Hi all
I have never been really happy with the standard pads. I have said to my dealer that the only time they are good enough on gentle braking is when I have just washed the wheels or it is raining/damp atmosphere. (All dealers know that even the Yaris brakes are very sharp and warn customers if they haven't driven one before.) Has anyone had a similar problem? Is the only cure to change them to TRD or similar?
s:lol: :lol: s:lol:
I've always thought that the brakes where ok not poor but ok,
On the old forum there was a thread about brakes and some people said the same so your not alone.
I would recomend getting hold of a compnay like EBC or Black diamond and getting them to make you a set of cross drilled and groved dics. These should make the brakes feel like "just wasjed the car". They cool the brakes down and clear all the carbon depostist away so the next time the pads come into conact it's only metal and not carbon balls.
Also a upgrade of pads could be use-full TRD are highly recomended but i have heard that EBC are bringing out a set for the spyder but worht giving them a call. Be prepared for the price to be around £160 for a set of 2 discs and £120 for pads. Could replace all 4 and get a deal. s:lol: :lol: s:lol:
If you're feeling that the stock brakes are not good enough, then either i) there is something wrong with your brakes, or ii) your expectations are WAY too high.
The Roadster brakes are widely recognised as being amongst the best there is. My own personal trackday evidence, trackday passenger comments (including an ARDS instructor), and media reviews, all support this. I seem to recall (but don't quote me on this) that the Roadster will do 0-60-0 in only 3 metres more than a Boxster S, widely recognised as having the best brakes in the business.
Upgrading pads or discs is unlikely to make any significant performance improvement, at least not under normal (ie non-track) driving. Traction (or lack of) between tarmac and rubber will always be the limiting factor, long before friction between pad and disc.
If you're driving really hard, eg on track, then overheating can be a problem. Most likely is that you'll boil your brake fluid, leading to vapour in the brake lines, and a "spongy" pedal; cured by replacing fluid regularly, preferably with a high-temperature spec one (a whole seperate topic!). Drilled/grooved discs can help cooling, at the expense of contact area (ie friction), and high-temperature pads can last longer before fade.
The only remaining brake upgrade could be braided hoses, which would improve pedal-feel, but again, only really likely in extremes, where your stock rubber hoses are "stretching".
No doubt Martin will be along shortly to share his experience with TRD pads, and spyderchat also has many who've tried several types of pads (with little reported difference).
I found the brakes on the yaris i was driving very sharp and the brakes on my '2 are SOOOOOO good!
IMHO i would stay away from the grooved discs... i had drilled/grooved black diamond discs on my old car and while they stop the car like nothing else, they eat up pads BIG TIME!!! I mean i was changing pads every few months, and these were EBC pads, so not cheap!
If you dont like the pads, i have always heard that Mintex (think that is spelt right) are some of the best you can get.
Hope that helps.
'Sharp', or peddle pressure isn't a good indicator of brake effectiveness - what it illustrates is how much brake assistance is present. The Yaris, given it's, umm, target market, aren't interested in peddle feel or travel so a little goes a long way. Us on the other hand want to be able to carefully modulate the braking, which inheritantly requires us to use greater peddle force & distance to yield the same end result as the Yaris, but allows us to finely control the pressure in between.
As Phil says, the Roadster has truely exceptional brakes, even in stock configuration. If you're not happy something is wrong somewhere, be it mechanical with the car or the driver expectation!
Unless you're on track, you won't be stressing your brakes to the point of over heating them, unless you're dragging them of course. Even then, the first thing to go is the Toyota's weakest stock component, the DOT 3 brake fluid. A flush and replace with something like Motul 600 (note: DOT 4 not 5.1) will solve that problem though.
As for Pads, I've tried the TRD street pads. I have to admit, they are better for road use, but will shred under track conditions. Pagid R4S or R4 is often recommended in the USA. Also on the 'good' list is a set of Mintex 1155. Personally, I wouldn't touch EBC Greenstuff, for a start they don't do rear pads, so you'll be left with disparate front/rear material - not a good idea.
I really wouldn't touch the discs or calipers, they're more than adequate for our weight & contact surface.
Lastly, braided hoses may help a little, but again, don't really come into their own until you've got fairly warm fluid inside them.
Quote from: "Buster"I've always thought that the brakes where ok not poor but ok,
On the old forum there was a thread about brakes and some people said the same so your not alone.
I would recomend getting hold of a compnay like EBC or Black diamond and getting them to make you a set of cross drilled and groved dics. These should make the brakes feel like "just wasjed the car". They cool the brakes down and clear all the carbon depostist away so the next time the pads come into conact it's only metal and not carbon balls.
Also a upgrade of pads could be use-full TRD are highly recomended but i have heard that EBC are bringing out a set for the spyder but worht giving them a call. Be prepared for the price to be around £160 for a set of 2 discs and £120 for pads. Could replace all 4 and get a deal. s:lol: :lol: s:lol:
Sorry to disagree again matey, but grooved and slotted discs were appropriate in days gone by, but these days with the non-asbetsos pad material they acheive nothing other than shreding your pads, and weakening the discs. Slotted/drilled rotors once nice and warm tend not to like rapidly cooling down from puddles and the like. They sell these days mostly to the max muppet customer to who looks are far more important.
Quote from: "mph"As for Pads, I've tried the TRD street pads. I have to admit, they are better for road use, but will shred under track conditions. Pagid R4S or R4 is often recommended in the USA. Also on the 'good' list is a set of Mintex 1155.
Porterfield make the R4 (a real track pad) and R4S (a semi-track pad) not Pagid. I'm not sure of the Pagid part numbers, but I think they fall into a similar category as EBC's.
Quote from: "pmdye"Quote from: "mph"Porterfield make the R4 (a real track pad) and R4S (a semi-track pad) not Pagid. I'm not sure of the Pagid part numbers, but I think they fall into a similar category as EBC's.
Oops. Brain fade. I don't have part number for the Pagids either - maybe this should be telling us something?!
Last time I was checking the prices of things a couple of months ago:
Porterfield pads:
R4S AP822 £80.46
R4S AP309 £49.35
+ VAT + delivery
Mintex:
MDB2029
MDB1325
price circa £300+VAT for a set of 1155s. Discounts for five or more sets.
Quote from: "pmdye"If you're feeling that the stock brakes are not good enough, then either i) there is something wrong with your brakes, or ii) your expectations are WAY too high.
The Roadster brakes are widely recognised as being amongst the best there is.
Too true. Excluding the rust the brakes are exceptional. The Roadsters 60-0 distance is only 3 yards further than the Elise.
The only slight problem is that I find the 2 suffers slightly more than anticipated from brake fade, but this is easy to overcome.
Peter
I am astonished that ANYONE would want to change the discs and pads on what is already a superb set up. The feel is good, the modulation is good, the lack of fade on a good old fashioned coutry jaunt is good and the overall stopping power is second to none! I would recommend that the people who want to change the system should have their cars checked over for faults cos the brakes on a 2 are pretty fine and dandy already. As in previous posts I have written, the only other car I found to have had better brakes has been an Elise. And that surely has to say something.....
Hi guys,
Thanks for all the feed-back. Phil and Martin have reminded me when they mentioned brake fluid that I have heard a high-pitched whining noise coming from the reservoir. It stops when the engine is switched off, even with the ignition switched on. Can everyone have a listen to their car and let me know if they detect the same sound.
Bearing in mind my post on ""Customer Service" at MrT" if there is a problem I can't see me getting anywhere with a post-warrany claim!!!!
s:lol: :lol: s:lol:
Martin (mph)
I didn't say that her indoors's first Yaris was a 1litre top-of-the-range CDX,which I changed for the "pocket rocket" T Sport at the end of January
105 bhp instead of 69. Even moving the cars on the drive I think that the Yaris brake assistance is much better and have told MrT.
s:lol: :lol: s:lol:
QuoteBuster wrote:
I've always thought that the brakes where ok not poor but ok,
On the old forum there was a thread about brakes and some people said the same so your not alone.
I would recomend getting hold of a compnay like EBC or Black diamond and getting them to make you a set of cross drilled and groved dics. These should make the brakes feel like "just wasjed the car". They cool the brakes down and clear all the carbon depostist away so the next time the pads come into conact it's only metal and not carbon balls.
Also a upgrade of pads could be use-full TRD are highly recomended but i have heard that EBC are bringing out a set for the spyder but worht giving them a call. Be prepared for the price to be around £160 for a set of 2 discs and £120 for pads. Could replace all 4 and get a deal.
Sorry to disagree again matey, but grooved and slotted discs were appropriate in days gone by, but these days with the non-asbetsos pad material they acheive nothing other than shreding your pads, and weakening the discs. Slotted/drilled rotors once nice and warm tend not to like rapidly cooling down from puddles and the like. They sell these days mostly to the max muppet customer to who looks are far more important.
Markii we always seam to disagree LOl well it makes for good chat tho s:wink: :wink: s:wink:
I have driven a 2 that has had the brakes "upgraded" by a compnay called TDI, i seam to mention these people a lot because i think there gods when it comes to the setting up of the 2.
Anyway It has same size disc's but grooved and cross drilled, with TRD pads and up graded brake fuild and hose's. It also had a set of P1's on front and rear brand new. And i must say that it stoped around 15-20% quicker than a standard 2.
I would say that on the most that the disc upgrade is manly for cosmetic reason (apart if you do lots of track days) and the pads do ware quicker with groved disc's like lkris said but over all it seam a much better set up and provided to me that there is much room for improvement on the 2's brake set up. Not in comparrison with other stock cars but if your after a high performance brake set up. Personaly i wouldnt only maybe upgarde hose's and fiuld and when the pads came for a change then i would maybe go for the TRD's.
But it has been done and he difference is noticalbal, but everyobe to there own i supose s:lol: :lol: s:lol:
I've been reading this post and by the sounds of it the brakes on my MR2 should be s*hit-hot.
I bought the car recently and it's only done 20,000 which I don't consider a huge number of miles.
The car brakes ok but it's nothing spectacular. My girlfriends 1.2 base model Clio has outstanding brakes compared to my MR2.
I know the Clio is built for town driving and there for the brakes are going to be good from cold but I've only experienced good braking on the MR2 when I've had to push hard on the brake pedal.
Is this the character of the MR2's brakes or should I expect it to be better? What I really need is another MR2 owner to come and drive my motor. Any offers from anyone in the Bristol region?
Cheers,
Mike
I find my brakes are superb... im driving a Yaris at the moment and the brakes on that are sharp and stop suddenly, but not as good as on the '2 which stop you quickly at high speeds too. I think the brakes on my MR2 are great.
I don't live too close to Bristol (I'm in Oxford), but what it seems you're describing is the Clio having "positive brakes", that is to say, you only have to press the brake pedal a small amount to add a lot of brake pressure.
Unforunately this isn't really a good measure of how good the brakes are. The only real way of telling how effective the brakes are is seeing how far it travels while braking fully from a set speed.
My old car had very positive brakes, but at the end of the day, if you had to stop in a hurry, it wasn't all that good at all.
The two is very different. The brakes don't feel too positive, you have to press them much further to get any braking action, but if you do press it all the way to the floor, it stops a lots lot quicker than my old car.
well said phil4 - thats what i was trying to say but did a bad job of it! s:lol: :lol: s:lol:
I have always been pleased with the brakes on the 2 and this was borne out on Thursday evening when a slow moving truck pulled out without warning to overtake his even slower mate just as I was about to complete a safe overtaking behind a Volvo
The Volvo was in all sorts of problems - almost crossing into oncoming traffic whilst the 2 stopped quickly in a straight line and well short of trouble
But a volvo is built like a tank. It doesn't need good brakes.
My last problem was stopping too quickly, stopped with plenty to spare from the car in front, but the car behind didn't stop quickly enough and had to swerve.
Phil4,
This would explain why the Clio feels sharp with very little pressure on the pedal and my MR2 brakes feel more progressive. At least I'm safe in the knowledge that when called upon my MR2 will stop quicker than 99% of other cars on the road.
Thanks
Mike.
Don't take my word for it. Try them out. Find a nice bit of empty straight road, make sure there's no one behind and nail the brake pedal to the floor. Rinse and repeat with the Clio.
This should get you used to what the ABS feels like too (which may well save you pulling your foot off the pedal when it kicks in!).
Quote from: "pmdye"The Roadster brakes are widely recognised as being amongst the best there is. My own personal trackday evidence, trackday passenger comments (including an ARDS instructor), and media reviews, all support this. I seem to recall (but don't quote me on this) that the Roadster will do 0-60-0 in only 3 metres more than a Boxster S, widely recognised as having the best brakes in the business.
I read the same thing somewhere to, think it was autoexpress, etc, but i think i'd swap my S's brakes for the Roadsters any day, bl**dy thing just never seems to want to stop s:shock: :shock: s:shock: (ya have to be so heavy footed on em really s;) ;) s;) , the Roadsters seemed much sharper)
On a serious note though, i found i was not braking hard enough in the Roadster and ate through my discs pretty quick s:oops: :oops: s:oops: , though they replaced them under warranty s:) :) s:) , once i started breaking later and a little harder, it made a huge difference, failing this maybe there's a fault, i'd get them checked just to be safe s:) :) s:)
Andy
Phil4 wrote:QuoteBut a volvo is built like a tank. It doesn't need good brakes
Errr......don't you kinda think that is the point? Cos it IS built like a tank, it should have BETTER brakes cos something like that, which is so bulky and heavy, regardless wither it will protect you in a crash or not (they are no longer the safest cars on the road), then you need good stopping brakes to stop the weight and bulk.
As for the '2 brakes, they are tremendous. My girlfriend ALSO drives a Clio 1.4, which I drive on a reasonably regular basis and I can tell you that the Clio's brakes are nowhere NEAR as good as the '2s. Yeah, they take less pedal pressure to initialise the braking, but the actual stopping power is no more than "adequate" where the '2s are astounding, born out of me recently nearly driving straight out into a juntion that I didn't know that was there (it was immediately round a bend and I didn't know the road) and I had to hit the brakes HARD to stop me ploughing into the traffic and I know for a fact that if I was in the Clio (or my old Mk1 for that matter, which also had bloody good brakes), then I would have been done for. As I didn't know the power of the brakes, I stopped actually about 7-8 yds AWAY from the junction. Very, VERY impressed.
The Clio's brakes just scare me they are just so sharp. But the stopping power just doesn't translate........
Bizarre. Can't really think why braking gently would cause increased brake wear. The last two cars I had managed to never need any brake changes and managed 75000 and 63000 miles respectively.
One of my pet hates at the moment is the number of kn*bheads on the road that seem to think they can out-brake an MR2 just because they can see over the top of it. I guess most times I need to brake they'll see the cause at the same time I do... but sooner or later someone will pull out in front of me and I'll be swapping details with the kn*bhead behind!!!
Quote from: "phil4"Bizarre. Can't really think why braking gently would cause increased brake wear. The last two cars I had managed to never need any brake changes and managed 75000 and 63000 miles respectively.
I thought so too, i think the rust did not help on the back of the discs, but the discs are quite soft according to the Toyota guy and i'd been wearing them down along with the corrosion , only had 15k on the clock and took it in for an oil change. Only cost me some new pads, so did not complain
Andy
Quote from: "John Woodward"Phil4 wrote:
QuoteBut a volvo is built like a tank. It doesn't need good brakes
Errr......don't you kinda think that is the point? Cos it IS built like a tank, it should have BETTER brakes cos something like that, which is so bulky and heavy, regardless wither it will protect you in a crash or not (they are no longer the safest cars on the road), then you need good stopping brakes to stop the weight and bulk.
I was half joking (and forgot the smiley).
Quote from: "zud"One of my pet hates at the moment is the number of kn*bheads on the road that seem to think they can out-brake an MR2
It amazes me how many people seem to think they're reactions are quick enough to drive 2ft from the bumper of pretty much any car.
But as you say, playing that game with a '2 is just mental, 'cause they'll just end up making a mess of things (seen two close examples of that, and haven't been driving it too long).
Unforunately from what I've heard insurance isn't quite as clear cut on being rear-ended now. It used to be that if the person behind ran into you, regardless of why, they were responsible. Now it seems to be 50:50 far more often. Which isn't really on.
Quote from: "phil4"Unforunately from what I've heard insurance isn't quite as clear cut on being rear-ended now. It used to be that if the person behind ran into you, regardless of why, they were responsible. Now it seems to be 50:50 far more often. Which isn't really on.
I hadn't heard that. I was rear-ended last year (in my previous car), and my insurance company never seemed to have any doubt that the other guy was to blame. But I've long since thought that there are situations when it's not quite so clear cut... if someone pulls into the gap in front of you on a motorway, just as the car/lorry that
was if front of you starts to brake, then you're suddenly left with half the braking distance through no fault of you're own! Maybe the insurance companies are looking at this kind of thing in more detail???
I think they are looking into it more, but if you've not got any witnesses, it could get quite interesting.
I find that when I leave the safety gap on the motorway, there is always some fool that seems to think I have left the gap for them to pull into, thus me being on their ass.
Just been driving a Nissan Nivara Truck in Cyprus...a lot of fun, and NO traffic there...although the off road mountain roads where hairy!
Phil4 wrote:QuoteI was half joking (and forgot the smiley).
Ahhhh......sorry Phil. My misinterpretation! Oh well, I look like and arse now and I take it all back.............. s:oops: :oops: s:oops: s:oops: :oops: s:oops: s:wink: :wink: s:wink: s:D :D s:D
Well, I've been out with Martin 'last of the late breakers' Holden today at Keevil, and can assure you that the roadster does have some seriously impressive brakes (to go with the equally impressive turbo!) - we caught so many cars under braking it was untrue! Mind you, they only lasted about 10 laps a time due to the heaving hammering they got twice a lap! s:lol: :lol: s:lol: s8) 8) s8)
Does anyone else here find the ABS intrusive? I'm a little bit worried when braking hard because the ABS seems to cut in earlier than I'm expecting. s:( :( s:(
I'm not a driving god, but I'd expect to feel the car lose a little bit of traction before it kicks in. It certainly does in my wifes FIAT. Has anyone else found this?
The annoying thing is that the braking distance obviously extends when it goes ABS (but does give you more control)
I find the ABS kicks in before the car skids, but that's what I was expecting. In the dry I really struggle to get the ABS into action in a straight line, it really has to be a rough road, otherwise the car just stops.
In the wet it's far easier to trigger the ABS.
Ive not had my ABS kick in unless i forced it to... my car stops exactly when i want it to. s:D :D s:D
Quote from: "Ender"Does anyone else here find the ABS intrusive? I'm a little bit worried when braking hard because the ABS seems to cut in earlier than I'm expecting. s:( :( s:(
I'm not a driving god, but I'd expect to feel the car lose a little bit of traction before it kicks in. It certainly does in my wifes FIAT. Has anyone else found this?
The annoying thing is that the braking distance obviously extends when it goes ABS (but does give you more control)
ok lemme try and explain this for you, i'm crap at explaining.
ABS is not about stopping, its about controlling. ABS keeps the wheel in motion and stops it locking up. If your ABS is coming on then you would have been skidding without it, the brakes on the MR2 are some of the best in the world (did you know we stop as fast as a McL F1, yes REALLY!) so the best way to make our brakes better is to fit tires with more grip.
I'm no expert on ABS, but believe there are two types. I'd guess the Fiat uses a mechanical system (like my old Escort), where the brakes have to lock before the mechanical system releases them. But (I think) that electronic systems are tuned to kick in just before the wheels lock.
Also, my understanding of ABS is that it should apply as much braking pressure as possible without the wheels locking. With "manual" braking, the stopping distance is extended as soon as the wheels lock, so you'd be hard pushed to beat ABS.... I think.... but I'm happy to be corrected on this!
Quote from: "WoodenDummy"[(did you know we stop as fast as a McL F1, yes REALLY!) so the best way to make our brakes better is to fit tires with more grip.
Thought I'd check this out, and the F1 takes 127ft, the MR2 121ft.
Max Lateral G's are also higher in a '2, 0.86g in an F1, 0.88g in an MR2.
And then in a slalom, we're still faster, 66.1mph in an MR2 verses 64.5mph in the F1
Obviously though we lose out big time when it comes to acceleration.
Quote from: "zud"you'd be hard pushed to beat ABS.... I think.... but I'm happy to be corrected on this!
I'm not sure about this. I think under certain circumstances a skidding tyre will stop you more quickly (stright line, smooth road, dry).
The purpose of ABS as WD has pointed out is not about the stopping, but the steering. With ABS you can turn and break on the limit at the same time, say to swerve. Without, you'd plow straight in to the thing you're heading for.
Quote from: "phil4"Quote from: "zud"you'd be hard pushed to beat ABS.... I think.... but I'm happy to be corrected on this!
I'm not sure about this. I think under certain circumstances a skidding tyre will stop you more quickly (stright line, smooth road, dry).
Correct; maximum traction equals maximum friction, which occurs in a full 4-wheel lockup (assuming a dry road). If you want to stop in the shortest distance possible, then ABS won't help you, but usually you tend to want to try and combine the stop with some avoidance tactic...
Since I started this thread I have realised that I'd not been driving fast enough to heat up the disks. By speeding up on an open road and then braking sharply makes a world of difference. I still say that after washing the pad carbon off the brakes are sharper.
MrT offered to contribute 50% of the parts cost for disk replacements, but I politely told them through my dealer to stick their offer where the sun doesn't shine s:!: :!: s:!: s:!: :!: s:!: s:!: :!: s:!: s:!: :!: s:!:
At the moment I am trying to get hold of the Halfords silver manifold paint to use on the calipers and disks. One of their superstores only seems to have black in stock.
s:) :) s:) s:) :) s:)
Quote from: "zud"I think under certain circumstances a skidding tyre will stop you more quickly.
Under all circumstances, a tyre will provide the its peak traction when it is slipping by ~8%*.
*Or maybe 11%. I wasn't really paying attention during the lesson.
Hmm, thinking about it, maybe 11 was the optimum slip angle and 8 the slip traction. Anyone care to remind me?
Quote from: "pmdye"Quote from: "phil4"Quote from: "zud"you'd be hard pushed to beat ABS.... I think.... but I'm happy to be corrected on this!
I'm not sure about this. I think under certain circumstances a skidding tyre will stop you more quickly (stright line, smooth road, dry).
Correct; maximum traction equals maximum friction, which occurs in a full 4-wheel lockup (assuming a dry road). If you want to stop in the shortest distance possible, then ABS won't help you, but usually you tend to want to try and combine the stop with some avoidance tactic...
Being an old git, I learnt to drive before ABS, and was taught to pump the brakes in the event of a skid. And I know for certain that in wet/icy conditions that you stop more quickly when the wheels
aren't locked. So I took a look at Howstuffworks.com as they usually have some good explanations for this type of thing. There's too much to repeat here, but here's a key part of their description under brakes...
Friction "An interesting thing about friction is that it usually takes more force to break an object loose than to keep it sliding. There is a coefficient of static friction, where the two surfaces in contact are not sliding relative to each other. If the two surfaces are sliding relative to each other, the amount of force is determined by the coefficient of dynamic friction, which is usually less than the coefficient of static friction.
For a car tire, the coefficient of dynamic friction is much less than the coefficient of static friction. The car tire provides the greatest traction when the contact patch is not sliding relative to the road. When it is sliding (like during a skid or a burnout), traction is greatly reduced."
It's a great website, with loads of explanations about a wide range of subjects (assuming they know what they're talking about!)....
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/brake.htm
Hmm, that's completely at odds with what I was taught at my driving school day at Castle Coombe. Curious...
I was doing a skid control course, and was told that if I wanted to brake fast, but keep control of the vehicle, then pumping the brakes was good. However, if I just wanted to brake fast in a straight line, then I should brakes as hard as possible, even if that meant locking up. Icy/oily conditions I think are completely different. Something about tire tread I believe.
Great F1 drivers from the 60's (think Moss and Hill, all you GPL fans) used to be able to do something called trail braking. That's where you brake late, while turning into a corner, using engine braking to help as well. What they used to do was brake so that the tires were almost locking up (they had a term for it, can't remember. Anyone?). That's supposed to be the most efficient way of braking, according to my instructor s:? :? s:?
BTW, I though ALL ABS was mechanical? It just quickly jumps the brakes on and off doesn't it? In the '03 '2s you've got braking assistance as well which modulates the brake power going to each wheel (as Mr T showed at Brands Hatch in a Corolla s:) :) s:) )
Anyway, the point I was trying to make earlier is that I think the ABS cuts in too early on my '02 '2. I'm pretty sure theres more braking power to be had... it just seems the ABS cuts in. And I can definately feel the braking distance increase when it does.
Sorry about the long, rambling post s:oops: :oops: s:oops:
just thought i would say that i had to stamp on my brakes this morning when a light decided to turn red on me (approching at 80...90ish... i mean 70 officer... s:roll: :roll: s:roll: ) and the '2 stopped dead in its tracks... no ABS kicked in and i was well impressed! s:D :D s:D
Quote from: "Ender"Hmm, that's completely at odds with what I was taught at my driving school day at Castle Coombe. Curious...
Curious indeed!... At one extreme (ice/oil) I think we agree that pumping the brakes/ABS is better, but maybe at the other extreme (dry, flat tarmac) the friction between a locked tyre and tarmac is better than a braking but turning wheel? That's not what I've always been led to believe, but who am I to argue with a driving school!!
Quote from: "Ender"BTW, I though ALL ABS was mechanical? It just quickly jumps the brakes on and off doesn't it?.
The "pumping bit" is all mechanical, but I think there are different versions of the "detecting bit"... my escort needed the wheels to
actually lock momentarily before it released them, whereas I think the more modern systems attempt to detect that the wheels are
about to lock and releases them. Maybe this could explain why/how your ABS kicks in early? Could the system misjudge when the wheels are about to lock and release them too early? Could the system be fooled by mods to wheels/tyres/suspension?
Likewise, sorry about the long, rambling post s:oops: :oops: s:oops:
I can't vouh for anything too technical, but they guy at Brands Hatch the other week said that cars fitted with ABS will always stop in a shorter distance under extreme provocation than those that do not have it. Skidding is the bain of a driver, not just because of the loss of contol, but it also slows you down in all the wrong ways. Skidding means that the contact patch is not "working" or "in contact" with the road as it should be. ABS will keep the wheel spinning and thus allowing the tyre to grip more efficiently and therefore make the car slow down quicker.
Like I said, there are more technically minded people about this kinda thing than me on this forum, but I can't see the logic in saying a car will slwo down quicker when skidding. Surely in every case, when thinking about this logically, that is just not true. I would want the tyre to be in "contact" (I know it is in contact while skidding, but I think you all know what I mean) at all times rather than slipping and sliding about all the time. Why do driving istructors and examiners on your driving test ask you to do an emergency stop without skidding? I took my test pre-ABS on cars and I was ALWAYS told that preventing the front (or rear) tyres from skidding not only gave you control over the car, but also helped you stop quicker.
I can't see where there is an argument here.....
I can see what you're saying, but surely the fact that rubber has to be stripped from the tyre would disipate more energy (which is what slows you), than a tyre not doing so?
Quote from: "Ender"Anyway, the point I was trying to make earlier is that I think the ABS cuts in too early on my '02 '2. I'm pretty sure theres more braking power to be had... it just seems the ABS cuts in. And I can definately feel the braking distance increase when it does.
Like I said, ABS has nothing to do with braking and everything to do with control. If your ABS is coming on you've lost traction, a average driver can't control a wheel that has lost traction and making a car skid so the ABS keeps the wheel turning.
To answer your question (Unless something is very very wrong with your ABS) if the ABS is cutting in then your car without it would be losing traction, I'm taking a guess that your a normal/average kinda driver (I don't mean this in a bad way its just none of us are Richard Burns) so you'll have much much more control with the ABS on. If you want to stop the ABS coming on then you need to stop your car losing traction, and upgrading the tires is the 1st and most important step.
Just as a note, as a racer I PREFER ABS and I know other racers that prefer it on as well. Also from what i've seen ABS cars will stop much faster, thinking about it I also remember Driven on C4 testing that. Racers don't have ABS because the car stops faster without it, its for other reasons (like slides in rallies etc...)
Yeah, there is a theory there.........
But you have to take into consideration the actualy brakes here. The idea is to keep the tyre in as much "solid" contact with the road (i.e. no skidding) so that the brakes can dissipate the energy, NOT the tyres as this is a lot more efficient. The brakes are designed for slowing a stopping the car. The Tyre provides the contact patch for this to occur at its most eficient.
Does this make sense? I think what I am saying is that you could have the best brakes in the world (i.e. Porsche), but if the tyre is not doing its job, i.e. gripping the road, then the brakes are useless. Hence, I think that no skidding will stop you a damn site quicker than skidding. I cannot think of a single incidence os skidding slowing you down quicker than normal, controlled braking. Not one.
Quote from: "John Woodward"Does this make sense? I think what I am saying is that you could have the best brakes in the world (i.e. Porsche), but if the tyre is not doing its job, i.e. gripping the road, then the brakes are useless.
Yes your right, like I said racers don't remove or not use ABS because they stop quicker, thats not the case.
EDIT - OH by the way, we DO have the best brakes in the world s:wink: :wink: s:wink:
WoodenDunny wrote:QuoteOH by the way, we DO have the best brakes in the world
Oh yeah, fortgot!!! s:wink: :wink: s:wink: s:oops: :oops: s:oops: s:lol: :lol: s:lol:
Yeah, you're right about the ABS. I suppose it is a little more different for a road car with ABS in that most people, in an emergency, just slam the brakes as hard as they can. ABS lets the tyre move in order to keep conrtrol and compensate for the over exuberence of "most" drivers (sweeping statement, I know). Racers on the other hand usually have a surfeit of grip compared to the overall braking ability, hence even though is IS possible to lock up a racer, it is a lot less common and harder to achieve. Hence, the wheels are more likely to keep turning, even under severe provocation and therefor ABS is seen as less essential. Also, without ABS, racers can modulate the amount of braking required much more easily.
I think we are saying the same things here, but from different perspectives. I beleive, in normal, road-goikng circumstances, with "average" drivers, ABS WOULD infact shorten the braking distances as it would allow the brakes to do their job and slow the car down. Without ABS, most would skid and the car would plough on regardless. For experienced drivers who know what they are doing (I do not proffess to be such a person. I just enjoy driving), then this may not be the case.
Quote from: "John Woodward"racers can modulate the amount of braking.
That would be the main reason why racers don't use it. You couldn't really rally with ABS I wouldnt think s:? :? s:?