| Fox's Mercantile <jdangus@att.net>: Jan 11 02:45PM -0600 On 1/11/18 12:56 PM, Harry Newton wrote: > I'm actually a very nice guy. I doubt that. > I just happen to be very well educated, logical, and intelligent. I doubt that even more. > Hence, we won't likely get along well. This is the image I get from you. <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q8SWMAQYQf0> -- "I am a river to my people." Jeff-1.0 WA6FWi http:foxsmercantile.com |
| Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com>: Jan 11 09:34PM > He who is Jolly Roger said on 11 Jan 2018 17:53:09 GMT: >> Blogger opinion pieces aren+IBk-t facts. Try harder. > "In other words Again, blogger opinion pieces aren't facts. You think nobody will notice you just decided to switch nyms right in the fucking middle of this thread? You're a fool! Everyone sees your trolling clearly. You can't even hide it anymore, senile old man. Troll, troll, troll your boat... -- E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter. I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead. JR |
| Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com>: Jan 11 09:37PM >> The feature in question prevents spontaneous shutdowns of devices with >> dying batteries and extends runtime. > "In other words Blogger opinion pieces aren't facts. The reality is most iPhones run just fine for 3-5 years on the OEM battery, as anyone who has owned one for more than a fucking year knows. Try harder. Your trolls are useless and lame. -- E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter. I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead. JR |
| Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com>: Jan 11 09:40PM >>> The user experience is *definitely* impacted when the phones shut down. >> which is why apple has taken steps to avoid that from happening. > Indeed they did! And Apple's customers appreciate it. Meanwhile trolls like you can't stand it, which is why you are here in the Apple newsgroups trolling about it to begin with. -- E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter. I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead. JR |
| Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com>: Jan 11 10:17PM > From what Apple stated, it's only the iPhone 6's and 7's, and perhaps > the 8's, and X'x that appareciably degrade in about a year Apple didn't say anything even close to that silly claim, and you haven't provided anything but blogger opinion pieces devoid of factual information to back it up. -- E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter. I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead. JR |
| Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com>: Jan 11 10:20PM >>> Which is why the iPhones suddenly shut down in use. >> False. > "In other words Blogger opinion pieces devoid of facts aren't evidence of a widespread battery failure in under a year. Anyone who has owned an iPhone for longer than a year know you're full of shit. -- E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter. I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead. JR |
| Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com>: Jan 11 10:23PM >>> You misunderstand >> Nah. You just suck ass as a human being. > I'm actually a very nice guy. That's why you troll the Apple newsgroups incessantly attacking complete strangers and switching nyms to avoid filtering. That's what "nice guys" do. Momma must be so proud. > I just happen to be very well educated, logical, and intelligent. You're a delusional old man who gets his only kicks antagonizing complete strangers due to an irrational and obsessive hatred for Apple. > Hence, we won't likely get along well. There's the first fact you've ever uttered in this thread. -- E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter. I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead. JR |
| Harry Newton <harryne_wton@AlliOSusersJustGiveUp.com>: Jan 12 03:50AM On 11 Jan 2018 21:34:13 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote: > Again, blogger opinion pieces aren't facts. Facts don't undermine my belief system like they do yours. "Apple intentionally pushed iOS updates, including but not limited to iOS 10 and 11 and their variants, despite knowing that the updates imposed performance demands that the phones' hardware could not meet, throttled the phones' performance, and otherwise negatively impacted the performance and utility of the phones," <http://www.zdnet.com/article/iphone-throttling-class-actions-pile-up-as-apple-hit-with-32nd-lawsuit/> |
| Harry Newton <harryne_wton@AlliOSusersJustGiveUp.com>: Jan 12 03:51AM On 11 Jan 2018 22:17:29 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote: > Apple didn't say anything even close to that silly claim, and you > haven't provided anything but blogger opinion pieces devoid of factual > information to back it up. Facts threaten your belief system - not mine. "Apple did not inform them of, or seek their consent to installation of, performance-throttling software when presenting them with the iOS 10.2.1 or 11.2 updates, or both of them, plaintiff and the putative class members did not consent to Apple's interference" <http://www.zdnet.com/article/iphone-throttling-class-actions-pile-up-as-apple-hit-with-32nd-lawsuit/> |
| Harry Newton <harryne_wton@AlliOSusersJustGiveUp.com>: Jan 12 03:53AM On 11 Jan 2018 21:37:25 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote: > just fine for 3-5 years on the OEM battery, as anyone who has owned one > for more than a fucking year knows. Try harder. Your trolls are useless > and lame. Only you defend Apple's bonehead decisions to secretly "limit peak performance" (aka "cap CPU speeds at less than half) on the iPhone. "Who at Apple okayed the idea of throttling older iPhones in the first place? Not only that, but they went a step further and decided not to tell anyone that iOS contained code that deliberately slowed down iPhones whose batteries were showing signs of wear. To say that this was boneheaded is putting it mildly." "The solution that Apple came up with for iPhones randomly restarting was a clever one [but] the way it was implemented, and the fact that it was kept a secret from users, leaves me shaking my head in disbelief." <http://www.zdnet.com/article/can-apple-dig-itself-out-of-the-iphone-throttling-hole-it-created-for-itself/> |
| Harry Newton <harryne_wton@AlliOSusersJustGiveUp.com>: Jan 12 03:55AM On 11 Jan 2018 21:40:27 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote: > And Apple's customers appreciate it. Meanwhile trolls like you can't > stand it, which is why you are here in the Apple newsgroups trolling > about it to begin with. I only speak facts. Facts don't undermine my belief system - they support it. Facts undermine *your* belief system - not mine. "How no one at Apple thought that this would not come to light, and that the revelation would later snowball into lawsuits and Senate committee probes is just beyond me." "Rather than saying sorry, [the apology] feels as though Apple is lecturing users about how it knows best, and that pushing out updates that quietly hobbled devices was the right thing to do. It wasn't." <http://www.zdnet.com/article/can-apple-dig-itself-out-of-the-iphone-throttling-hole-it-created-for-itself/> |
| Harry Newton <harryne_wton@AlliOSusersJustGiveUp.com>: Jan 12 03:56AM On 11 Jan 2018 22:20:30 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote: > Blogger opinion pieces devoid of facts aren't evidence of a widespread > battery failure in under a year. Anyone who has owned an iPhone for > longer than a year know you're full of shit. I realize facts hurt you because facts undermine your belief system. "Trust in Apple is now shattered, and it feels like no one at the company cares. <http://www.zdnet.com/article/can-apple-dig-itself-out-of-the-iphone-throttling-hole-it-created-for-itself/> |
| Harry Newton <harryne_wton@AlliOSusersJustGiveUp.com>: Jan 12 12:24AM > The point of sunglasses is to stop UV (A&B) - which causes cataracts > amongst other issues. Whatever may be written on a $1 pair of glasses, > unless you can verify that they will block UV, run, don't walk away! I have asked at the eye doctor's offices why humans need glasses and no other animal does to protect their eyes from the sun. If UV-protective glasses were *really* needed, *everyone* would wear them, and they'd be mandated just like seat belts are and bicycle helmets, especially at OSHA regulated work sites. I'd like to see a study of cataracts statistics to see if eyglass wearers are represented differently than non eyeglass wearers though... |
| rickman <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com>: Jan 11 07:31PM -0500 Fox's Mercantile wrote on 1/10/2018 10:13 PM: > So, dropping down to your level of education: > Go park your nose back up Harry's ass and stop > posting here. What do you know of my education exactly? -- Rick C Viewed the eclipse at Wintercrest Farms, on the centerline of totality since 1998 |
| Fox's Mercantile <jdangus@att.net>: Jan 11 07:10PM -0600 On 1/11/18 6:31 PM, rickman wrote: > What do you know of my education exactly? From the rest of your ignorant posts here on S.E.R -- "I am a river to my people." Jeff-1.0 WA6FWi http:foxsmercantile.com |
| rickman <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com>: Jan 11 08:14PM -0500 Fox's Mercantile wrote on 1/11/2018 8:10 PM: > On 1/11/18 6:31 PM, rickman wrote: >> What do you know of my education exactly? > From the rest of your ignorant posts here on S.E.R You know zip, absolutely zip. You just like to run your mouth with nothing to say. I'm done with you. -- Rick C Viewed the eclipse at Wintercrest Farms, on the centerline of totality since 1998 |
| Fox's Mercantile <jdangus@att.net>: Jan 11 08:16PM -0600 On 1/11/18 7:14 PM, rickman wrote: > You know zip, absolutely zip. You just like to run your mouth with > nothing to say. I'm done with you. Don't let the door hit yer ass on the way out. -- "I am a river to my people." Jeff-1.0 WA6FWi http:foxsmercantile.com |
| Rheilly Phoull <froggins@iinet.net.au>: Jan 12 11:14AM +0800 On 12/01/2018 10:16 AM, Fox's Mercantile wrote: >> You know zip, absolutely zip. You just like to run your mouth with >> nothing to say. I'm done with you. > Don't let the door hit yer ass on the way out. Geez you're a happy mob of guys!! |
| Mad Roger <rogermadd@yahoo.com>: Jan 11 08:29PM On Thu, 11 Jan 2018 04:05:49 -0800 (PST), > Jimmy Neutron is back!!! As promised under another alias. Do not feed the Troll! I'm not even going to deny being whomever you say I am as that would ring hollow were it true or false. I will say that I will strive to provide value in each post, so here is the latest 3-year document that Clare kindly unearthed that lists all passenger brake pads and shoes made for vehicles in the US from December 2014 to December 2017. <http://www.ameca.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/AMECA-List-of-VESC-V-3-Brake-Friction-Material-Edge-Codes-December-8-2017.pdf> With this document, we can decipher the cryptic codes such as these: https://s18.postimg.org/wqilqasdl/toyota_friction_material.jpg |
| Fox's Mercantile <jdangus@att.net>: Jan 11 02:46PM -0600 On 1/11/18 2:29 PM, Mad Roger wrote: > I'm not even going to deny being whomever you say I am as that would ring > hollow were it true or false. What happened, you get tired of being called a cunt on the Apple thread? -- "I am a river to my people." Jeff-1.0 WA6FWi http:foxsmercantile.com |
| Mad Roger <rogermadd@yahoo.com>: Jan 11 08:09PM On Thu, 11 Jan 2018 11:44:01 -0500, Clare Snyder wrote: > I'm discounting conterfeit parts as being the problemin these tests - > just going back to your "trust" in "government mandated markings" from > your previous thread. I agree with you that it's unlikely that the police in Michigan were testing counterfeit parts, especially as they apparently received the friction material directly from the manufacturer, according to their summary paper. > which has been my thesis from the beginning and has been proven by TWO > law enforcement vehicle tests you have provided to support your > position. I'm not disagreeing with your contention that the EE pads, in those police tests, somehow worked better than the FF pads, even though E is a friction coefficient only marginally higher than steel on steel. I'm only asking why. > I'msorry, but your thesis does NOT stand the test of proof using the > scientific method. You are an engineer. What does that tell you??? I'm an electrical engineer; so I believe in friction, but if the lower friction coefficient pads are working better than the higher friction coefficient pads, the precise understanding of that is out of my league. That's why I asked here, where I was hoping the s.e.r intelligentsia might help us rationalize a reason that stands the test of logical analysis. > the case here., There is NO LOGICAL EXPLANATION other than the FACT > that the markings are NOT a reliable predictor of brake performance - > muchless quality. I agreed with your assessment, and I even quoted the Michigan police cruiser test warning saying that the markings don't necessarily conform to real-world practice. I'm only asking here WHY an E coefficient pad (which is basically no pad at all) performed better than an F coefficient pad (which has an appreciably higher cold & hot friction coefficient)? > I puit more weight on the other qualities,as they are readilly evident > - while the friction grade of the material is not - as proven by the > tests. I'm going to have to somewhat reluctantly agree with you, unless we get a good reason, that no pad at all (i.e., just metal on metal) is "just as good" and "maybe even better" than a high friction coefficient pad. Pretty much that says "all pads work", does it not? >>But how do you know that from the numbers printed on the pad? > You don't. Again, I'm going to have to somewhat reluctantly agree with you, from a logical standpoint, that if essentially no pad at all (i.e., an E coefficient pad which has a coefficient of friction marginally better than steel on steel) is better or about as good as having a pad, then almost nothing printed on the side of the pad is going to make any difference. > lining to the shoe/pad. Does the "glue" adequately transmit the heat > or act as an insulator?? Personally,I'm a BIG fan of rivetted linings > and pads, rather than bonded. It seems there *must* be other *major* factors in braking performance, other than the friction rating of the pads themselves. That's a hard logical pill to swallow, for me, which is why I asked here, hoping the s.e.r folks can enlighten us as to why. > Failure of the testing/certification process to reflect real world > conditions. Well, the friction coefficient is a "real world" measurement. It just doesn't seem to matter in braking performance, based on that police cruiser test I unearthed. That's too bad, because it means you can't compare pads easily other than to note the material, type, and manufacturer, which the DOT CODES printed on each pad and shoe do tell you. So at least we can tell three pads with three different marketing strategies (e.g, Axxis, PBR, & Metal Masters) are the exact *same* pad, and we can tell when a pad is rebranded (I think Centric only does rebranded pads, for example, but I'd have to check the numbers to be sure). That indicates there is some utility in the mandated information that is printed on the side of each pad. But it's just sad that the friction coefficient means so little to a friction material! > Sorry, but you engineers devise the tests. There is definitely > SOMETHING wrong with either the design of the test, the implementation > of the test, (application) or the theory applied. Friction is friction. It's a mathematical beast. I don't think the SAE J866 Chase Tests lie about the friction of a 1" square piece of the friction material. They just don't predict real-world performance, it seems. (As noted in the Police Cruiser report.) > Which is why I put very limited weight on the stamped/published > friction ratings. Again, I must reluctantly agree with you, as hard a pill as it is to swallow, that friction coefficients are NOT an important factor in the performance of brake friction materials. Sigh. I just want to know WHY? > They have been proven time and again to be pretty close to useless. Well, as I said, the *numbers* printed on the side of every pad/shoe sold in the USA are *useful* in that they tell you the manufacturer, the material, and, the friction rating - so even if we discount the friction rating, it's nice to know when you can tell that two pads sold and marketed at two different prices, are the same pad. > progression between them - all other factors being the same (which > they seldom are). Or you may find an ee or ef pad or shoe STILL > outperforms an ff in the real world. I'm gonna have to reluctantly agree with you, yet again. I don't ever dispute fact. > There is a lot more involved in brake performance - particularly hot > performance, than simple coefficent of friction. It must be the case that friction isn't a *primary* determinant of brake performance, hard a pill as that is to swallow. > In this case, the test using a one square inch sample of pad material > TOTALLY misses the mark - meaning the test design is faulty from the > start. You'd think the SAE would know how to design a friction test though... > used in thase testa use ef or ff material in the > persuit special" vehicles, while civilian and even taxi (heavy duty) > use may have EE from the factory. I know. I know. You don't have to rub it in. I apologize for chastening you for using EE pads and shoes. I still think my Toyota OEM shoes are FF so I'm gonna get FF. Can you summarize again the short list of brands you'd recommend? I want to do the work for the owner this weekend. Thanks. |
| "pfjw@aol.com" <pfjw@aol.com>: Jan 11 01:20PM -0800 On Thursday, January 11, 2018 at 3:29:51 PM UTC-5, Mad Roger wrote: > > Jimmy Neutron is back!!! As promised under another alias. Do not feed the Troll! > I'm not even going to deny being whomever you say I am as that would ring > hollow were it true or false. But it is so easy to prove that you are not Mr. Neutron, but, in fact Mr. Rodgers. That you cannot does not prove that you are one-and-the-same, true. But your behavior, general ignorance, and fundamental lack of understanding on how things actually work, together with your presentation of speculations-as-fact make your mutual resemblance too eerie to discount. > <http://www.ameca.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/AMECA-List-of-VESC-V-3-Brake-Friction-Material-Edge-Codes-December-8-2017.pdf> > With this document, we can decipher the cryptic codes such as these: > https://s18.postimg.org/wqilqasdl/toyota_friction_material.jpg a) Why would one want to interpret these codes in the first place? The entire idea of purchasing brake parts is to find those that are most appropriate for your vehicle and your use. There are mechanics who make a living at this, do it every day, and for the most part are glad to share their experience with you on the advantages and disadvantages of the various options available. But, a competent mechanic (and clearly, you are not such) will not let a dangerous vehicle out on the road. And, believe it or not, most of them want their customers to come back - and will do their level best to enhance that outcome. b) This is a life-safety thing. Something you clearly do not GET, given your other rants, raves and wild goose chases. You are dangerous. Any vehicle under your care will also be dangerous. Were it only to yourself, most of us here would politely ignore you and watch you chase your tail and bang your head with detached amusement. But, in fact, it is likely that you take your pathology out on the road, where you endanger others. THAT is simply not acceptable. I used to do 90% of my own basic maintenance. Until I had children to worry about. Then grandchildren. And then, systems started getting very complex and integrated with other systems. Cars became cleaner, safer, more efficient, last longer, burn less oil - all good. These days, I will change my oil and other fluids - I will rotate tires (with a torque-wrench) and do other things. But touch life-safety parts? When the cost differential is, perhaps $100 or so (including a warranty) for those things I am tooled to do? Not on a bet! Even your life is worth too much for me to take that chance. Given your demonstrated competence, that you are absolutely and happily willing to risk the lives of others makes you quite disgusting. And fair game for any sort of criticism at any level. How is the BMW coming? I hope it is still up on blocks, or has thrown a rod, or has spun a bearing by now! Anywhere but on the road! Peter Wieck Melrose Park, PA |
| Clare Snyder <clare@snyder.on.ca>: Jan 11 04:55PM -0500 On Thu, 11 Jan 2018 20:09:25 -0000 (UTC), Mad Roger >I'm only asking here WHY an E coefficient pad (which is basically no pad at >all) performed better than an F coefficient pad (which has an appreciably >higher cold & hot friction coefficient)? Elementary, my dear Watson. There is a HECK of a lot more to brake pads than just the coefficient of friction - as Ihave been stating time and time again. Steel on steel is noisy. Steel on steel has no "feel". Steelon steel makes TERRIBLE brake dust, and steel on steel would have terrible pad and rotor or shoe and drum life. The coefficient of friction isn't all that bad - and the difference between e and f, I would postulate, is not so "appreciable" as "measurable" and the difference in fade bertween ee and ff pads is laughable. At 600 degrees an ee can suffer from 0 to 25% fade, while the "appreciably better" FF suffers from 0-22% fade - which means there is EVERY possibility that an EE pad would hac WAY less fade than another FF pad. The STUPID thing is an fe can suffer 2-44% fade - doesn't make ANY logical sense, but that's straight from http://faculty.ccbcmd.edu/~smacadof/DOTPadCodes.htm Friction material consists of a cobination of the following components: Fibers, such as fiberglass, kevlar, arimid, stainless steel, and aluminum maintain the heat stability of the pad. These fibers have various binding strengths and can be organic or metallic. Friction Modifiers such as graphite adjust the friction level and fine tune the performance characteristics of the pad at specific cold and hot temperatures. Fillers take up dead space in the pad. These are generally organic materials with some low frictional effect such as sawdust. Finally, Resins are used to hold the elements of the pad together so they don't crumble apart. >good reason, that no pad at all (i.e., just metal on metal) is "just as >good" and "maybe even better" than a high friction coefficient pad. >Pretty much that says "all pads work", does it not? All pads work at least once. The life of the pads is not taken into account >coefficient pad which has a coefficient of friction marginally better than >steel on steel) is better or about as good as having a pad, then almost >nothing printed on the side of the pad is going to make any difference. Dropping a railway tie into a post hole will stop you faster than a GG pad will = guaranteed!!! >> Failure of the testing/certification process to reflect real world >> conditions. >Well, the friction coefficient is a "real world" measurement. Yes, but the assininely simple test procedure is FAR from "real world". The behavior of a 1 square inchchunk of friction material does not come CLOSE to the effect of 2 30 square inch arcs of pad material in a 3 inch wide enclosed drum, or 2 10 square inch pads rubbing on an open disk - simple things like pad vibration can reduce the EFFECTIVE friction of a disc pad SIGNIFICANTLY (by cutting the "duty cycle" of the pad basically in HALF (A vibrating pad is only in full contact with the rotor roughly half the time) An off-gassing pad only 1 inch square is not going to "float" on that gas layer like a 10 square inch patch is under the same pressure. The "micro-ball-bearings" of brake dust will have virtually no effect on a 1 inch piece of friction material, but may have a SIGNIFICANT effect on 10 inches of brake shoe (which is why , partly, a grooved pad can significantly outperform a solid pad. There are WAY too many contributing factors that have WAY more influence on brake performance than the relatively SMALL difference between an e and an f pad. You could have an E pad at .34 and an f at .36. You tell me there is a quantifiable difference between the two???? Not in my world - where the rubber hits the road. >strategies (e.g, Axxis, PBR, & Metal Masters) are the exact *same* pad, and >we can tell when a pad is rebranded (I think Centric only does rebranded >pads, for example, but I'd have to check the numbers to be sure). Well over half of the "brands" are rebrands - not manufacturers. particularly the "boutique" brands the enthusiasts and boy racers wet their pants over >That indicates there is some utility in the mandated information that is >printed on the side of each pad. VERY limited utility >> of the test, (application) or the theory applied. >Friction is friction. >It's a mathematical beast. "Figures don't lie, but liars figure" You can make math give you any answer you want - ask an accountant. >I don't think the SAE J866 Chase Tests lie about the friction of a 1" >square piece of the friction material. They don't lie, they just, by their very nature, CAN NOT tell the whole truth >performance of brake friction materials. >Sigh. >I just want to know WHY? Because the initial friction co-efficient, as measured by the test in question, is only one of a miriad factors involved in brake performance - and a relatively MINOR one in the grand scheme of things. >Can you summarize again the short list of brands you'd recommend? >I want to do the work for the owner this weekend. >Thanks. Well, if I was doing the job, I'd be heading over to my neighbourhood NAPA store and pickingup a set of their Napa Ultra Premium rear shoe kits for $57.28 CANADIAN (about $35 US??)and be done with it. Or possibly over to Canadian Tire for a set of Brembos if they have them 20% off (they did this week - but their coverage is limited - they might not have shoes for a 'runner) or Wagners. Let's face it - they are REAR brakes - and they do less than 30% of the actual braking. A whole lot less in many cases due to the action of the load sensing brake proportioning valve that cuts preasure to the rear brakes when the rear axle us "unloaded" to prevent the rear brakes from locking and the ABS from activating. ABB (Brakebond) and Dana are generally predictable performers as well. |
| Mad Roger <rogermadd@yahoo.com>: Jan 11 11:59PM On Thu, 11 Jan 2018 13:20:56 -0800 (PST), > a) Why would one want to interpret these codes in the first place? Here's just one example to help answer that on-topic question bearing in mind that brake pads are highly marketed items. If you are comparing three pads that fit your vehicle spec: a. $50 Axxis performance b. $30 PBR midline c. $20 Metal Masters economy And you look at the code printed on the pads, you'll find they are *exactly* the same numbers (since they're all the same pads/shoes, just marketed differently). In addition, the code printed on the pads tell you the material is exactly the same, even if they're not the same pads (so you can more easily compare across brands). And it will tell you the coefficient of friction, even if those two things are different still, so you can compare across lines and brands for friction. Why would you deny a vehicle owner that useful comparative information? <http://www.ameca.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/AMECA-List-of-VESC-V-3-Brake-Friction-Material-Edge-Codes-December-8-2017.pdf> |
| Mad Roger <rogermadd@yahoo.com>: Jan 11 11:59PM On Thu, 11 Jan 2018 09:37:21 -0800 (PST), > Differences in brake materials has have limited immediate consequences. > What will change is longevity, pad wear, visual effects, rotor wear, > noise, smell and other irrelevant consequences to the actual need. With respect to "stopping distance", in the Michigan Police Cruiser study, they controlled for identical deceleration (thus identical stopping distance) and measured pedal force. This is a different test than applying a uniform pedal force and measuring stopping distance. <https://www.justnet.org/pdf/EvaluationBrakePads2000.pdf> I'm not sure how to extrapolate that information to stopping distances. |
| You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to sci.electronics.repair+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. |
No Response to "Digest for sci.electronics.repair@googlegroups.com - 25 updates in 3 topics"
Post a Comment