I can't fabricate?
#141
... Dude... I was just throwing out a number that's close, much like you do in your "precision" measurements. The fact is, a truck will be closer to 70/30 while braking (with no additional weight in the bed) and probably even more front biased since weight is easier to take out of the rear and the easiest place is where you will start. Don't let 10% one way or another seriously be what you bade this optimism on... Especially when you really have no clue to begin with.
How do I have no clue?
That 10% can be the difference between me or you being correct. Say 4000lbs of braking force.
2800/1200
2400/1600
Now those calculations are removing weight transfer and all other variables but 1600 is significantly more then 1200! I think that might event be 125% but I am just and idiot with no clue.
#143
TECH Addict
iTrader: (11)
Ok sorry for not reading all of your post I thought they were of finished products that was my fault for assuming. I'm going to give you the benefit of the dought and wait to see your "finished" products. I'm not trying to bash you or start a argument or anything I would like to help in any way I can but you have to agree with me on the front brakes track truck or not you appsolutely need them no question about it. I'm sure there are other ways to loose the weight safely. I would have considered fiberglass fenders or somthing like that before removing such a vital part. I'm not going to go into calculations or anything like that bout weight transfer or anything like that but in reality you hit the brakes at the end of that track going 100+ mph your rear brakes are going to lock up and your gonna slam into a wall or another racer. I just can't see how there is even a debate about this it's common sence.
#144
Hunt&Fisherator
iTrader: (15)
70/30 is the agreed norm for older cars. Now it is 60/40 and close to 50/50 with many car.
How do I have no clue?
That 10% can be the difference between me or you being correct. Say 4000lbs of braking force.
2800/1200
2400/1600
Now those calculations are removing weight transfer and all other variables but 1600 is significantly more then 1200! I think that might event be 125% but I am just and idiot with no clue.
How do I have no clue?
That 10% can be the difference between me or you being correct. Say 4000lbs of braking force.
2800/1200
2400/1600
Now those calculations are removing weight transfer and all other variables but 1600 is significantly more then 1200! I think that might event be 125% but I am just and idiot with no clue.
#145
For you to question my integrity does boil my blood. I can handle criticism, I can have all the negative comments on my ideas and not have a worry in the world but if you are going to call me a liar,fake or make judgment on my honesty you can kiss my ***.
#146
PT's Slowest Truck
iTrader: (19)
Ben hit the nail on the head with the brakes...your comment about your rears having more stopping force than an entire f-body is an ignorant statement and really exposes how little you know about how a motor vehicle operates and functions. I keep trying to keep my comments to myself with this thread, but statements like that really strike a nerve with me. If you delete your front brakes, I hope you invest in a parachute.
#147
TECH Veteran
iTrader: (5)
70/30 is the agreed norm for older cars. Now it is 60/40 and close to 50/50 with many car.
How do I have no clue?
That 10% can be the difference between me or you being correct. Say 4000lbs of braking force.
2800/1200
2400/1600
Now those calculations are removing weight transfer and all other variables but 1600 is significantly more then 1200! I think that might event be 125% but I am just and idiot with no clue.
How do I have no clue?
That 10% can be the difference between me or you being correct. Say 4000lbs of braking force.
2800/1200
2400/1600
Now those calculations are removing weight transfer and all other variables but 1600 is significantly more then 1200! I think that might event be 125% but I am just and idiot with no clue.
#148
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (14)
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: flemington nj
Posts: 1,103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i am in NO way saying dont run front brakes but ive worked on a few "door slammer" type CARS going 9's with no front brakes. you sure as **** dont want a bumpy shut down area or a 2500+ lb car though without front brakes
the other stuff is just silly. i am one for doing things different too but within reason
the other stuff is just silly. i am one for doing things different too but within reason
#149
Three6GMC
This front brake idea has spiraled out of controll due to the people that keep bringing it up. Then someone with a bit an open mind(you) comes along and the entire thing needs to be explained because you certainly can't leave it up to the fools that bring it up every time they get pissed off.
This front brake idea has spiraled out of controll due to the people that keep bringing it up. Then someone with a bit an open mind(you) comes along and the entire thing needs to be explained because you certainly can't leave it up to the fools that bring it up every time they get pissed off.