1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156 
SIMPLE LOGIC
Page 28
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
May I congratulate the Vehicle Inspectorate on its speedy response to a problem I first raised through a Vehicle Safety Defect Report back in JuN 2000—the compatibility between discs and drums ( CM11-17 July).
I trust Transport Minister John Speller, or whoever is doing the job this week, will not take quite as long to reimburse hauliers/operators, many of whom have suffered substantial financial loss through the use of such braking systems.
Why should the Department of Transport pay? Because it gave Type Approval in the first place. It decided that the marriage between Formula 1 Ferrari-type electronic disc brakes and Morris 1000-type drum brakes was a suitable system for trucks running at up to 44 tonnes. Or is the wonderful EC to blame?
The manufacturer of my vehicle did eventually admit that it had not been aware that to marry discs with drums required massive adjustment. However, changing back to a disc/disc combination would require another massive change.
Hauliers who have had accidents with vehicles running discs and drums should take another look at what realty happened. With discs an the front and drums on the rear, not adjusted for compatibility, a bit of heavy braking on a roundabout or bend is all it will take to tip you over.
Think about it: an eighttonne tractive unit with great disc brakes and a 36-tonne trailer with poor drum brakes... it's simple physics.
Peter F Orr,