Ford needs to start acting responsibly

[ZanatWork]

You're describing not just a cruise control failure, but a complete failure of (at least) the power assist of the brake system itself...as the CC itself would not effect pedal effort.

 

The smell of cattle deposits hasn't gone away....

[FordVictim1997]

So given this... this guy goes after Ford.

 

Of course. The ones with the deep pockets.

 

So this was really a money play all along, wasn't it? It has nothing to do with UAW, quality of Ford product or even if something was really wrong. Dude just wants a payday.

 

If that was the case then I would at least be owning some property today. I could have easily taken everything the driver as well as the owners of the poperty where this occured owned. I was asked by Ford's attorney on the witness stand if I wanted the jury to feel sorry for me and give me heaps of money and I honestly responded no, that I would rather see something done to ensure that no one else ever had to go through what I had endured. I would gladly give what little I have left today to see these faulty units taken out of service. I have made an equally simple challenge to Ford, prove to me that an individual can keep his foot on the gas throughout four violent collisions as they allege happened that night. We backed our allegations up with scientific proof, all Ford has ever offered is conjecture. Anyone that has ever known me will be quick to tell you if I had received one penny from Ford it likely would have been given to helping others, just the way I am wired. Is it fair that the American tax payers are footing the medical bills for injuries caused by defective products? I think not but then that is my opinion. Give me the option of having every cent Ford is worth or having my life back and I will gladly pay for the later.

[BB390fe]

From everything I read so far... the jury decided correctly. The driver

in your case is the responsible party. The driver had it well within their power

to avoid the incident. If the engine revs uncontrollably, the brakes fail, and the

miraculously falls into gear.. the only thing the driver had to do was turn off the damn key.

 

I have a whole diatribe in mind for this... but you know what? It really isn't worth the time.

 

My sympathies on your injuries, and have fun on your crusade - but I think your dragons are merely windmills.

[FordVictim1997]

If you saw brake lights and you watched it pull away how did it come back and hit you? CC doesn't put cars into gear and doesn't engage under 40mph. Jumping into danger to save someone is admirable but you knew the risks of putting yourself in that position. How is this Ford's fault? Do you think Mr. Ford reads all of the mail he gets from people every day? Too many unanswered questions and holes in the story for me. Were you turned down for a job and trying to get back at someone?

 

The car struck the car dierectly in front of him, bounced off that and charged in our direction. As already stated, the CC unit is not designed to operate at low speeds but these units have been shown to be defective. It was only 7 years old when this happened, it will be interesting to see how many more start to fail now that they are approaching 20 years in service. Yes, I was well aware of the risks I took and I do accept my portion of responsibility for what happened that night. I would have done the same thing for anyone regardless of knowing the outcome. The fact that so many of the phrases I wrote in a particular letter to Mr. Ford and the BoD were then used my Billy in his commercial lead me to believe that he at least read that one letter; too much there to just be coincidence.

[FordVictim1997]

So you could see that the brake lights were on from your vantage point lying under the front of the car? You lose credibility right there.

 

Why not just accept the driver's testimony that he had his foot on the wrong pedal. Quit trying to blame Ford for your injuries, stop being so bitter about your lot, and move on with your life.

 

Read again, I saw a bright red glow. The car at the time was hinged in the back of a Dodge Ram SUV, so the tail lights would be directed towards the ground; once we hit the concrete wall that car climbed into the back of the SUV dragging me underneath it. I don't know about you, but even my tired old eyes of today can distinguish between the dull glow of tail lights and the bright glow of brake lights, still I have refrained from stating that I actually saw his brake lights at that point. It took a long time to convince me that it could be something other than the driver stepping on the gas instead of the brakes. I have degrees in engineering as well as graduate degrees in mathematics, so I was not convinced simply by an attorney telling me that if I believe this I could stand to gets gobs of money. It took a lot of scientific testing and the facts produced by such before I saw that what happened went far beyond what the driver was capable of causing. I am not bitter nor do I blame my injuries on Ford. Hell, I am not dead like many victims of this problem nor in a coma like others. I placed myself in danger that night when I opted to attempt to spare a mother and her six year old child from the immenent harm about to be done to them and I readily accept the consequneces. Ford did have a role in what happened that night as they produced the vehicle that caused it all. Nine years later Ford is the only party that has yet to accept any responsibility for what happened that night. BTW, if I ever find myself in that situation again and this time it happens to be your child, I will likely act just as I did 9 years ago.

 

This is true on many cars. I've experienced playing around with a couple of cars, though, where gassing it with just the brakes on doesn't keep the car from moving. It will fight its way forward. I need both the brake and the e-brake to hold the car steady.

 

Then just drop the e-brake and lift off the brake quickly and you sometimes get wheelspin.

 

My post doesn't correlate at all with FordVictim's comments; I'm just bringing some fair information to the table.

 

In the tests that Ford conducted where they showed the CC units were capable of failing as described, they also attempted to show that the vehicle could be stopped. That test showed that while the vehicle could be stopped eventually, it was not an automatic thing. The car traveled a good distance and required a measurable amount of force to be applied before motyion was finally halted. Of course, this is the stuff that they only make known when ordered by a court to do so.

[campbell53]

You have got to be kidding me.....I nearly slipped into a coma reading this ridiculous blather. Dude I want my 5 minutes back that I wasted on this fantasy. Go type your fiction somewhere else....

[RichardJensen]

Brakes with horsepower?

Yep.

 

Although, you would need to substitute "work" for "force" in the definition of power... Memory fades after a while

 

Here's how it works---

 

(Quoting directly from my COLLEGE PHYSICS textbook)

 

Example 7.12 Minimum Stopping Distance

An automobile traveling at 48 km/h can be stopped in a minimum distance of 40 m by applying the brakes. If the same automobile is traveling at 96km/h, what is the minimum stopping distance?

 

Solution We shall assume that when the brakes are applied, the car does not skid. To get the minimum stopping distance, d, we take the frictional force Æ’ between the tires and road to be a maximum. The work done by this frictional force, -Æ’d, must be equal to the change in kinetic energy fof the automobile. Since the kinetic energy has a final value of zero and an initial value of 1/2mv^2, we get

 

W(sub)final = K(sub)final - K(sub)initial

 

-Æ’d = 0 - 1/2mv^2

 

--------- BREAK ----------

 

We are going to solve for Æ’, the force applied by the brakes (the example goes on to show that stopping distance increases exponentially, as velocity increases), for a vehicle traveling 48km/h.

 

Æ’ = mv^2 / 2d

 

Now, let us assign a mass of 1,500 kg to this vehicle.

 

Our equation is now

 

Æ’ = (1,500 kg)(48 km/h)^2 / 80m

 

Æ’ = 43,200 kg*km^2/m h^2

 

Convert to appropriate units:

 

Æ’ = 43,200 * (1 kg * 1,000 m / 360 s^2)

 

Æ’ = 12,000N

 

W = Æ’ * d

 

W = 12,000 * 40

 

W = 480,000J

 

convert to standard

 

1J = .738 ft lbs

 

W = 354,240 ft-lbs (note: this is not directly analogous to the ft-lbs of torque generated by an engine)

 

P = delta W / delta t

 

Assume a 2 second stopping time and you get:

 

P = 354,240 / 2

 

P = 177,120 ft-lbs/s

 

Convert this to HP

 

P = 177,120 ft-lbs/s / 550

 

P = 322 hp.

 

The power applied to the brakes, over the two seconds required to stop the car is 322hp. On a vehicle that takes 131' to brake from 30mph.

 

(note: edited to correct math error).

Edited December 23, 2006 by RichardJensen

[FordVictim1997]

From everything I read so far... the jury decided correctly. The driver

in your case is the responsible party. The driver had it well within their power

to avoid the incident. If the engine revs uncontrollably, the brakes fail, and the

miraculously falls into gear.. the only thing the driver had to do was turn off the damn key.

 

I have a whole diatribe in mind for this... but you know what? It really isn't worth the time.

 

My sympathies on your injuries, and have fun on your crusade - but I think your dragons are merely windmills.

 

This happened at a drive-in theater just as everyone was starting to leave, so I am sure the driver was more concerned with steering away from kids than reaching down to turn off the ignition (I cannot say for sure though as I was not there with him at the time.) When the carnage was finally over, an off-duty DPS officer did reach in and turn the ignition off to stop the tires from slinging gravel everywhere. The argument makes as much sense (to me at least) as Ford's argument that the driver slammed down on the gas by mistake (if that was the case, then what facilitated his need to apply such quick and sustaining force?) I have never said that Ford was 100% responsible, but I do feel that product defect contributed greatly. It has been almost 10 years since that night and these devices continue to fail because (unlike Billy boy using my own words to say that even one life is too many) the powers that be see more profit in fighting potential court cases than fixing the problem. Think about where these older models cars are likely to appear: shopping center parking lots, high school parking lots...i.e. places where young kids who will not know how to respond are most likely to be present. Are your convictions strong enough that you would risk the lives of your children? Those are the dragons that I seek to slay.

[RichardJensen]

If horsepower is an accurate measure of work required to increase the velocity of a vehicle over a certain period of time, it is every bit as accurate a measure of work required to decrease the velocity of a vehicle over a certain period of time.

 

One of the first things covered in Phys 211, was the equivalence of acceleration and deceleration. Acceleration is ANY change in velocity, over time. Hence, what's good for the goose (engine) is good for the gander (brakes).

 

Of course, my degree is in ART, so I may be much mistaken about all this.

Edited December 22, 2006 by RichardJensen

[Bluecon]

As long as Pioneer...weeks after we'd last posted anythin gtoward each other...is going to post incorrect babble about me, he certainly is creating his own argument for seeming challenged!

 

Oh, wait...you're now doing the same thing! I suppose in your case, you see your post as a qualifier for MENSA....

Liar, liar pants on fire award for today goes to Zanatwork

 

Quote Zanatwork today in response to Pioneer.

For the last time you sad, challenged little stalker, I'm NOT INTO GUYS. GET OFF YOUR KNEES AND TRY SOMEONE ELSE!

 

 

 

Sorry 'bout that, folks! Apparently he thought it was odd, me mentioning the Taurus which was already part of the discussion. He's depriving some poor village of its idiot again.

Edited December 23, 2006 by Bluecon

[RichardJensen]

Bluecon, Zan, etc. Confine this crap to the thread where it started.

[ZanatWork]

Err, yeah, that was in response to his quip today...what are you trying to say?

 

He started in on me out of nowhere yesterday, and I've responded. As I stated earlier, there hadn't been anything for some time before this latest round.

 

I don't understand what you're trying to prove.

[Bluecon]

If horsepower is an accurate measure of work required to increase the velocity of a vehicle over a certain period of time, it is every bit as accurate a measure of work required to decrease the velocity of a vehicle over a certain period of time.

 

One of the first things covered in Phys 211, was the equivalence of acceleration and deceleration. Acceleration is ANY change in velocity, over time. Hence, what's good for the goose (engine) is good for the gander (brakes).

 

Of course, my degree is in ART, so I may be much mistaken about all this.

That doesn't take into account the case of the brakes holding a stationary vehicle were there is no accelaration or decelaration. You are calculating the amount of work the brakes do in a period of time and converting it to HP. Or your coefficient of friction which will be much higher when the wheels are not turning. If your foot is on the brake and you are not moving it is much harder to overcome the coefficient of friction. Once the wheels are turning you have a lower coefficient of friction (in the brakes).

 

How about some links to this case? It must have been in the papers?

Edited December 23, 2006 by Bluecon

[xr7g428]

I have never heard the term "backflush" used in any reference to electronics or electrical engineering, never in 30 years. Please provide us with the transcript from the trial where these new concepts were presented. Every piece of evidence is now public record. SHOW US....

 

We are sorry for your situation. Repeating the story here is not going to make it any more plausible. How about a compromise, the driver pushed the wrong pedal, in addition to the brake pedal, kind of like heel toe gone wrong...

 

The full size Ford is probably the most routinely abused vehicle on the planet. They serve as Police cars, and then when the Police feel they are used up, the become Taxi's and go another quarter million miles until they are totally used up. If there were any vehicle that would reveal a weakness, this would be the one. About the only thing that we know for sure is that when rear ended at 70 mph, bad things can happen. There has been no rash of cruise control failures. If there were, you can be sure your lawyers would have presented the cases.

 

Ten years have passed, the majority of these cars have long been off the road for years, no pattern of failure has occurred. Regain your self esteem by moving on.

 

And by the way, your lawyers were coaching you when they called you their least helpful client. They wanted you to look as pathetic as possible on the stand. You just didn't get the hint.

[RichardJensen]

That doesn't take into account the case of the brakes holding a stationary vehicle were there is no accelaration or decelaration. You are calculating the amount of work the brakes do in a period of time and converting it to HP. Or your coefficient of friction which will be much higher when the wheels are not turning. If your foot is on the brake and you are not moving it is much harder to overcome the coefficient of friction. Once the wheels are turning you have a lower coefficient of friction (in the brakes).

Okay, that wasn't your point.

 

You implied that brake performance cannot be measured in horsepower.

 

But (sigh) to address THIS particular question.....

 

The question at issue is how much FORCE can be applied to the 4 wheels, at any given moment.

 

Let's take this example:

 

A 1500kg vehicle that stops from 60mph in 120'

 

The brakes in this vehicle apply 14,748N of force.

 

Per this same textbook, the rolling resistance of a typical car tire is .016, therefore, the engine in this example must overcome 14,748N of applied brake pressure and 235N of rolling resistance or 14,983N of total inertial & brake force.

 

Now, if we assume that 14,983 represents the rolling resistance of a vehicle of weight x, then a little back calculation: x = 14,983/.016 gives us a weight of 936,437N, or 95,554kg, or 210,658lbs.

 

Do you think that there is any engine, in any production vehicle weighing 1500kg, that is capable of moving a wheeled vehicle that weighs 210,658lbs?

 

Because the force needed to overcome rolling resistance on a 210,658lb vehicle is equal to the force required to start a vehicle of standard braking ability, with the brakes fully applied.

Edited December 23, 2006 by RichardJensen

[xr7g428]

Thanks Richard!

 

The only place the laws of physics do not apply, is in a court of law...

 

"If it doesn't fit, you must acquit."

[matthewq4b]

This happened at a drive-in theater just as everyone was starting to leave, so I am sure the driver was more concerned with steering away from kids than reaching down to turn off the ignition (I cannot say for sure though as I was not there with him at the time.) When the carnage was finally over, an off-duty DPS officer did reach in and turn the ignition off to stop the tires from slinging gravel everywhere. The argument makes as much sense (to me at least) as Ford's argument that the driver slammed down on the gas by mistake (if that was the case, then what facilitated his need to apply such quick and sustaining force?) I have never said that Ford was 100% responsible, but I do feel that product defect contributed greatly. It has been almost 10 years since that night and these devices continue to fail because (unlike Billy boy using my own words to say that even one life is too many) the powers that be see more profit in fighting potential court cases than fixing the problem. Think about where these older models cars are likely to appear: shopping center parking lots, high school parking lots...i.e. places where young kids who will not know how to respond are most likely to be present. Are your convictions strong enough that you would risk the lives of your children? Those are the dragons that I seek to slay.

 

 

That cruise actuator has not been used since the 1991 Model year. Those units were used from 1979 to 1991 and this is the first instance I have heard of these units accelrating from a stand still. The cruise system even if turned on will not engage until over 35 or 40 MPH.

The cruse units has been known to engage by themselves and not disengage.

 

I doubt it was the cruise unit. What is more likly is a stuck throttle. The Panthers especially the 79 to 91's are prone to getting the gas pedal jammed up behind the floor mats then holding it open, if you tap the gas pedal to release it think it might be stuck you only jam it open more, But it will usually (not all the time) require the pedal to be pushed to the floor then the mat grabs it. This I know, as I have had it happen to me more than once on every single Panther I have owned.. The earlier factory floor mats tended to skate around abit and the design was just right for grabbing the pedal. (After market rubber mats fixes the problem)

 

The fact that this happend after a lengthy time of the occupants sitting in the car with out it running only reinforces my opinion that this is what likly happend. It can be unerving to a say the least just on the hyway. The first time it happend to me after passing some one on the hyway I shut the car off. After that I knew I just had to reach down and grab the floor mat and pull it back. On a couple occations I have started the car with the engine reving higher than it should due to the mat holding the throttle down. and yes if you tap the throttle the mat just hold the throttle open even more.

 

The early Panthers had marginal brakes to begin with.

On the drum braked Panthers it is very easy to over power the rear brakes. Even at a stand still with the brakes fully applied unless the rear brakes are perfectly adjusted and set (none ever are) you can floor the brakes drop the car in gear mat the go pedal and on a loose surface (gravel snow etc) you will spin the rear tires.

 

The last gen of Panthers were terribly brake proportioned. One of the reasons they were so hard on front brakes. In the 92 I got twice the milage miles out of a set of front brakes over the 85. Unlike in the 85 on the 92 the rear brakes actually do some thing.

 

 

 

If the engine did go full throttle the driver proboly did stand on the brakes and the rear tires still spun. So out of habi they did what do most of us would is do release the brakes and stand on them again. Allowing the car to gain some momentum. Once that happens front tires locked up on a loose surface with the rears driving the car is still going to move. He more than likly then relased the brakes to gain controlability and gained speed and this just snowballed

 

The cruise units on the early cars had glitches (hence the reason the part was changed for 92) But as I said it was not from a standstill situation the vehical had to be in motion first, above the 35-40MPH point.

 

Matthew

[RichardJensen]

Once the wheels are turning you have a lower coefficient of friction (in the brakes).

The difference here, is that the coefficient of friction on each brake pad is ignored, as it is considered a part of the brake system as much as frictional and heat losses in the engine are considered part of the engine.

 

In reality, most brake pads have about a .3-.5µ, and therefore the brake system delivers considerably more force to the pad, than the pad does to the disc/drum.

 

Factoring in about a 20% better performance, say, for the static coefficient of friction on brake pads, than the dynamic, and you can increase the weight of the vehicle in the above cited example to 245,000 lbs, give or take.

[Bluecon]

Okay, that wasn't your point.

My point is that there is a reason brakes are not rated in HP.

 

 

The difference here, is that the coefficient of friction on each brake pad is ignored, as it is considered a part of the brake system as much as frictional and heat losses in the engine are considered part of the engine.

 

In reality, most brake pads have about a .3-.5µ, and therefore the brake system delivers considerably more force to the pad, than the pad does to the disc/drum.

 

Factoring in about a 20% better performance, say, for the static coefficient of friction on brake pads, than the dynamic, and you can increase the weight of the vehicle in the above cited example to 245,000 lbs, give or take.

The coefficient of friction is not static and will vary with the speed of the discs or drums.

The calculations are not nearly as simple as your example.

[FordVictim1997]

I have never heard the term "backflush" used in any reference to electronics or electrical engineering, never in 30 years. Please provide us with the transcript from the trial where these new concepts were presented. Every piece of evidence is now public record. SHOW US....

 

We are sorry for your situation. Repeating the story here is not going to make it any more plausible. How about a compromise, the driver pushed the wrong pedal, in addition to the brake pedal, kind of like heel toe gone wrong...

 

The full size Ford is probably the most routinely abused vehicle on the planet. They serve as Police cars, and then when the Police feel they are used up, the become Taxi's and go another quarter million miles until they are totally used up. If there were any vehicle that would reveal a weakness, this would be the one. About the only thing that we know for sure is that when rear ended at 70 mph, bad things can happen. There has been no rash of cruise control failures. If there were, you can be sure your lawyers would have presented the cases.

 

Ten years have passed, the majority of these cars have long been off the road for years, no pattern of failure has occurred. Regain your self esteem by moving on.

 

And by the way, your lawyers were coaching you when they called you their least helpful client. They wanted you to look as pathetic as possible on the stand. You just didn't get the hint.

 

Gee, it has been a few years since I made my A's in both analog and digital circuits but I can still recall how electricity flows. Everytime power goes into something and then stops, there will be a slight amount of reversed current (it does not just magically disappear once the switch is turned off.) The problem shown to affect the units on question was overtime they would degrade to the point where this "backflush" charge was enough to activate them, not hard to do considering they were wired to have pwer from the get go. Repeating the story here may do little more than to convince one person that they should think twice before considering owning a Ford; if I accomplish that much I will feel satisfied. Why do you feel so threatened by me telling what happened to me?

 

Yes 10 years have passed and while many of these cars are now off the roads, a number still remain in operation. Where do you think Ford's popularity comes from, those who cannot afford better vehicles.

 

Prior to meeting these guys I would have agreed that they were probably coaching to some extent, but the truth is they would rather have seen me recover than collect. Not everyone in this world is motivated by the all-mighty dollar, there are a few who put personally responsibilities and integrity above all else. I told Ford early on if they could give me back what I lost that night I would gladly pay them everything I had as well as everything I would ever have. My respect for the legal profession used to be absolutley zero, just as my faith in Ford used to be a lot stronger (ironic how life turns out sometimes, isn't it.) These guys stood by me even after the case was lost and the appeals turned down and remain my friends to this day.

 

So why post here, why not? I have maintained from the beginning if Ford could show where my line of thinking was flawed then I would listen, but so far all Ford has offered is one lie after another along with the attitudes that have been shown on this web site. I was a mathematician by trade, and as such I have never accepted anything as being absolute. Some ideas are more plausible than others and some have more adequate proofs to support their existence, but most everything is based upon a weaker summise somewhere along the line. I am not bitter and I am not looking for a huge windfall from Ford, I just want them to accept their share of the respionsibility for what happened that night. Some may say that their offer to settle prior to trial was merely a cost of doing business, I say it was an admission of some guilt. Some may say the tactics used by theior lawyers at trial to ban evidence ansd ask questions that had absolutely nothing to do with the case at hand were just legal moves, I see them as tactics aimed at hiding and/or disguising the truth. This is America and as a proud veteran I will cling to my right to voice my opnion when I think I am right. I have stated the facts as I know them to be here, and I am more than willing to hear counter arguments that may possibly change my opinion of the facts. I will also be glad to do this without resorting to namecalling or other juvenile acts that I have witnessed thus far. The internet is a wonderful thing as it allows for the dispersion of knowledge across all boundaries; sadly, it also allows for small-minded individuals to cherish a feeling of superiority by attacking others while hiding behind a keyboard. I wonder how many of the insults hosted here would be made face to face. My selfesteem is fine as I fight everyday to make progress over the last. I have never been a quitter and I do not plan to start now, nor will I ever close my mind to what is happening in the world around me. If that sounds wrong to you, so be it as you are just as entitled to your opinion as I am mine.

[RichardJensen]

Interesting stuff Matthew.

[RichardJensen]

My point is that there is a reason brakes are not rated in HP.

The coefficient of friction is not static and will vary with the speed of the discs or drums.

The calculations are not nearly as simple as your example.

This is what you said:

Brakes with horsepower? I am willing to bet your degree wasn't in engineering.

 

That statement implicitly challenges my previous statement that brake performance can be measured in horsepower.

 

Now, it having been CONCLUSIVELY demonstrated that brake performance can be measured in hp, you say, "My point is that there is a reason brakes are not rated in HP" as though I had insisted that brakes ARE rated by hp.

 

Then you say, "The coefficient of friction is not static and will vary with the speed of the discs or drums", which is not accurate, as the coefficient of friction does not vary based on speed, but varies based on temperature.

 

As you say, the calculations are not nearly as simple as your example.

[matthewq4b]

Interesting stuff Matthew.

 

 

Well the reason I brought it up was because I have had the throttle issue on all my Panthers.

and every time it happend it was after sitting the car for a Lengthy period of time. IE just sitting doing paper work or long hyway drives.

 

The mats in the Panthers have a rectangular cut out for the gas pedal. So it can can be fully depressed. as there is already an 1" of carpet and sound deadening under the pedal in the spot. Having the floor under the pedal severly limit's it's full travel.

 

With the Mat cut out just in front of the go pedal and the right side of the mat rides up the tranny tunnel a bit.

 

If the mat gets moved to the left the and then forward the set in the mat from the tranny tunnel will rest above or on the the gas pedal. When the pedal is depressed the mat will tend to drop and hold the pedal in an other than at rest position. Stepping on the peddel again will force the carpet up even further.

 

The old factory mats had little plastci tits on the bottom in time these tend to get bent back. Allowing the mat to slide forward but not back.

 

I still think the most likly cause was a throttle jammed by a floor mat. the Year of the car fits the profile for these mats, The age of the car is right for mat deformation by the tranny tunnel to take a set.

The occpants would have been sitting in the vehical with out it running for at least a couple hours.

This is a VERY common problem on the Panthers

 

Just to many things fit for this explintaion. Unlike the mysterious self acting accelerating cruise control.

 

Many many things would have had to fail in the cruise system for this to happen. To many in fact.

 

If it had happend to a vehical at speed the accelerated out of control then the cruise would be as suspect as any thing else. But from a stand still and a long occupant sitting time in the car, the floormat explination is a far more plausible and likly scenario.

 

 

Matthew

[Bluecon]

This is what you said:

That statement implicitly challenges my previous statement that brake performance can be measured in horsepower.

 

Now, it having been CONCLUSIVELY demonstrated that brake performance can be measured in hp, you say, "My point is that there is a reason brakes are not rated in HP" as though I had insisted that brakes ARE rated by hp.

 

Then you say, "The coefficient of friction is not static and will vary with the speed of the discs or drums", which is not accurate, as the coefficient of friction does not vary based on speed, but varies based on temperature.

 

As you say, the calculations are not nearly as simple as your example.

You have calculated the average HP to stop a vehicle going a certain speed in a certain distance not the actual HP of the brakes.

What is the horsepower of the brakes when the vehicle is stopped and in park and you engage the brakes?

The brakes have no HP, they simply convert the kinetic energy in the vehicle.

 

Perhaps it is normal for Arts students to use HP for braking calculations, however you will not see engineers calculating the required brakes with HP.

 

Quote Bluecon

Brakes with horsepower? I am willing to bet your degree wasn't in engineering.

 

This is very true. Only an arts student would use HP to calculate braking force.

[Edstock]

How about joules? Then again, they do call it brake horsepower.