Something I picked up in Aviation Maintenence school, moreso to do with propellors but the same principle applies, If you can get a a hold of a bike wheel, hold it in your hands and get somebody to spin it, once its spinning on its own smack the side, notice that the wheel doesn't jump from the hit until 90 degrees after you smack it. Its a lot easier to see than to read. A few years ago I could have told you why but I can't recall the actual physics of it off the top my head. Anyways how this applies to brakes is when you hit the brakesthey grab at the rear and the force from the disks actually takes place at the top of the wheel, which in turn pushes the wheel down. Now practically speaking you won't notice a lack of braking from moving your calipers just in theory the best possible braking action happens when they are on the rear side of the wheel. We were studying general aviation physics and were talking about how the torque of a spinning propellor actually pulls a plane to the left, and our instructor went off on this whole tangent of explaining the whole braking bit. Like I said your setup should be fine I was just throwing out the car trivia for the week.
<img src="http://www.geocities.com/fudd_22602/elmer-shoot.gif"> Old school Js rock
Thats actually pretty interesting. I've learned my new thing for today!
<sigh>
That idea is just different enough to make me wonder where/ how it comes about. I headed for the physics books last night, thinking that you might have been describing force transmitted to the suspension due to the angle between the moment arm through the caliper and the strut. It's been a while since I've played with this so I need to read up. But I was distracted and never finished.
Some calculations this morning showed me that I need to get smaller rear rotors, larger front rotors, or a proportioning valve in order to maintain a reasonable brake system balance. With larger J front brakes, the 10" rear Chrysler rotor, and using an agressive pad in the front, brake distribution is roughly 54/46 front biased. Unless my convertible is much heavier in the rear than a coupe, that bias will only cause rear wheel lockup in a hard stop. So I guess I'll probably start collecting parts for larger front brakes.
More work.
-->Slow
Yeah, I had though about positioning and thought it might have something too do with plow on the front end. Thought that maybe the act of braking the rotor on the front would cause additional force downwards on the suspension, while placing it on the rear would cause some force up on the suspension.
Curtis
91' Turbo Z24
http://www.turboz24.com
Quote:
Some calculations this morning showed me that I need to get smaller rear rotors, larger front rotors, or a proportioning valve in order to maintain a reasonable brake system balance. With larger J front brakes, the 10" rear Chrysler rotor, and using an agressive pad in the front, brake distribution is roughly 54/46 front biased. Unless my convertible is much heavier in the rear than a coupe, that bias will only cause rear wheel lockup in a hard stop. So I guess I'll probably start collecting parts for larger front brakes.
This is why he baer kit performs so well. The magic is in the parts and sizes selected which allow this kit to work without a proportioning valve and master cylinder change. The negative side is that drastically bigger rims are required and replacement parts are expensive. The rear rotors alone are $95.00 each.
This was one of the reasons I used the 3rd gen knuckles on the 87. I wanted to see what would happen to the suspension due to the change. Seems all is well. So I can perform the swap in the future if desired.
