http://www.hummernetworkforums.com/view ... od&start=0
И смысл там основной вот в чем:
"If the half shafts were truly engineered to withstand the forces I don't think I'd have much of a problem, but they are not. In an extreme situation it is possible to snap one or more half shaft on braking. If this happens it puts more liability on each of the other half shafts which then makes them more prone to breakage. I was in Moab and watched a buddy snap a half shaft on a fully locked up, built to the hilt 12,1k rigg. The other three tires didn't have enough traction to stop the vehicle and it slid backward into a wall. The other tire would have been on rock and would have more than likely provided enough traction to stop the vehicle. Yes, extreme case but I don't build my rigg for every day driving. A nightmare is to come off a ledge on the Z turn with a huge bounce on Moab rim and snap one or two half shafts that in turn put too much force on the remaining two and snap them leaving you with a perfectly rolling chassis and NO brakes.
Currently running 10" rotors which puts your braking force at approximately 9" or 4.5" from the axis. 1 g stopping at the front wheels on stock tires puts about 12,750lb-ft torque through the geared hub. Leveraged at 1.92:1 the brakes (and CVs and half shaft) needs to hold back 6640lb-ft or 17,708 lbs at the brake rotor surface. Same scenario with 14" disks at the hub puts the braking force at 6.5" from hub center. This means the braking force is increased at the surface of the pad to 23,540lbs or by 32% ... not by 92% as previously mentioned. With the larger rotor and caliper it yields a larger swept surface by nearly 50% thus negating the 32% and actually making LESS force needed on the brake itself to achieve the same braking. So in my eyes, its sixes. But for a factor of safety in the places I run, it makes it so the vehicle no longer bounces against the half shafts when I stop, it increases the lifespan of the halfshafts which are not designed for 6000+ lb-ft torque and has the potential of keeping brakes cooler (away from the engine bay), less fade, and less force than the inboard design.
To secure the brakes I'd simply machine a new cap for the gear cavity cover on the hubs. It will space the tire out by nearly 2" which I don't like but the lift promises to pull the tires inboard anyway so I'd want to kick them back out even with the body or possibly slightly wider to protect.
As for unsprung mass, we're running the heaviest control arms on the planet, 50lb hubs, 100+lb / each wheelsets ... I don't think adding 6 lbs to the hub is going to make a HUGE difference in unsprung mass. Now as soon as I make aluminum control arms I may be changing my story
Anyone else as terrified as me or am I just paranoid? I could be. I was in Moab the day Sharon ( think that is her name ) lost her brakes on Lion's Back in the Blazer. I've had to hit the brakes so hard in a truck it pushed all the fluid past the calipers at the top of the escalator and had to pump the master 20 times as fast as I could before the brakes came back. I know what not having brakes does and just as soon protect against that."
]
А пока поездим на метре))) 