![]() |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Paul.
__________________
If some is good and more is better, then too much should be just about right! |
#2
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Jason
__________________
If I could just get paid for my sleepless nights.... 1960 VW Bug UBRDUB Walkaround 1st Drag Run Dyno Run Oval Ragster-'57 Rag/'04 Boxster S |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
I am using a 1" MC for the front brakes and 1" MC for the rear brakes, thacalipers are porsche 944 I. we'll see what happens.
__________________
If some is good and more is better, then too much should be just about right! |
#4
|
||||
|
||||
Fahrvergngen,
I am currently trying to sort out my brakes (944 single pots at the front and 928S4 rears + hydraulic handbrake). By all my calculations the pedal movement on a standard 19/19 dual m/c should have been 28mm + 5mm for the free play until the pad touches the disc, then the component flexing and pad compression come into play resulting is a moderate pedal movement. I do have much more than this that may be a m/c problem or flexing of the seal/handbrake mech in the hydraulic handbrake. the standard 944 single pots have virtually no movement on their own with the 19mm cylinder as the caliper mech holds the pad to the disc with no relief or knockback. However, the braking performance was such that I to am considering a 1" dual m/c (possibly BMW) to shorten the pedal travel. My next try will be a 944 stepped cylinder 23/19 that should confirm or not a) the rebuilt 19/19 m/c is at fault b) the pedal pressures are still acceptable with larger m/c pistons and c) improve the bias further to the rear - the car will be used for Autotesting. Clive |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Hi Clive,
I did not calculate things, its just try and error and some eye-ball engineering. Keep us posted on your experiance with the MC"s Paul.
__________________
If some is good and more is better, then too much should be just about right! |
![]() |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 3 (0 members and 3 guests) | |
|
|