Actually no, Paul.
GT cylinders, being slightly smaller in diameter, exert less force on
the shoes, vs roadster cylinders.
The reason for that was the additional 200 odd pounds more on the GT is
above the location of the Roadster CG, thus raising the GT's by a small
amount, but enough to change the weight transfer under braking (and all
other manuvers for that matter). This additional weight transfer
increased the likelyhood of rear wheel lock-up.
By reducing the force at the rear shoes, rear wheel lockup is dimished.
The total braking force on the system is the same with the roadster and
GT. The GT just distributes a greater portion to the front.
Rick Morrison
72 MGBGT
74 Midget
On Fri, 2 Apr 1999 16:31:11 +0100 "Paul Hunt" <paul.hunt1@virgin.net>
writes:
>GT wheel cylinders give *greater* braking effort to cope with the
>additional
>weight, that is why roadster backplates and wheel cylinders have
>different
>peg arrangements.
>
>PaulH.
>http://freespace.virgin.net/paul.hunt1/
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Bill Schooler <schooler@erols.com>
>To: xyzabcde@earthlink.net <xyzabcde@earthlink.net>
>Cc: Charley & Peggy Robinson <ccrobins@ktc.com>; mgs@autox.team.net
><mgs@autox.team.net>
>Date: 31 March 1999 13:25
>Subject: Re: Wet brakes don't work, Part II
>
>
>>Denise,
>>
>>I have always been amused by some of the "puffery" language used by
>VB
>>in their catalog. "Upgraded" rear wheel cylinders are nothing more
>than
>>the wheel cylinders for GTs. Different internal diameter yields
>>different braking pressure.
>>
>>For your info file - in 30 years of driving the same MGB, only once
>did
>>I experience weak braking from water. This occurred during an
>extremely
>>heavy rainstorm, with lots of standing water on the road. Upon
>>application of the brakes, braking from the front was ineffective
>until
>>the pads wiped away enough of the water to grab. The effect was
>>momentary and normal braking was restored rather quickly.
>>
>>I'll be most interested in what the probem is.
>>
>>Bill
>>
>>xyzabcde@earthlink.net wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Charley,
>>>
>>> The reason I haven't tested any part of the brake system at this
>point is
>that I
>>> have 20 years and 200K miles of driving data to work with. In that
>time,
>I've
>>> verified many times that all portions of the the brake system work
>and
>nothing
>>> has changed lately. I asked for the list wisdom on this one before
>I did
>much
>>> investigation because I wanted to know which I would be looking
>for--a
>problem
>>> with my car, or a design defect.
>>> Now that I know that I'm looking for relative braking power between
>the
>front
>>> and rear brakes, I know what I need to do to test it, including
>what you
>>> suggest. I know that there's no major failure in my braking
>system, but
>>> something is marginal and I plan to quantify it before I change
>anything.
>>>
>>> However, I was looking through parts catalogues today, and
>discovered
>something
>>> that suggests that this may just be "the nature of the beast."
>Victoria
>British
>>> offers upgraded rear wheel cylinders. Here's what they say:
>>>
>>> "Under heavy braking, MGB roadsters and all MGC's have a tendancy
>for the
>rear
>>> brakes to lock up. Replacing them with upgraded rear wheel
>cylinders
>reduces
>>> the rear brake pressure and creates a better balance between front
>and
>rear
>>> braking."
>>>
>>> If I can't find anything that would diminish the braking power of
>the
>front
>>> brakes, I may try these wheel cylinders. However, I still like the
>idea
>of an
>>> apportioning valve so I can adjust the balance to any value, but
>that
>would
>>> require major replumbing.
>>>
>>> Thanks for the suggestion and send along any others you have. I'll
>let
>the list
>>> know what I find.
>>>
>>> Denise Thorpe
>>> BTW, black widow spider webs are tougher than other webs, so I can
>tell
>by feel
>>> when I'm in danger.
>>>
>>> Charley & Peggy Robinson wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Hi Denise,
>>> >
>>> > Have you jacked up the front of the car and tested the front
>brakes
>to
>>> > see how they work? Forgive me if I've missed something but all
>I've
>>> > seen is conjecture.
>>> >
>>> > CR
>>
>
|