[DeTomaso] Booster talk

[Thomas Tornblom]

Giving it a new try...
---

MikeLDrew at aol.com skrev:
 > In a message dated 7/17/09 23 33 47, Thomas.Tornblom at Hax.SE writes:
 >
 >
 >> It will still require a fair amount of pressure before it starts 
reducing the pressure.
 >>
 >>>> What makes you say that?   I was under the impression that a
 > proportioning valve does just that--convert X amount of inlet 
pressure into Y amount of outlet pressure.

There is a knee after which it begins to reduce the pressure. Initially 
the output pressure is the same as the input pressure.

See:
http://www.tiltonracing.com/pdfs/98-1261_Prop_valves.pdf

 >
 >
 >>  It will have too much pressure on the fronts until that happens. I 
want well balanced brakes throughout the entire range.
 >>
 >>>> Which is exactly what you should get.   You wouldn't want a 
non-linear
 > system where you got equal pressure until some threshold is reached 
and then the pressure reduces from there.   You'd want the reduction to 
be constant.
 >> Come to think of it, having the prop valve in the front cirquit is a 
stupid idea. During hard braking you get weight shift to the front, and 
what you need then is to reduce the force on the now lighter loaded 
rears to avoid having them lock up.
 >>>> The weight transfer is so instantaneous that you wouldn't gain 
anything
 > by having increased pressure to the rears initially, then dropping 
down to 'proper' balance.   You'd want them to be proper all the time.

Yes, but the harder you brake, the more weight is transfered to the 
fronts, so you would want proportionally more brake up front then, which 
is what you'd get with a prop valve in the rear cirquit.

 >
 >
 >> With the improperly balanced brakes of at least my car the fronts 
will have locked up before you get to this point.
 >>>>> And you should be able to dial them in so that they lock up just 
a bit
 > later than they do now (which is to say, the rear brakes would 
contribute more to the total stopping cause).
 >
 > Mike

Thomas