Brakes went on dual carriageway

2eZero

Well then aliasojo, if you OH/SO was in the passenger seat and they holder high driving qualifications AND an ADR then their word is relevant more so that whatever I say, and I'm not being sarcastic here.

aliasojo wrote: »

I was overtaking a line of traffic on the main A9 dual carriageway this afternoon when my brakes suddenly went.

There was a large lay-by and a big grassy verge nearby so I pulled back into the line of traffic I was in the process of overtaking and swerved into the lay-by cutting up a lorry driver slightly in the process.

1. Brakes. Was it just that when you put your foot on the pedal it dropped straight to the floor? Did you pump the brakes at all? Or did you just *panic*

2. However *slightly* you crossed the path in front of the truck using the term 'swerved' doesn't much help the explanation of the situation

3. Did you ask the recovery agents / vehicle mechanics how you were supposed to 'recover' from that situation if the brakes failed again? Because I sure as h**l would!!!!

aliasojo

2eZero, neither OH nor myself is sure why you refer to a carriage of dangerous goods qualification in your post. The 'AND' part seems to convey your feeling that my OH's opinion is only acceptable and valid if he has this qualification. (He does btw.)

OH was in the tank transporter regiment in the army and has driven very large vehicles all over the world, before leaving and getting into the fuel industry. He is a very experienced professional driver.

With respect, I'm not discussing this situation further with you. You seem determined to put some kind of slant on it. I wont be justifying or explaining my actions to you.

mikey72

2eZero wrote: »

Well then aliasojo, if you OH/SO was in the passenger seat and they holder high driving qualifications AND an ADR then their word is relevant more so that whatever I say, and I'm not being sarcastic here.



1. Brakes. Was it just that when you put your foot on the pedal it dropped straight to the floor? Did you pump the brakes at all? Or did you just *panic*

2. However *slightly* you crossed the path in front of the truck using the term 'swerved' doesn't much help the explanation of the situation

3. Did you ask the recovery agents / vehicle mechanics how you were supposed to 'recover' from that situation if the brakes failed again? Because I sure as h**l would!!!!

If you have to ask the recovery driver, maybe you need to improve your skills. Just because he drives a recovery truck around near his garage doesn't make him an oracle.
The op avoided an accident. That's a good enough result.

2eZero

aliasojo wrote: »

2eZero, neither OH nor myself is sure why you refer to a carriage of dangerous goods qualification in your post. The 'AND' part seems to convey your feeling that my OH's opinion is only acceptable and valid if he has this qualification. (He does btw.)

Because he is trained to a higher standard than regular car drivers and even some other LGV drivers. He has to be, surely, to drive 'Petrol Tankers'. You even validate that point with your following statement

aliasojo wrote: »

OH was in the tank transporter regiment in the army and has driven very large vehicles all over the world, before leaving and getting into the fuel industry. He is a very experienced professional driver.

aliasojo wrote: »

With respect, I'm not discussing this situation further with you. You seem determined to put some kind of slant on it. I wont be justifying or explaining my actions to you.

I didn't feel I was putting a slant on it, but you were justifying your actions otherwise you would not have posted the information on the board.

aliasojo

2eZero wrote: »

...... but you were justifying your actions otherwise you would not have posted the information on the board.

I posted the info I did, simply as a reply to your assuming and incorrect post, in order to correct your perception of the situation. It wasn't an attempt to justify myself. I can see why you might have thought it was however, so perhaps I should have clarified my earlier post by inserting the word 'further', as in....

'I wont be explaining my actions further.'

I assume we're done now?

birkee

jonnyd281 wrote: »

Copper doesn't rust it oxidizes (Green colouring on copper a copper roof) rust is Iron Oxide.

Right!
But I can't remember the last time I saw copper brake pipes.
Do they still use them somewhere? I thought they had all been changed to plated steel many years back.

cyclonebri1

birkee wrote: »

Right!
But I can't remember the last time I saw copper brake pipes.
Do they still use them somewhere? I thought they had all been changed to plated steel many years back.

It's still steel for manf spec, replacement pipes such as Kunifer are a copper/***** alloy which is more resistant to stress cracking than pure copper and possibly more corrosion resistant..;)

Premier_2

How very odd :huh:

1. Someone braking when overtaking (although they say the car in front braked, but why?)
2. Total brake failure when a Mondeo has diagonally split dual circuit braking system (for just such eventuality; if one side fails there is still the other and as one poster explains, diagonally split allows for better car control under braking when one side has failed)
3. Seized rear calliper was diagnosed as the fault. So seized off presumably, else it would have been braking all the time. But maybe seized on as the breakdown man spoke of smelling strongly of smoke. :huh:
Either way, the rear brakes only provide about 30% of the braking efficiency anyway in normal operation, and this was only one of the rear brakes that failed.
(although if the circuit failed it would be the rear brake & the diagonally opposite front, so 50% lost)
4. Then there's the emergency brake (usually also known as the handbrake or parking brake)
A completely independent system (but it does use the same callipers) but totally mechanically operated so even if all fluid was lost, there would still be some brakes, even if on only one rear wheel.

asbokid

Premier wrote: »

How very odd :huh:

1. Someone braking when overtaking (although they say the car in front braked, but why?)

We've all done it.. accelerated to pass a snail. But once we've picked up speed, we find ourselves confronted by slow traffic ahead, so we brake a little.

2. Total brake failure when a Mondeo has diagonally split dual circuit braking system (for just such eventuality; if one side fails there is still the other and as one poster explains, diagonally split allows for better car control under braking when one side has failed)

Maybe the 'good' side of the system wasn't working properly any way. Maybe it needed bleeding, or was otherwise faulty.

When the bad side packed up completely because of the faulty rear caliper, the OP was left with no hydraulic brakes at all.

3. Seized rear calliper was diagnosed as the fault. So seized off presumably, else it would have been braking all the time. But maybe seized on as the breakdown man spoke of smelling strongly of smoke. :huh:

The caliper had probably been seized for a while, to some degree.

Either way, the rear brakes only provide about 30% of the braking efficiency anyway in normal operation, and this was only one of the rear brakes that failed. (although if the circuit failed it would be the rear brake & the diagonally opposite front, so 50% lost)

Same possible explanation as 2. Poorly serviced braking system.

4. Then there's the emergency brake (usually also known as the handbrake or parking brake)

Pulling the handbrake is something that we are taught to do for fun, but not in an emergency.

Also there is the question of whether there was the opportunity to move from slow-time-thinking to quick-time-doing. I expect the OP still has the hairs on the back of her neck standing up right now.

(the handbrake) A completely independent system (but it does use the same callipers) but totally mechanically operated so even if all fluid was lost, there would still be some brakes, even if on only one rear wheel.

The handbrake system should provide friction to both wheels even if the hydraulics have failed.

The handbrake uses brake shoes that are applied mechanically by a rod or cable. This system operates separately to the hydraulic-operated brake pads.


The OP did very well. She pulled quickly to the side, avoiding a collision. Panic over!


Now let's get back to money saving.. Who's getting ready for the Royal Wedding? I'm looking for some paper plates for a Royal Wedding street party. LIDL has got them for £2.99 for 50 plates but our budget won't stretch to that much, what with the food costs as well. Anyone seen them cheaper?

Lum

Premier wrote: »

2. Total brake failure when a Mondeo has diagonally split dual circuit braking system (for just such eventuality; if one side fails there is still the other and as one poster explains, diagonally split allows for better car control under braking when one side has failed)
3. Seized rear calliper was diagnosed as the fault. So seized off presumably, else it would have been braking all the time. But maybe seized on as the breakdown man spoke of smelling strongly of smoke. :huh:

As already discussed, a seized calliper would get incredibly hot and over time boil the brake fluid resulting in the entire system become ineffective.

Ultimately the OP dealt with the situation well enough to not cause an accident and now has her car sorted again, no harm done