular situation, sooner or later somebody will do just that. IOW, with regard to leave a setting alone once it's been set, it's not what they should do (or not do, as the case may be) that I'm getting at here, it's what they might do.
My last paragraph - don't ever underestimate what other people might do to solve what they think is one problem without considering the impact of whatever actions they take on what happens under different circumstances. When adjustments can be made to the advantage of some particular situation, sooner or later somebody will do just that. IOW, with regard to leave a setting alone once it's been set, it's not what they should do (or not do, as the case may be) that I'm getting at here, it's what they might do.
Yes, you are correct nobody can control what someone will do. I do not know what that has to do with this part. It is easier to turn the **** of an adjustable proportional valve, then it is to adjust the balance bar assembly under the dash with wrenches. You do not use a optional adjustable remote adjuster for the street application. Once you set the bar you leave it alone.
A remote adjuster is only used for racing. It is seldom used in street applications. That person is usually more than qualified to drive with it.
This thread is getting way more complicated than it should. The dual master cylinders with a balance bar is no different than installing a manual MC, MC/booster, MC/hydro-boost, MC/booster/electric vacuum pump or anything else that will apply pressure to the calipers or wheel cylinders. All this has to be initially adjusted once you adjust it you are done. The Bal-Bar™ System just offers you more options, using a stock pedal, manual adjustment of balance for front/rear, placement of master cylinders can be moved to the left by adding a spacer at the pedal, hydraulic clutch brackets and the use of optional remote master cylinders with the smallest amount of room in the engine compartment. All this is mechanical and you should only have to replace the seals in the MC and brake fluid. Nothing else to fail like a combination valve, proportional valve, booster, hydro-booster, electric vacuum pump.... etc. And the everything is made in the USA.
Isn't the aim of this Forum to help and educate people so that we can build better and safer cars? Computers and the internet has given us the means to gain this knowledge. You can not put a value on life, all the money in the world can not bring back someone. If we can save one person's life by members reading this Forum, everybody should be blessed.
Last edited by Gorilla Performance; 05-15-2010 at 03:58 PM.
05-15-2010, 09:38 PM
#28
Former Sponsor
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2010
Location: NV
Posts: 54
05-16-2010, 09:35 AM
#29
6th Gear Member
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: state of confusion
Posts: 7,635
I suspect that details concerning the method of adjustment means that there isn't a whole lot of moment resistance at the point where the pedal force is applied to the adjustment screw. The good thing is that in the event of one circuit failing, the screw adjuster isn't going to be placed under much bending until the screw adjuster bottoms out radially. Whatever force on the good M/C will be linked to some amount of bending in the adjustment screw, or so it looks. If so, Is this screw to be a separately available piece should this situation arise?
I fully understand that no matter what you do to revise an existing OE brake system other than to something already known to be a sound arrangement, you do need to do some final testing and tweaking. No argument there. Numbers get you in the ballpark, and can provide hints as to performing whatever iterative tuning is required. But you need the testing to ensure that you've got it right if it is, or put it right if it isn't.
I feel that my point about what people might do is pertinent in that once you sell a product such as this to a wider audience than principally road racers, experienced open-trackers, and autocrossers, you're going to encounter a few folks with just enough learning to be dangerous. And possibly with enough willingness to experiment with anything that's adjustable to be really dangerous. You understand what's going on, 67Mustang does, I do, and so do maybe a few hundred more of the 100,000+ MustangForums members . . . that leaves a lot of folks who don't.
I agree with your last paragraph. It also offers the means for product review where we ALL come away having learned something, and once in a while a refinement of the product also happens (I've seen this happen). Yours is not the first product that has been "put through the wringer" via internet review.
Norm
I fully understand that no matter what you do to revise an existing OE brake system other than to something already known to be a sound arrangement, you do need to do some final testing and tweaking. No argument there. Numbers get you in the ballpark, and can provide hints as to performing whatever iterative tuning is required. But you need the testing to ensure that you've got it right if it is, or put it right if it isn't.
I feel that my point about what people might do is pertinent in that once you sell a product such as this to a wider audience than principally road racers, experienced open-trackers, and autocrossers, you're going to encounter a few folks with just enough learning to be dangerous. And possibly with enough willingness to experiment with anything that's adjustable to be really dangerous. You understand what's going on, 67Mustang does, I do, and so do maybe a few hundred more of the 100,000+ MustangForums members . . . that leaves a lot of folks who don't.
I agree with your last paragraph. It also offers the means for product review where we ALL come away having learned something, and once in a while a refinement of the product also happens (I've seen this happen). Yours is not the first product that has been "put through the wringer" via internet review.
Norm
Last edited by Norm Peterson; 05-16-2010 at 09:37 AM.
05-16-2010, 11:23 AM
#30
Former Sponsor
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2010
Location: NV
Posts: 54
Hello Norm,
Here are some quick answers. Your comments are appreciated.
The system has been around for over 30 year, the basic difference is using it with a stock pedal. I developed this because of the boom in Muscle Cars. The balance bar assembly is a Wilwood part number 340-1737 which we buy in bulk. In a race or track/street car you can use Wilwood part number 340-4990. Coleman also makes one that is a lever.
This is ideal for the Mustang owner that has no vacuum and with little or no room in the engine compartment. It is also another option for the 64-66 Mustang owner with stock shock towers, because it only uses 16 to 25 square inches of engine space.
I might have gotten off on the wrong foot so I apologize to anyone I might have offended. I know everybody has lost a dear one and wishes we could bring them back. I think that Forums have saved many lives, because of the knowledge their members have gained. I am a senior citizen and when I look back at the unsafe things I did in the past, I am blessed to be alive today. When we are gone the people we hurt the most are our loved ones. If I knowingly could save one person's life I would feel blessed. Let's all try to help each other through this Forum by making the world a safer place to live.
Here are some quick answers. Your comments are appreciated.
I suspect that details concerning the method of adjustment means that there isn't a whole lot of moment resistance at the point where the pedal force is applied to the adjustment screw. The good thing is that in the event of one circuit failing, the screw adjuster isn't going to be placed under much bending until the screw adjuster bottoms out radially. Whatever force on the good M/C will be linked to some amount of bending in the adjustment screw, or so it looks. If so, Is this screw to be a separately available piece should this situation arise?
I fully understand that no matter what you do to revise an existing OE brake system other than to something already known to be a sound arrangement, you do need to do some final testing and tweaking. No argument there. Numbers get you in the ballpark, and can provide hints as to performing whatever iterative tuning is required. But you need the testing to ensure that you've got it right if it is, or put it right if it isn't.
I fully understand that no matter what you do to revise an existing OE brake system other than to something already known to be a sound arrangement, you do need to do some final testing and tweaking. No argument there. Numbers get you in the ballpark, and can provide hints as to performing whatever iterative tuning is required. But you need the testing to ensure that you've got it right if it is, or put it right if it isn't.
I feel that my point about what people might do is pertinent in that once you sell a product such as this to a wider audience than principally road racers, experienced open-trackers, and autocrossers, you're going to encounter a few folks with just enough learning to be dangerous. And possibly with enough willingness to experiment with anything that's adjustable to be really dangerous. You understand what's going on, 67Mustang does, I do, and so do maybe a few hundred more of the 100,000+ MustangForums members . . . that leaves a lot of folks who don't.
I agree with your last paragraph. It also offers the means for product review where we ALL come away having learned something, and once in a while a refinement of the product also happens (I've seen this happen). Yours is not the first product that has been "put through the wringer" via internet review.
Norm
I agree with your last paragraph. It also offers the means for product review where we ALL come away having learned something, and once in a while a refinement of the product also happens (I've seen this happen). Yours is not the first product that has been "put through the wringer" via internet review.
Norm
I might have gotten off on the wrong foot so I apologize to anyone I might have offended. I know everybody has lost a dear one and wishes we could bring them back. I think that Forums have saved many lives, because of the knowledge their members have gained. I am a senior citizen and when I look back at the unsafe things I did in the past, I am blessed to be alive today. When we are gone the people we hurt the most are our loved ones. If I knowingly could save one person's life I would feel blessed. Let's all try to help each other through this Forum by making the world a safer place to live.
Last edited by Gorilla Performance; 05-16-2010 at 11:37 AM.