Page 2 of 2
Posted: Wed Jul 18, 2007 6:27 am
by Adam West
So 25 unsprung weight is too light if you remove all. What's someone else's best guess?
Splinter, when you get done can we trouble you to jump on a scale holding a box of that stuff?
Posted: Wed Jul 18, 2007 6:32 am
by Splinter
Believe it or not I dont actually own a scale.. lol
and its 25lbs of sprung weight (not on the rotating assembly)
Its MAYBE 5 lbs of unsprung weight (the ABS locator wheels on the hubs)
Posted: Wed Jul 18, 2007 8:12 am
by 93forestpearl
jamal wrote:
ABS does not make a car stop in a shorter distance.
Pretty much all automotive publications have proven ABS does help stop faster in a straight line, whether it be in the dry or wet. Humans cannot regulate brake force nearly as fast as a computer can, especially near the threshold of lockup.
Posted: Wed Jul 18, 2007 8:23 am
by jamal
93forestpearl wrote:jamal wrote:
ABS does not make a car stop in a shorter distance.
Pretty much all automotive publications have proven ABS does help stop faster in a straight line, whether it be in the dry or wet. Humans cannot regulate brake force nearly as fast as a computer can, especially near the threshold of lockup.
The purpose of ABS is not primarily to stop the car in a shorter distance. The goal is to keep the car in control.
Halfway decent threshold braking will stop shorter than abs. Someone who can't do any better than to mash the brake pedal shouldn't be driving.
Posted: Wed Jul 18, 2007 8:33 am
by Splinter
I dont think Ive seen any credible source claim that ABS helps you stop faster, only that it prevents loss of control due to wheel lockup
Posted: Wed Jul 18, 2007 8:56 am
by 93forestpearl
In SCC, cars without ABS always struggle in their braking tests. They saythe same thing. At the same time, stopping from 70-0 and measuring the distance isn't indicative of how well the brakes will perform on a road course, which they also usually mention.
Posted: Wed Jul 18, 2007 9:30 am
by jamal
Oh, so we've gone from "all automotive publications" to sport compact car. Last I checked that magazine is one big rice catalog filled with inaccurate information.
Regardless, this isn't the topic and if you want to discuss it further I suggest you start a new thread. Or at least read something other than SCC.
Posted: Wed Jul 18, 2007 3:15 pm
by SemperGuard
Editors are not drivers. You can't trust their results. IT'd be like sticking you or me into the car.
And there is no way that ABS stops the car faster than not having ABS. Engaging ABS makes the car take a longer distance to stop than threshold braking, which you can do with an ABS equipped car.
Posted: Wed Jul 18, 2007 5:49 pm
by Manarius
If insurance companies are willing to give discounts to people who have ABS on their cars, it must be a good safety feature...
Posted: Wed Jul 18, 2007 6:25 pm
by Adam West
ABS = anti-lock braking system...
Not distance but control. You can turn while braking to avoid objects...
Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:21 am
by evolutionmovement
Threshold braking is not as effective on uneven pavement. ABS isn't as effective in gravel or snow.
Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 5:50 am
by Splinter
So anyway guys.... about that brake line routing...
Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 6:04 am
by SemperGuard
What about it? Primary to front, secondary to rear.
Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 6:24 pm
by All_talk
Yep, One MC output to both fronts, the other to your adjustable prop valve, then split to both rears.
I'm thinking that I might leave the ABS in mine, with a switch to turn it on/off, then just install two adj. prop. valves in the cabin in place of the stock ones. As long as you set them the same should work just fine (maybe you could do some fun stuff turn brake style with this setup). Best of both worlds, on demand.
Gary