> When I read Roger Williams' book (How To
> Improve Triumph TR5, 250 and 6) he states: "If you feel you want more
> agressive rear brakes then you will need to reduce the size of the slave
> [wheel] cylinders. 0.625 would be the smaller size used by most to upgrade
> their rears, but if your rears are locking and you want to ease their
> application, try the 0.75 in. diameter cylinders."
That must be a misprint (or a misquote, I don't have the book yet).
> It seems to me that if your
> rears don't lock up at the same time as the fronts, it's a safe
> bet you can
> increase the rear wheel cylinder size.
If the fronts lock first, then increasing the rear cylinder size should
lower stopping distances, since the clamping force will go up and hence
increase rear wheel braking when the fronts are at maximum (about to lock
up). Assuming of course you don't go too far, that is. Having the rears
lock first is probably worse than having the fronts lock first.
> No sense dragging the whole List into another long-winded discussion.
But that's just the point. If the topic is clear, the discussion tends to
be short-n-sweet. IMO muddy topics deserve further discussion.
Another point worth considering during this topic : brake balance depends on
a great many variables, some of which are different car to car and some of
which can even vary from one brake application to the next. Without an
active proportioning valve, setting the balance is always a compromise.
Also, in general, I believe car makers feel that having the bias towards the
front wheels locking first is safer. Although you lose directional control,
the car still tends to stop in a straight line. With the rears locked, it's
much more apt to spin out.
Randall
|