Test of brakes vs. engine

2003 subaru outback automatic, car weighs about 3600lbs. Brakes are
new with about 1000 miles on them, and are bedded-in about as well as
subaru brakes ever get (new rotors, ceramic pads).

Testing went pretty much as I envisaged.
I will say up front I was not willing to cook the heck outta my
brakes, but I gave them a pretty good workout.

Also let me say that almost anyone that this happens to that has a
plan can probably emerge unscathed (but with a damaged car), but this
test is only about brakes vs. engine, which wins.

What I expected was that at speed, 55, 65, 70 or so, the brakes would
be able to shed a lot of speed off the car very quickly, but that the
ability of the brakes to do so would actually fall as the cars speed
decreased, due to 3 reasons:

1) the brakes heat up and fade (very quickly with full throttle
applied)... expected by all, I imagine
2) the car, being an automatic, downshifted as speed fell, resulting
in more torque being applied to the wheels
3) as the car goes slower and slower, the rate at which the brakes can
remove energy from the system goes down dramatically, while the rate
at which the engine can add energy to the system remains constant (not
envisioned by most here saying the brakes will always win)

I felt these 3 effects would combine such that the car would slow down
considerably, reach 1st or maybe 2nd gear, and that the car would stay
at a fixed speed until the brakes faded sufficiently that the car
would resume accelerating.

To test this, I really needed to test only one thing- in 1st gear,
throttle full, can the car stop?
Well, on my subaru, no powerhouse, the answer is decidedly 'no'. I did
this several times to make sure I would test the brakes through the
temperature with the best friction, and for cold, warm, or hot the
best the brakes could do was a draw, which of course if I did it long
enough the brakes would fade and the car would accelerate.

I did some speed runs from 55, 65, and about 70 and had about the same
results. I did *not* cook my brakes to the point where they actually
faded and lost effectiveness, since in 1st gear the car could not
stop.


So, reacting to a stuck throttle only by braking, here's what would
happen with my car:
1) throttle sticks full-on
2) speed goes up, to, say 70 or 80 (doesn't really matter, except for
figuring total heat load)
3) driver applies full brakes, nothing more
4) car quickly slows to, say 30 or even 25mph, downshifting as it
slows
5) driver figures he has it under control
6) brakes heat sufficiently they lose effectiveness
7) car accelerates
8) driver regrets not having made out their will

If the driver begins by applying the brakes less than fully, the total
heat load will be all the greater and the brakes may even fade before
the car slows into the lower gears.

If at *any* time the driver pumps the brakes, there is no way the
unboosted brakes will be able to slow the vehicle. I tested that and
in 2 pumps I was standing on the pedal, accelerating, without faded
brakes.

Now, a big-engine rear-wheel-drive will probably lock the fronts and
spin the rears, but for FWD or AWD that's not going to happen
(obviously).

Positing a situation where you could not shut the car off or place it
in a lower gear/neutral, the best thing to do would be to apply the
brakes fully, get to the lower speed, and drive into the ditch or
against something so that the car would get stuck off-road or behind
something so it could not move.

A small 1200cc econobox, yeah, you'll probably overpower the engine
with the brakes in 1st gear, but my subaru is no powerhouse, and the
engine wins.

A more powerful vehicle, even with good brakes, brakes will lose.



Dave

On 2009-10-14, XR650L_Dave > wrote:

> Now, a big-engine rear-wheel-drive will probably lock the fronts and
> spin the rears, but for FWD or AWD that's not going to happen
> (obviously).

In FWD one could apply the parking brake to the rear wheels. The thing
about mechanical brake systems is that they don't suffer from fluid
heating. There are control issues from applying the parking brake in a
'run-away-car', but it should stop the rear wheels from turning.
Dragging both rear wheels should slow the car significantly. They
will drag because the only thing turning them is friction with the road
and the brakes can overcome the tire-pavement interface and lock the
wheels.

A RWD car has the benefit of it's major braking wheels not having engine
power applied to them. Even if the rear brakes burn out from the engine
torque overtaking their abilities the car will slow and probably become
a spinning smokey mess.

I still don't see the engine winning if one does something rash,
desperate, and forceful to stop the car with the brakes one way or
another. The brakes on the non-driven wheels will be able to stop them
from rolling. Once that is achieved, the brakes will not fade. With the
wheels locked the car is going to spin or drag the locked wheels. If
done long enough the tires blowout and it's then dragging the rims...

Anyway, the real way to get rid of the 'run-away-car' is to ban the
automatic transmission Big mechanical disconnect between the engine
and the wheels wins every time.

On Oct 14, 10:59*am, Brent > wrote:
> On 2009-10-14, XR650L_Dave > wrote:
>
> > Now, a big-engine rear-wheel-drive will probably lock the fronts and
> > spin the rears, but for FWD or AWD that's not going to happen
> > (obviously).
>
> In FWD one could apply the parking brake to the rear wheels. The thing
> about mechanical brake systems is that they don't suffer from fluid
> heating. There are control issues from applying the parking brake in a
> 'run-away-car', but it should stop the rear wheels from turning.
> Dragging both rear wheels should slow the car significantly. They
> will drag because the only thing turning them is friction with the road
> and the brakes can overcome the tire-pavement interface and lock the
> wheels.
>

The rear wheels sliding friction would be quite low, given the light
ass-end of most FWD cars. There'd be some drag, but not as much as
you're positing, I believe.

> A RWD car has the benefit of it's major braking wheels not having engine
> power applied to them. Even if the rear brakes burn out from the engine
> torque overtaking their abilities the car will slow and probably become
> a spinning smokey mess.
>

Yep, I mentioned about the same.

> I still don't see the engine winning if one does something rash,
> desperate, and forceful to stop the car with the brakes one way or
> another. The brakes on the non-driven wheels will be able to stop them
> from rolling. Once that is achieved, the brakes will not fade. With the
> wheels locked the car is going to spin or drag the locked wheels. If
> done long enough the tires blowout and it's then dragging the rims...
>

This ignores the ABS system, and further, I have seen cars driven with
locked-up non-drive wheels, the tires soon pop, and the sliding rim
has surprisingly little friction. Also pre-supposes relatively strong
rear-wheel disks, as opposed to undersized and almost useless drum
rear brakes.

This doesn't help with the growing fraction of AWD cars, either.

> Anyway, the real way to get rid of the 'run-away-car' is to ban the
> automatic transmission Big mechanical disconnect between the engine
> and the wheels wins every time.


Dave

On 2009-10-14, XR650L_Dave > wrote:
> On Oct 14, 10:59*am, Brent > wrote:
>> On 2009-10-14, XR650L_Dave > wrote:
>>
>> > Now, a big-engine rear-wheel-drive will probably lock the fronts and
>> > spin the rears, but for FWD or AWD that's not going to happen
>> > (obviously).
>>
>> In FWD one could apply the parking brake to the rear wheels. The thing
>> about mechanical brake systems is that they don't suffer from fluid
>> heating. There are control issues from applying the parking brake in a
>> 'run-away-car', but it should stop the rear wheels from turning.
>> Dragging both rear wheels should slow the car significantly. They
>> will drag because the only thing turning them is friction with the road
>> and the brakes can overcome the tire-pavement interface and lock the
>> wheels.

> The rear wheels sliding friction would be quite low, given the light
> ass-end of most FWD cars. There'd be some drag, but not as much as
> you're positing, I believe.

Even so it will result in a rotational force applied to the vehicle that
should send it into some fixed object.

>> A RWD car has the benefit of it's major braking wheels not having engine
>> power applied to them. Even if the rear brakes burn out from the engine
>> torque overtaking their abilities the car will slow and probably become
>> a spinning smokey mess.

> Yep, I mentioned about the same.

>> I still don't see the engine winning if one does something rash,
>> desperate, and forceful to stop the car with the brakes one way or
>> another. The brakes on the non-driven wheels will be able to stop them
>> from rolling. Once that is achieved, the brakes will not fade. With the
>> wheels locked the car is going to spin or drag the locked wheels. If
>> done long enough the tires blowout and it's then dragging the rims...

> This ignores the ABS system,

Would only apply to service brakes and would be dependent on the logic
it was programmed with. I wonder how ABS is programmed to deal with
drivers who use one foot for the accelerator and the other for the
brake.

> and further, I have seen cars driven with
> locked-up non-drive wheels, the tires soon pop, and the sliding rim
> has surprisingly little friction. Also pre-supposes relatively strong
> rear-wheel disks, as opposed to undersized and almost useless drum
> rear brakes.

But they still can't out run the cops.

>I was not willing to cook the heck outta my brakes

Brakes are relatively cheap and easy to fix. What might ultimately
have happened to your automatic transmission and/or the nuclear pit
that distributes the results to all four in a Subaru... that's another
question, and potentially neither easy nor cheap. Concluding that
you'd learned enough to extrapolate the answer was probably a wise
move.

Talk yourself into a guest spot on Mythbusters and you can take it all
the way with a variety of different configurations, using somebody
else's cars. "Promotional consideration." It's a good thing.

--Joe

In article
>,
XR650L_Dave > wrote:

> 2003 subaru outback automatic, car weighs about 3600lbs. Brakes are
> new with about 1000 miles on them, and are bedded-in about as well as
> subaru brakes ever get (new rotors, ceramic pads).
>
> Testing went pretty much as I envisaged.
> I will say up front I was not willing to cook the heck outta my
> brakes, but I gave them a pretty good workout.
>
> Also let me say that almost anyone that this happens to that has a
> plan can probably emerge unscathed (but with a damaged car), but this
> test is only about brakes vs. engine, which wins.
>
> What I expected was that at speed, 55, 65, 70 or so, the brakes would
> be able to shed a lot of speed off the car very quickly, but that the
> ability of the brakes to do so would actually fall as the cars speed
> decreased, due to 3 reasons:
>
> 1) the brakes heat up and fade (very quickly with full throttle
> applied)... expected by all, I imagine
> 2) the car, being an automatic, downshifted as speed fell, resulting
> in more torque being applied to the wheels
> 3) as the car goes slower and slower, the rate at which the brakes can
> remove energy from the system goes down dramatically, while the rate
> at which the engine can add energy to the system remains constant (not
> envisioned by most here saying the brakes will always win)
>
> I felt these 3 effects would combine such that the car would slow down
> considerably, reach 1st or maybe 2nd gear, and that the car would stay
> at a fixed speed until the brakes faded sufficiently that the car
> would resume accelerating.
>
> To test this, I really needed to test only one thing- in 1st gear,
> throttle full, can the car stop?
> Well, on my subaru, no powerhouse, the answer is decidedly 'no'. I did
> this several times to make sure I would test the brakes through the
> temperature with the best friction, and for cold, warm, or hot the
> best the brakes could do was a draw, which of course if I did it long
> enough the brakes would fade and the car would accelerate.
>
> I did some speed runs from 55, 65, and about 70 and had about the same
> results. I did *not* cook my brakes to the point where they actually
> faded and lost effectiveness, since in 1st gear the car could not
> stop.
>
>
> So, reacting to a stuck throttle only by braking, here's what would
> happen with my car:
> 1) throttle sticks full-on
> 2) speed goes up, to, say 70 or 80 (doesn't really matter, except for
> figuring total heat load)
> 3) driver applies full brakes, nothing more
> 4) car quickly slows to, say 30 or even 25mph, downshifting as it
> slows
> 5) driver figures he has it under control
> 6) brakes heat sufficiently they lose effectiveness
> 7) car accelerates
> 8) driver regrets not having made out their will
>
> If the driver begins by applying the brakes less than fully, the total
> heat load will be all the greater and the brakes may even fade before
> the car slows into the lower gears.
>
> If at *any* time the driver pumps the brakes, there is no way the
> unboosted brakes will be able to slow the vehicle. I tested that and
> in 2 pumps I was standing on the pedal, accelerating, without faded
> brakes.
>
> Now, a big-engine rear-wheel-drive will probably lock the fronts and
> spin the rears, but for FWD or AWD that's not going to happen
> (obviously).
>
> Positing a situation where you could not shut the car off or place it
> in a lower gear/neutral, the best thing to do would be to apply the
> brakes fully, get to the lower speed, and drive into the ditch or
> against something so that the car would get stuck off-road or behind
> something so it could not move.
>
> A small 1200cc econobox, yeah, you'll probably overpower the engine
> with the brakes in 1st gear, but my subaru is no powerhouse, and the
> engine wins.
>
> A more powerful vehicle, even with good brakes, brakes will lose.

I'm sorry, but I don't believe you.

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
<http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>

Ad absurdum per aspera > wrote in news:afd4ed3e-6aef-
:

> Talk yourself into a guest spot on Mythbusters and you can take it all
> the way with a variety of different configurations, using somebody
> else's cars. "Promotional consideration." It's a good thing.

More likely, they'll do it like all the other myths and test one ridiculous
extreme: either a Suzuki Swift with aftermarket brakes pulled from an 18-
wheeler, or a Mustang with stock brakes. Whichever it is, the results will
be wrong.

On Oct 14, 1:44*pm, Alan Baker > wrote:
> In article
> >,
>
>
>
> *XR650L_Dave > wrote:
> > 2003 subaru outback automatic, car weighs about 3600lbs. Brakes are
> > new with about 1000 miles on them, and are bedded-in about as well as
> > subaru brakes ever get (new rotors, ceramic pads).
>
> > Testing went pretty much as I envisaged.
> > I will say up front I was not willing to cook the heck outta my
> > brakes, but I gave them a pretty good workout.
>
> > Also let me say that almost anyone that this happens to that has a
> > plan can probably emerge unscathed (but with a damaged car), but this
> > test is only about brakes vs. engine, which wins.
>
> > What I expected was that at speed, 55, 65, 70 or so, the brakes would
> > be able to shed a lot of speed off the car very quickly, but that the
> > ability of the brakes to do so would actually fall as the cars speed
> > decreased, due to 3 reasons:
>
> > 1) the brakes heat up and fade (very quickly with full throttle
> > applied)... expected by all, I imagine
> > 2) the car, being an automatic, downshifted as speed fell, resulting
> > in more torque being applied to the wheels
> > 3) as the car goes slower and slower, the rate at which the brakes can
> > remove energy from the system goes down dramatically, while the rate
> > at which the engine can add energy to the system remains constant (not
> > envisioned by most here saying the brakes will always win)
>
> > I felt these 3 effects would combine such that the car would slow down
> > considerably, reach 1st or maybe 2nd gear, and that the car would stay
> > at a fixed speed until the brakes faded sufficiently that the car
> > would resume accelerating.
>
> > To test this, I really needed to test only one thing- in 1st gear,
> > throttle full, can the car stop?
> > Well, on my subaru, no powerhouse, the answer is decidedly 'no'. I did
> > this several times to make sure I would test the brakes through the
> > temperature with the best friction, and for cold, warm, or hot the
> > best the brakes could do was a draw, which of course if I did it long
> > enough the brakes would fade and the car would accelerate.
>
> > I did some speed runs from 55, 65, and about 70 and had about the same
> > results. I did *not* cook my brakes to the point where they actually
> > faded and lost effectiveness, since in 1st gear the car could not
> > stop.
>
> > So, reacting to a stuck throttle only by braking, here's what would
> > happen with my car:
> > 1) throttle sticks full-on
> > 2) speed goes up, to, say 70 or 80 (doesn't really matter, except for
> > figuring total heat load)
> > 3) driver applies full brakes, nothing more
> > 4) car quickly slows to, say 30 or even 25mph, downshifting as it
> > slows
> > 5) driver figures he has it under control
> > 6) brakes heat sufficiently they lose effectiveness
> > 7) car accelerates
> > 8) driver regrets not having made out their will
>
> > If the driver begins by applying the brakes less than fully, the total
> > heat load will be all the greater and the brakes may even fade before
> > the car slows into the lower gears.
>
> > If at *any* time the driver pumps the brakes, there is no way the
> > unboosted brakes will be able to slow the vehicle. I tested that and
> > in 2 pumps I was standing on the pedal, accelerating, without faded
> > brakes.
>
> > Now, a big-engine rear-wheel-drive will probably lock the fronts and
> > spin the rears, but for FWD or AWD that's not going to happen
> > (obviously).
>
> > Positing a situation where you could not shut the car off or place it
> > in a lower gear/neutral, the best thing to do would be to apply the
> > brakes fully, get to the lower speed, and drive into the ditch or
> > against something so that the car would get stuck off-road or behind
> > something so it could not move.
>
> > A small 1200cc econobox, yeah, you'll probably overpower the engine
> > with the brakes in 1st gear, but my subaru is no powerhouse, and the
> > engine wins.
>
> > A more powerful vehicle, even with good brakes, brakes will lose.
>
> I'm sorry, but I don't believe you.
>
> --
> Alan Baker
> Vancouver, British Columbia
> <http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>

I don't ****ing care, unless you would like to call me a liar to my
face.
My good name, even on some anonymous bulletin board, is more important
to me than being right.

If you believe I am lying, that puts you in the list of folks I will
no longer discuss the issue with.

That's also the list of people I wouldn't **** on if they were on
fire.

Dave

In article
>,
XR650L_Dave > wrote:

> On Oct 14, 1:44*pm, Alan Baker > wrote:
> > In article
> > >,
> >
> >
> >
> > *XR650L_Dave > wrote:
> > > 2003 subaru outback automatic, car weighs about 3600lbs. Brakes are
> > > new with about 1000 miles on them, and are bedded-in about as well as
> > > subaru brakes ever get (new rotors, ceramic pads).
> >
> > > Testing went pretty much as I envisaged.
> > > I will say up front I was not willing to cook the heck outta my
> > > brakes, but I gave them a pretty good workout.
> >
> > > Also let me say that almost anyone that this happens to that has a
> > > plan can probably emerge unscathed (but with a damaged car), but this
> > > test is only about brakes vs. engine, which wins.
> >
> > > What I expected was that at speed, 55, 65, 70 or so, the brakes would
> > > be able to shed a lot of speed off the car very quickly, but that the
> > > ability of the brakes to do so would actually fall as the cars speed
> > > decreased, due to 3 reasons:
> >
> > > 1) the brakes heat up and fade (very quickly with full throttle
> > > applied)... expected by all, I imagine
> > > 2) the car, being an automatic, downshifted as speed fell, resulting
> > > in more torque being applied to the wheels
> > > 3) as the car goes slower and slower, the rate at which the brakes can
> > > remove energy from the system goes down dramatically, while the rate
> > > at which the engine can add energy to the system remains constant (not
> > > envisioned by most here saying the brakes will always win)
> >
> > > I felt these 3 effects would combine such that the car would slow down
> > > considerably, reach 1st or maybe 2nd gear, and that the car would stay
> > > at a fixed speed until the brakes faded sufficiently that the car
> > > would resume accelerating.
> >
> > > To test this, I really needed to test only one thing- in 1st gear,
> > > throttle full, can the car stop?
> > > Well, on my subaru, no powerhouse, the answer is decidedly 'no'. I did
> > > this several times to make sure I would test the brakes through the
> > > temperature with the best friction, and for cold, warm, or hot the
> > > best the brakes could do was a draw, which of course if I did it long
> > > enough the brakes would fade and the car would accelerate.
> >
> > > I did some speed runs from 55, 65, and about 70 and had about the same
> > > results. I did *not* cook my brakes to the point where they actually
> > > faded and lost effectiveness, since in 1st gear the car could not
> > > stop.
> >
> > > So, reacting to a stuck throttle only by braking, here's what would
> > > happen with my car:
> > > 1) throttle sticks full-on
> > > 2) speed goes up, to, say 70 or 80 (doesn't really matter, except for
> > > figuring total heat load)
> > > 3) driver applies full brakes, nothing more
> > > 4) car quickly slows to, say 30 or even 25mph, downshifting as it
> > > slows
> > > 5) driver figures he has it under control
> > > 6) brakes heat sufficiently they lose effectiveness
> > > 7) car accelerates
> > > 8) driver regrets not having made out their will
> >
> > > If the driver begins by applying the brakes less than fully, the total
> > > heat load will be all the greater and the brakes may even fade before
> > > the car slows into the lower gears.
> >
> > > If at *any* time the driver pumps the brakes, there is no way the
> > > unboosted brakes will be able to slow the vehicle. I tested that and
> > > in 2 pumps I was standing on the pedal, accelerating, without faded
> > > brakes.
> >
> > > Now, a big-engine rear-wheel-drive will probably lock the fronts and
> > > spin the rears, but for FWD or AWD that's not going to happen
> > > (obviously).
> >
> > > Positing a situation where you could not shut the car off or place it
> > > in a lower gear/neutral, the best thing to do would be to apply the
> > > brakes fully, get to the lower speed, and drive into the ditch or
> > > against something so that the car would get stuck off-road or behind
> > > something so it could not move.
> >
> > > A small 1200cc econobox, yeah, you'll probably overpower the engine
> > > with the brakes in 1st gear, but my subaru is no powerhouse, and the
> > > engine wins.
> >
> > > A more powerful vehicle, even with good brakes, brakes will lose.
> >
> > I'm sorry, but I don't believe you.
> >
> > --
> > Alan Baker
> > Vancouver, British Columbia
> > <http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>
>
> I don't ****ing care, unless you would like to call me a liar to my
> face.
> My good name, even on some anonymous bulletin board, is more important
> to me than being right.

I'd tell you I don't believe you to your face, but then, you keep your
identity anonymous, don't you...

>
> If you believe I am lying, that puts you in the list of folks I will
> no longer discuss the issue with.
>
> That's also the list of people I wouldn't **** on if they were on
> fire.

Wow....


I'm heartbroken.

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
<http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>

On Oct 15, 6:36*pm, Alan Baker > wrote:
> In article
> >,
>
>
>
> *XR650L_Dave > wrote:
> > On Oct 14, 1:44*pm, Alan Baker > wrote:
> > > In article
> > > >,
>
> > > *XR650L_Dave > wrote:
> > > > 2003 subaru outback automatic, car weighs about 3600lbs. Brakes are
> > > > new with about 1000 miles on them, and are bedded-in about as well as
> > > > subaru brakes ever get (new rotors, ceramic pads).
>
> > > > Testing went pretty much as I envisaged.
> > > > I will say up front I was not willing to cook the heck outta my
> > > > brakes, but I gave them a pretty good workout.
>
> > > > Also let me say that almost anyone that this happens to that has a
> > > > plan can probably emerge unscathed (but with a damaged car), but this
> > > > test is only about brakes vs. engine, which wins.
>
> > > > What I expected was that at speed, 55, 65, 70 or so, the brakes would
> > > > be able to shed a lot of speed off the car very quickly, but that the
> > > > ability of the brakes to do so would actually fall as the cars speed
> > > > decreased, due to 3 reasons:
>
> > > > 1) the brakes heat up and fade (very quickly with full throttle
> > > > applied)... expected by all, I imagine
> > > > 2) the car, being an automatic, downshifted as speed fell, resulting
> > > > in more torque being applied to the wheels
> > > > 3) as the car goes slower and slower, the rate at which the brakes can
> > > > remove energy from the system goes down dramatically, while the rate
> > > > at which the engine can add energy to the system remains constant (not
> > > > envisioned by most here saying the brakes will always win)
>
> > > > I felt these 3 effects would combine such that the car would slow down
> > > > considerably, reach 1st or maybe 2nd gear, and that the car would stay
> > > > at a fixed speed until the brakes faded sufficiently that the car
> > > > would resume accelerating.
>
> > > > To test this, I really needed to test only one thing- in 1st gear,
> > > > throttle full, can the car stop?
> > > > Well, on my subaru, no powerhouse, the answer is decidedly 'no'. I did
> > > > this several times to make sure I would test the brakes through the
> > > > temperature with the best friction, and for cold, warm, or hot the
> > > > best the brakes could do was a draw, which of course if I did it long
> > > > enough the brakes would fade and the car would accelerate.
>
> > > > I did some speed runs from 55, 65, and about 70 and had about the same
> > > > results. I did *not* cook my brakes to the point where they actually
> > > > faded and lost effectiveness, since in 1st gear the car could not
> > > > stop.
>
> > > > So, reacting to a stuck throttle only by braking, here's what would
> > > > happen with my car:
> > > > 1) throttle sticks full-on
> > > > 2) speed goes up, to, say 70 or 80 (doesn't really matter, except for
> > > > figuring total heat load)
> > > > 3) driver applies full brakes, nothing more
> > > > 4) car quickly slows to, say 30 or even 25mph, downshifting as it
> > > > slows
> > > > 5) driver figures he has it under control
> > > > 6) brakes heat sufficiently they lose effectiveness
> > > > 7) car accelerates
> > > > 8) driver regrets not having made out their will
>
> > > > If the driver begins by applying the brakes less than fully, the total
> > > > heat load will be all the greater and the brakes may even fade before
> > > > the car slows into the lower gears.
>
> > > > If at *any* time the driver pumps the brakes, there is no way the
> > > > unboosted brakes will be able to slow the vehicle. I tested that and
> > > > in 2 pumps I was standing on the pedal, accelerating, without faded
> > > > brakes.
>
> > > > Now, a big-engine rear-wheel-drive will probably lock the fronts and
> > > > spin the rears, but for FWD or AWD that's not going to happen
> > > > (obviously).
>
> > > > Positing a situation where you could not shut the car off or place it
> > > > in a lower gear/neutral, the best thing to do would be to apply the
> > > > brakes fully, get to the lower speed, and drive into the ditch or
> > > > against something so that the car would get stuck off-road or behind
> > > > something so it could not move.
>
> > > > A small 1200cc econobox, yeah, you'll probably overpower the engine
> > > > with the brakes in 1st gear, but my subaru is no powerhouse, and the
> > > > engine wins.
>
> > > > A more powerful vehicle, even with good brakes, brakes will lose.
>
> > > I'm sorry, but I don't believe you.
>
> > > --
> > > Alan Baker
> > > Vancouver, British Columbia
> > > <http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>
>
> > I don't ****ing care, unless you would like to call me a liar to my
> > face.
> > My good name, even on some anonymous bulletin board, is more important
> > to me than being right.
>
> I'd tell you I don't believe you to your face, but then, you keep your
> identity anonymous, don't you...
>
>
>
> > If you believe I am lying, that puts you in the list of folks I will
> > no longer discuss the issue with.
>
> > That's also the list of people I wouldn't **** on if they were on
> > fire.
>
> Wow....
>
> I'm heartbroken.
>
> --
> Alan Baker
> Vancouver, British Columbia
> <http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>

Let me know when you're in NY state.


dave