Drum brakes.

-Corkie-

I thought drum brakes were a thing of the past. The last car I owned with them was a 96 Carina E and thats a long time ago.

Anyway a guy I know just got a brand new Ford Focus and it has drum brakes on the back. I couldnt believe it and when I looked at another Focus (2010) it had drum brakes too.

Voodoomelon

I think you'll find a lot of small-medium sized cars in the €10k-20k bracket have drums on the back.

-Corkie-

Voodoomelon wrote: »

I think you'll find a lot of small-medium sized cars in the €10k-20k bracket have drums on the back.

Really? I thought they were standard equipment with years..

Voodoomelon

I'm always staring at brakes for some reason. :P Lots of them still do seem to have drums. My mothers 08 Fiesta has them too.

mickdw

Pretty crap alright. Its not like they could be much cheaper to produce either. Jesus, I would have to read a couple of books first if I was to attack drum brakes of any type. Never been anywhere near them.
No excuse really for still fitting those.

Plug

They last a hell of a lot longer than pads, thats for sure! Although the cylinders can leak over time. If you put two Focus's beside each at 100kph and stepped on the brake there would be little difference between disks and drum type. Although I still would prefer disks.

Plug

mickdw wrote: »

Pretty crap alright. Its not like they could be much cheaper to produce either. Jesus, I would have to read a couple of books first if I was to attack drum brakes of any type. Never been anywhere near them.
No excuse really for still fitting those.

Only reason is price, they are less than disk brakes.

-Corkie-

Plug wrote: »

They last a hell of a lot longer than pads, thats for sure! Although the cylinders can leak over time. If you put two Focus's beside each at 100kph and stepped on the brake there would be little difference between disks and drum type. Although I still would prefer disks.

I didnt think the stopping power would be as good! I would prefer disks too.Drums look Meeh.:)

peasant

-Corkie- wrote: »

I didnt think the stopping power would be as good!

You don't need very aggressive brakes on the back ...most of the brake force is in the front.
In fact you do not want to over-brake the back or it will fishtail.

Drum brakes are plenty good enough for your average car and much cheaper in the long run, both to build and to service

Senna

I was told a drum brake will stop a car quicker than a disk in a "slam on pedal" situation. But they are worse for fading and slipping when they get wet.

Better handbrake with drums too. They look sh1t though on modern alloy wheel clad cars.

Plug

RoverJames wrote: »

Better handbrake with drums too. They look sh1t though on modern alloy wheel clad cars.

I have these on my car laaaad.

JerCotter7

I thought you had a drum for the handbrake behind the disc? Brake shoes fit in there in mine. They suck compared to conventional drums though.

mickdw

Some cars do but alot now use the actual disc pads for the handbrake too.

corktina

no need for rear discs on most cars.

corktina

corktina wrote: »

no need for rear discs on most cars.

No need for leather seats, air con or cruise control either

bbam

RoverJames wrote: »

No need for leather seats, air con or cruise control either

But your average Joe will actually notice/use these on a daily basis... Average Joe won't be pushing his car to the point that he thinks... "damn, that would ave gone better with disc breaks on the back" Actually most average joe's probably couldn't tell you the difference..:rolleyes:

corktina

RoverJames wrote: »

No need for leather seats, air con or cruise control either

nice to have them if you like that sort of thing and they might make your journey more comfortable, but rear discs wont make a jot of difference to most drivers.

dev100

-Corkie- wrote: »

I thought drum brakes were a thing of the past. The last car I owned with them was a 96 Carina E and thats a long time ago.

Anyway a guy I know just got a brand new Ford Focus and it has drum brakes on the back. I couldnt believe it and when I looked at another Focus (2010) it had drum brakes too.

FORDS!!! The cheaper end models of fords comes with rear drum brakes . My aunty and her daughter both have a focus HB s one has drum other has disc.

bbam

bbam wrote: »

But your average Joe will actually notice/use these on a daily basis... Average Joe won't be pushing his car to the point that he thinks... "damn, that would ave gone better with disc breaks on the back" Actually most average joe's probably couldn't tell you the difference..:rolleyes:

No doubt but my comment was in response to
.

corktina wrote: »

no need for rear discs on most cars.

sentient_6

My yoke has discs front & back for regular brakes & the handbrake works independently on rear drums.

Mycroft H

Most citroen saloons going back as far as I remember had discs all round ( as far back as the bx we had)

Xantias handbrake works on all four wheels

peasant

landyman wrote: »

Most citroen saloons going back as far as I remember had discs all round ( as far back as the bx we had)

Well, they had 180 bar of pressure circulating in their hydraulic suspension system anyway, so I guess they figured they could spare some for brakes

They also had the least travel on brake pedals ever.

projectgtr

I was allways under the impression that under average driving conditions drums are more efficient , its only when cars are pushed that there is a need for disks as disks are much better at dissipating heat and give better consistent stopping power under heavy use

jimmyw

mickdw wrote: »

Pretty crap alright. Its not like they could be much cheaper to produce either. Jesus, I would have to read a couple of books first if I was to attack drum brakes of any type. Never been anywhere near them.
No excuse really for still fitting those.

Jeez, you young uns, ye dont know yere born:D.I grew up with them.Drums are better for the handbrake than disks I reckon. Cars used to have drums all round, you know:P

Tea drinker

jimmyw wrote: »

Jeez, you young uns, ye dont know yere born:D.I grew up with them.Drums are better for the handbrake than disks I reckon. Cars used to have drums all round, you know:P

And they were absolute pants..... for feel and reaction time they were way worse than modern discs. maybe they have improved drums, but they were crap. I hate the sight of them and went to the trouble to change a back axle to get rid of them on my old Audi 80

mickdw

Tea drinker wrote: »

I hate the sight of them and went to the trouble to change a back axle to get rid of them on my old Audi 80

My first car was an audi 80 with discs all round. The self adjusting handbrake was the business and is still the business today really.

jimmyw

I think the setup on some cars that have a mix of drums and disks on the rear are good.

Ardennes1944

i have all discs on this astra compared to the last, they take a bit of getting used to at the start because its like hitting a brick wall the first few days. im sure someday i will be very glad i have discs all round

richardsheil

landyman wrote: »

Most citroen saloons going back as far as I remember had discs all round ( as far back as the bx we had)

Xantias handbrake works on all four wheels

Xantia handbrake works on front wheels only.

Mycroft H

richardsheil wrote: »

Xantia handbrake works on front wheels only.

I stand corrected. I knew there was something different about them.

kirving

Rear discs aren't really going to make much of a difference unless your really really pushing them. They do look much better though.

I know with bicycles, the theoretical quickest way to stop is by pulling the front brake as hard as possible with the rear wheel just about to lift. The same would be true for cars - the harder you brake, the more the braking capability of the front wheels matter. Braking the rear wheels is nessecary though to keep them in line, and for ESP. This is really in lab conditions, and wouldn't translate exactly, but similar principals should apply.

CiniO

[QUOTE=Kevin Irving;72884284
I know with bicycles, the theoretical quickest way to stop is by pulling the front brake as hard as possible with the rear wheel just about to lift.
[/QUOTE]

I think you are incorrect in here.
The quickest way to stop on the bicycle, is to move yourself to the back of the bicycle as much as you can to move the weight to the rear wheel, and then apply both brakes (front and rear) as strong as possible without locking wheels if on solid surface).

The same would be true for cars - the harder you brake, the more the braking capability of the front wheels matter. Braking the rear wheels is nessecary though to keep them in line, and for ESP. This is really in lab conditions, and wouldn't translate exactly, but similar principals should apply.

On average car 70% of braking force comes to front wheels and 30% to rear wheels.
In cars weight is much better distributed over front and rear than in bicycles.
Hence that if you slam on front brakes on the bicycle, you might flip over to the front.
No matter how much you slam on the brakes in the car, you won't flip over to front.

So both front and rear brake is important.

For average driver it would make no difference if there are drum or disc brakes.
They all would have enough braking force in emergency (f.e. stopping suddenly from 130km/h to 0.
But I remember doing some tests on Fiat Cinquecento. I was accelerating to 150km/h and braking to 0, and then againg to 150 and again to 0.
First 2 times were OK. By the third time braking distance increased a lot.
Next try there was barely any braking.
In that car you have discs in the front, and drums in the back.
I doubt that if there was discs as well in the back woudl it make any difference.

Eric Cartman

a lot of trucks and vans use drum brakes on the rear , not sure if its a cost issue or something to do with weight.

corktina

sentient_6 wrote: »

My yoke has discs front & back for regular brakes & the handbrake works independently on rear drums.

im pretty sure theres a regulating valve in the set up to make sure you dont have regular brakes all round. about 60/40 in favour of the front brakes is common I believe.

Idleater

Kevin Irving wrote: »

I know with bicycles, the theoretical quickest way to stop is by pulling the front brake as hard as possible with the rear wheel just about to lift. The same would be true for cars - the harder you brake, the more the braking capability of the front wheels matter. Braking the rear wheels is nessecary though to keep them in line

Motorbikes moreso I'd say. I rarely use the rear brake while moving. 90% front brake and perhaps 10% rear for stability. The rear is handy for easily dragging the bike down a notch in a bend where applying the front would completely destabilise the bike.
This is also illustrated in the fact that many bikes and certainly the sporting variety have large twin discs up front and tiny single rear.

sentient_6

corktina wrote: »

im pretty sure theres a regulating valve in the set up to make sure you dont have regular brakes all round. about 60/40 in favour of the front brakes is common I believe.

But the back discs then are still working when braking just not as hard as the fronts?

kirving

Sorry yeah, it's different with cars since more weight is at the back. But the point rings true, the rear brakes are much less relevant than the front as the weight shifts forward. So it makes sense to use drums even if they're not quite as good since they last longer and are cheaper.

bryaner

Drum brakes, memories of adjusting all 4 wheels on me old mini every month or so, pretty feckin hateful..

cjt156

LIGHTNING wrote: »

Drum brakes on the rear are good enough for a basic family saloon car.

And for the two Civic Type R's parked down the road from my house, apparantly - drums are a fetching shade of red too:D