3rd Gen Concerns

I wrote you many times, disk brakes are more efficient at braking thus reducing collision. Do you want link to the study again ?

 

Again, in a circle because you won't read anything that's in response to your posts...

More efficient has no meaning in this case.

And your study is only relevant to 18 wheelers modeled in a computer simulator under conditions the researchers set for themselves.

So again. Explain in what way, exactly, how disks are superior to drums. I want to hear it from you. HOW are they better

 

2003 GMC Sierra, 2004 Olds Alero, 2007 Ford Ranger, and my 2009 Ford Focus all had rear drums . Only vehicles I ever owned that had rear discs were my work trucks and my 2012 Nissan Juke. Juke was fine, and so was my F150, by my Dodges just eat the rear rotors as mentioned.

Edit: Almost forgot, my ex wifes 2009 Ford Escape and 2012 (I think, could of been 2011) GMC Sierra also had rear drums.

 

It only has no meaning in your brain. Than again you did not knew about cars having 4 wheel disc brakes since 80's so not really a surprise there

 

I think Blue T thinks that disk brakes warp the fabric of time and slow the world down for those vehicles so equipped. Apparently friction, abs, weight transfer, etc mean nothing.

 

You showed one car with disks in 1984. You said beginning of 80s. 84 is not the beginning. I threw you a bone by saying 1981 and I threw you another bone with a 1981 Datsun that has rear disks that I obviously knew about before you were born.

You need to compile maybe 100 more cars for the year 1981 before you can claim any victory on this point, after you have shown 51% of those cars you compile for the same year having rear disks.

The lack of meaning is because you don't understand the science. Efficiency has to be defined. You shouldn't use $10 words if you don't know how to use them.

 

it should have been for for work also... How can it play if it doesn't work!

 

Blue T, which is more efficient, a 2x4 or a 2x8?

If you don't know what that means how can you possibly enter into the conversation.

 

I am still confused that with all the myriad of differences between trucks in the braking test (suspension, P vs LT, All Season vs All Terrain, tire size, ABS system logic & hardware).... We are somehow drawing a conclusion that drums ONLY caused the difference in braking distance. Idiotic.

I am left speechless at the displays of ignorance, cherry picking, and misunderstanding of concepts around here by a few folks.

 

Get started scooter.

AMC
Jeep CJ
Jeep Scrambler
Eagle
Eagle wagon

Chevy
1/2 truck
3/4 truck
Blazer
Suburban
Caprice
Camaro
Malibu
Monte Carlo
Corvette
El Camino
Citation
Chevette


Ford
1/2
3/4
Bronco
Mustang
LTD
T-bird
Fairmont
Escort.

 

84 is still beginning of 80's I suggest you check... I did not bother to look for more, since you dare me to find one I knew 300D had it because I had one.
Quite interesting that you doubted existence 4 wheel brakes in 80's, but now suddenly you had one car. Split personality ? When was last time you got your head examined.

Graph I posted defines "efficiency" for us plenty enough. Its clear Disc brakes are better. I have yet to see any proof from you to the contrary.
And here I tough you will post some Model T tests
Too easy

 

@archerm3 and @BlueT

Just whip your dicks out and measure already!

 

@chris4x4 I think this thread has sunk low enough, no?

 

Thanks @tcBob

 

I said how many, not dare you to find one.
1984 is not the beginning of the 80's unless you start counting at 4 instead of 1. 84 is closer to the middle of the 80s than it is the beginning.

Your graph doesn't even use the word efficiency. It does not define efficiency.

It shows the number of collisions in the video game test.

Disk brakes are not better.
Drum brakes are not better.
Why do you keep getting my position wrong.

 

@BlueT - here are a few hints dude. And these things apply to anyone.

1. You don't always need to be correct.
2. You will NEVER always be correct.
3. Correlation and causation are not the same.
4. The more you dig into the "why" behind a concept, there is almost more complexity and detail to be found which complicate the resulting answer to questions.
5. One example of an item similar to a request does not always satisfy the specificity of the request.
6. There is a difference between healthy, productive discussion/argumentation and petulant disagreement just for the sake of "being right" in an immature prideful manner.

You are not 100% wrong in some of your statements, but I am concerned you don't comprehend either why you are only partially correct, correct in a specific instance only, or why someone else's more detailed, subtle and comprehensive answer to the question with caveats and considerations is actually more techicnally sound.

Words matter.

 

See you just lost me again, if you call scientific study run on simulator a video game test, and not provide anything to back your point up, That pretty much puts you in the .... (I can't say because TCBOB will think its personal attack)

I told you get a different study if you dont like this one, any scientific study to prove your point whatever that point maybe...
On the one I provided I see Discs reduce number of collisions. Good enough for me. In fact the the only reason why I have brakes on my car is to stop my car and help me avoid collisions.

Instead of arguing you should have find study and said here its scientific proof.
So were is your scientific proof ?

 

There is no study available to show you that your reference is irrelevant. I can't help the fact that you can't understand something that simple.

 

Look I am wrong a lot of times, that's why I asked him fro scientific study to prove to me that drums are better ? All i got from him that he does not believe in NHTSA study but no concrete proof why that study is wrong.