PB86108628

PB861 08628
\11 ml 1\ 1111\\\1 11111\1111\ 11\
US Oeoortmer'\l
or Transporrarlon
National Highway
Traffic Safety
Administration
DOT HS 806 738 APRIL 1985
INTERIM REPORT
NHTSA HEAVY DUTY VEHICLE BRAKE RESEARCH PROGRAM

REPORT NO.1 -- STOPPING CAPABILITY OF AIR BRAKED VEHICLES
VOLUME I: TECHNICAL REPORT
This document is available to the public from the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
- .-- - - ---,...-"- - '-.~----
REPROOUC ED BY
NATIONAL TECHNICAL
INFORMATION SERVICE
u.s. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
-_. __
I .. •. SPRINGFiElD.
...-..- ... - - -VA.
---2216~
- . -. __ ~',
Tet:hnit:al keport Dot:umentation Page
1. Repo,t No. 2. Government Accession Nc. 3. Recipient's Catalog No.
DOT H.s 8Q6 738
PB8 6 1 0 8 6 28m
4. Title and Subtitle 5. Repo" Dote
N HTSA Heavy Duty Vehicle Brake Research Program Apri11985
Report No.1 -- Stopping Capability of Air Braked Vehicles 6. Pe,lorming Organi.otlon Code
Volume I -- Technical Report NRD-22

/--:;---:---:,......,,....,..._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _--! 8. Performing Orgcni zation Report No.
7. Aufnor(5~
Richard W. Radlinski, Sidney F. Williams

9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS)
Vehicle Research and Test Center

P.O. Box 37 11. Contrect e' Grent Ne.
East Liberty, Ohio 43319

13. Type of Report cnd Period Covered
~~----------------------------------------------------~
12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Add'ess
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Interim

400 Seventh Street, S. W. 1I79 -- 9/84
Washington, D.C. 20590 14. Sponsoring Agency Code
15. Supplementary NOles
The first in a series of reports on N HTSA's Heavy Duty Vehicle Brake Research Program
I 16. Abstract
A number of different types of heavy duty air braked vehicles including buses, trucks, truck
tractors and trailers were tested to determine their stopping capability in straight line and
turning maneuvers on various types of road surfaces including ice. In addition, the braking
force distributions of the vehicles were experi mentally deter mined, several different brake
proportioning systems were evaluated and the effect of initial brake temperature on
stopping capability was investigated,
Resul t5 of the testing indicate that stable stopping capability is primarily determined by
brake force distribution. If brake force distribution is close to the normal force
distribution on the axles of a vehicle, its stopping capability will be optimum; however, if
brake force distribution does not match normal force distribution, premature wheel lockup
and loss of control will occur before the vehicle is able to achieve full utilization of the
friction forces available at the tire/road interface. Brake force distribution on most heavy
duty vehicles is fixed at a level that favors the loaded conai tion and therefore they do not
perform as well in the empty condition. In addition, many heavy duty vehicles are
"under braked" on their front steering axles under all operating conditions and would benefit
even in the loaded mode if front brake force level was increased. Devices that adjust
braking distribution as a vehicle's load changes appear to provide very significant gains in
braking performance not only in the straight line stopping situation but also in braking and
turning maneuvers.
17. Key Words 18. Di stribution Statement
Document is available to the public

Brakes, Brake Proportioning from the National Technical
Braking Distribution Information Servjce, Springfield,
Stopping Capability, Virginia 22161
Truck Braking, FM VSS 121
~1~9-.~S~ec-U~ri~ly~C~lo-5S~i~I.~(~01~I~h~i5-r-ep-o~rIT)-------r~20'.~Se-c-u~ri~ty~C~I-as~s~i/~.~(o~I~lh~i-5-p-ag~e\)------~~----~~--~~==========~~.
Unclassi fied Unclass if ied

Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed poge authorized
OEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
NATIONA'- HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION
TECHNICAL SUMMARY
CONTRACTOR CONTRACT NUMBER
REPORT TITLE REPORT DATE

N HTSA Heavy Duty Vehicle Brake Research Program Report No. 1
5to in Ca abilit of Air Braked Vehicles -- Volume 1 A riJ 1985
REPORT AUTHOR(S)
Richard W. RadJinski, Sidney F. Williams
A large sample of air braked vehicles including buses, straight trucks, truck tractors and
trailers were tested to evaluate their stopping capability without antilock in both straight line
and turning maneuvers. In addition, the distribution of braking force among the various axles
on these vehicles was experimentally determined, several types of brake proportioning systems
were evaluated and the effect of initial brake lining temperature on stopping distance was
investiga ted.
The results of this test effort indicate that stable stopping capability of a vehicle is primarily
a function of the braking force distribution on its axles. The following table ranks the relative
stopping capability of the various types of vehicles that were tested:
Stopping Capabili ty Ranking Vehicle Type

I (best) Buses (empty &:: loaded)
2 Loaded Tractor Trailers
3 Loaded Trucks
4 Empty Trucks and Tractor Trailers
5 (worst) Bobtail Truck Tractors
This ranking is independent of road surface coefficient of friction and vehicle speed and
applies to "typical" configuration vehicles in these categories in either straight line or turning
maneuvers. Figure A shows the range of stopping distances that might be expected from 60
mph on a dry road for these types of vehicles, assuming the brake systems are in good
condition, burnished and fully adjusted.
Buses performed best, primarily because under most conditions their braking force distribution
was close to the normal force distribution on their axles allowing them to achieve maximum
utilization of the tire/road friction force available at both axles before wheel lockup
occurred. In effect, the buses had close to "ideal" braking distribution under most conditions.
In general, the front to rear weight distribution in a bus does not change substantiaJly in going
from the empty condition to the fully loaded condition due to the uniform nature of the
loading. In addition, dynamic weight transfer in a bus is low due to a relatively low center of
gravity height/wheelbase ratio.
(Continue on additional pages)

"PREPARED FOR THE DE?ARmENT OF TRANSPORTATIOrl, rlATIONAl HIGhWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMlr;lSiRATION
U'JDER CO~;7RACT i.O.: • THE OPINIONS, FINDlrJGS, A~JD COr,CluSIOr,S EXPRESSED
I~J THIS PU3LICATIOr'J ARE THOSE OF THE AUTrlORS A,'JQ NOT NECESSARILY THOSE OF THE 'lATID~;AL HIGHWAY
TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION."
HS For. )21
iii
July 1774 Preceding page blank
r-- Cars
I
~ Buses
~""'''''~~''''~~~1 I I
,I /Rangefor
II Typical II
n
'0
r;e'ld Tractor
Loaded
Trailers ~~~"'~~"'''''''''''''i~,,~ IVehicles
I
I
~ Loaded
~ Trucks ~~"''''''''''''\.~~~''':-~~i J
I
I
~} Empty Trucks
~-;=:LJ~w
10 e-'d
TractorS Trailers K'0~""~"~'\."'\'~"'''''''''''''''''"''''~~ I
I
I
Bobtail
Tractors ~~~~'\~"'''''''\\.~''''''~">0~'i J
I
I
I , , I I
a 100 200 300 400 500
Stopping Distance, ft
FIGURE A
iv
Loaded tractor trailers also performed relatively well due to the fact that their braking
distributions and axle normal force distributions were similar. They did not perform quite as
well as buses, however, due to the fact that the percentage of braking on their front (steering)
axles was found to be somewhat less than ideal. Loaded trucks did not perform as well as
loaded tractor trailers. They experienced more weight transfer onto their front axles than the
loaded tractor trailers which caused the percentage of braking available at the front axles of
the loaded trucks to be even further below ideal.
The stable stopping capability of em pty trucks, tractor /trallers and, in particular, bobtail
tractors was found to be relatively poor. This is due to the fact that their braking systems,
which are sized for the loaded condition and have fixed braking force distributions, produce
too much braking at the rear (or trailer) axles which decrease in weight by a much greater
percentage than the front steering axles when the load is removed. This results in premature
lockup and a corresponding loss of lateral (side) force capability at the tires on the IlJightli
axle(s) causing the vehicles to become unstable at relatively low deceleration levels. The
problem is exagerated if the vehicle has a short wheelbase and very lightly loaded rear axle
which is why bobtail tractors exhibited the worst performance.
In general, most of the trucks and truck tractors tested were found to be "under braked" on
their front axles in that they would not lockup their front wheels before their rear wheels at
any load level on any of the test surfaces including ice. In addition, several of the vehicles
were equipped with front axle automatic limiting valves (AL VIS) which reduced front braking
substantially when control line pressures were low. Since low control line pressures are
utilized when vehicles are empty, these valves further upset or degrade braking distribution in
a situation where it is already considerably less than ideal. Complete removal or deactivation
of the front brakes, a practice which is common among some truck users, obviously degrades
the situation even further. The use of ALVIs or the removal of front brakes results in a
greater chance of rear wheel lockup which can lead to spin-out or jackknife.
Modification of test vehicles to increase the front brake output by removal of ALVIs,
increasing the size of brake chambers or installing variable brake proportioning systems so
that braking distribution was closer to ideal for the straight line stop case also resulted in
optimum performance in the braking and turning case. Much shorter and more stable stops
resulted in both cases. One draw back that was found in increasing front brake torque was
that steering wheel pul1 increased when the vehicle was braked on an uneven coefficient of
friction surface (difference in slipperiness left to right). This increase was insignificant if the
vehicle was equipped with power steering and the steering axle had a low kingpin offset (scrub
radius) but was quite significant when the vehicle had manual steering and a high kingpin
offset. This indicates that steering system design should be taken into account if
consideration is given to increasing front brake torque levels substantially above that which
now exist. It may be necessary that all vehicles have power steering and/or better steering
geometry if better stopping capability and thus greater levels of front brake torque are
required in future regulations.
One point that should be made about the above discussion of stopping capability is that it is
based on the premise that brakes are in good working order and fully adjusted. If this is not
the case, total brake capacity on a vehicle may not be sufficient to produce a very high
deceleration when the vehicle is loaded even if the brakes are ful1y applied. With degraded
capacity brakes, higher loads result in poorer performance, just the opposite of the situation
shown in the table above where the fully loaded vehicles out performed the empty vehicles.
v
Also, the table above ranks vehicles on the basis of their stable stopping capability (i.e., only a
limited amount of wheel lockup is permitted). ]f unlimited wheel lockup is allowed, ranking
becomes a function of tire properties and would show empty vehicles doing better than loaded
vehicles due to the increase in coefficient of friction that typically occurs when truck tires
are unloaded. It does not appear meaningful, however, to rank vehicles on the basis of their
aU-wheels-locked (and unstable) stopping performance as it is an incomplete measure of
stopping capability and does not reflect how well a vehicle can stop while under full control of
the driver.
The effect of brake temperature on stopping capability appears to be small if the initial lining
temperature (IBT) is kept at 300°F or less. An IBT range of 250 -- 300°F on the hottest axle is
suggested as a "standardized" initial condition for stopping distance tests as it is high enough
to allow testing to proceed in an efficient manner (i.e., with a minimum amount of cooling
time) but not so high as to cause changes in performance. Since brake temperatures in the 250
-- 300°F range are quite common in normal "every day" use, such an initial condition would
represent a typical in-use situation.
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
VOLUME I
Page No.
Technical Documentation Page i

Metric Conversion Factors ii
Technical Summary iii
Table of Contents vii
List of Figures
List of Tables
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Air Brake Rulemaking History
1.2 N HTSA's Heavy Duty Vehicle Brake Research Program 3
1.3 Report Structure 5
1.4- Definitions 6
2.0 STRAIGHT LINE STOPPING PERFORMANCE 7
2.1 Test Procedure 8
2.1.1 Limitations on Wheel Lockup 8

2.1.2 Use of Control Trailers with Truck Tractors 11
2.1.3 T est Sequence 12
2.1.4 Burnishing 14
2.1.5 Test Conditions 15
2.2 Test Vehicles 16
2.2.1 Brake System Configurations 23

2.2.2 Test Vehicle Tires 26
2.2.3 Vehicle Loading 26
2.2.4- Center of Gravity Height 30
2.3 Instrumentation 33
2.4 Test Site Utilized 40
2.5 T est Results 44-
2.6 Discussion of Results 47
2.6.1 Service Brake Performance @ 47

20 mph on 81SN Surface
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Continued
VOLUME I
Page No.

2.6.5 Emergency Brake Performance 74
2.6.6 Comparison of Straight Line Stopping 75
Distances for Pre &: Post FMVSS 121
Vehicles
2.6.7 Comparison of Straight Line Stopping Distances 77
for Pre and Post FMVSS 121 Vehicles
2.6.8 Effect of Speed on Straight Line Stopping 80

Distance
2.7 Additional Straight Line Stopping Distance 85

Testing on Truck Fleet Vehicles Furnished
Through ATA
2.8 Summary and Conclusions - Straight Line 93

Stopping Performance
3.0 BRAKING DISTRIBUTION 97
3.1 Ideal Brake Distribution 97
3.2 Technique for Measurement of Actual 106

Brake Distribution
3.3 Braking Distribution Data 114
3.4 Effect of Braking Distribution on Straight 121

Line Stopping Distance
3.5 Summary and Conclusions - Braking Distribution 129
4.0 DIRECTIONAL CONTROLLABILITY AS A FUNCTION OF 132

FRONT AXLE BRAKING LEVEL
4.1 Test Maneuvers 134
4.2 Test Procedure
4.4 Test Vehicles 150
viii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Continued
VOLUME I
Page No.
4.5 Test Data and Discussion of Results 15~
4.5.1 General Discussion 15~

~.5.2 Controllability Tests 157
~.5.2.1 School Buses (Vehicles 1 and 2) 157
~.5.2.2 Pre-121 ~x2 Truck (Vehicle 5) 159
~.5.2.3 Post-121 ~x2 Truck (Vehicle 6) 159
~.5.2.~ Post-121 6x~ Truck (Vehicle 8) 163
~.5.2.5 Post-121 4x2 Tractor (Vehicle 11) 165
~.5.2.6 Post-121 6x~ Tractor (Vehicle 15) 168
~.5.2.7 Post-121 6x4- Tractor (Vehicle 16) 16&
4-.5.2.8 Post-121 Stinger Auto Hauler 172
(Vehicle 19)
~.5.3 Steering Wheel Pull Tests 17~
4-.6 Tests with "Typical" Truck Drivers 178
~.7 Summary and Conclusions - Directional 182

Controllability as a Function of Front
Axle Braking Level
5.0 EVALUATION OF SEVERAL BRAKE PROPORTIONING SYSTEMS 187
5.1 Description of Proportioning System Evaluated 188
5.2 Test Procedure 194-
5.3 Test Data and Discussion of Results 196
5.4 Summary and Conclusions - Evaluation of 201

Several Brake Proportioning Systems
6.0 THE EFFECT OF IN ITIAL BRAKE TEMPERATU~E 204

ON STOPPING PERFORMANCE
6.1 Brake Designs Evaluated and test Vehicles Utilized 205
6.2 Brake Burnishing 206
6.3 Test Procedure 209
6.5 Test Data and Discussion of Results 211
6.5.1 Brake Temperature During Burnishing 211
ix
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Continued
VOLUME I
Page No.
6.5.2 Effect of IBT on Stopping Distance 213

6.5.3 Braking Distribution 215
6.5.4 In-Service Brake Temperatures 220
6.6 Summary and Conclusions Effect of Initial Brake 229

Temperature on Stopping Performance
7.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 231
8.0 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 235

9.0 REFERENCES 236
VOLUME 2
Appendix
A Test Vehicle Photographs and Information Sheets A
B Straight Line Stopping Distance Test Data Sheets B

and Bar Graphs, Speed Sensitivity Table, and
AT A Detail Data Sheets
c Results of Brake Distribution Tests -- C

Distribution Graphs/Torque Graphs
D Controllability Tests to Evaluate Front Brake D

Torque Level
E Test Data From Teamsters/ATA Driver Tests E
F Brake Proportioning System Data F
G Supporting Data for Initial Brake Temperature Studies G
x
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure No. Page No.
Buses 17
2 Two Axle Trucks 18
3 Three Axle Trucks 19
4 Two Axle Tractors 20
5 Three Axle Tractors 21
6 Auto Transporter Rigs 22

7 Tractor Axle Loads for 7 Car Auto Hauler 29
(Vehicle 18) vs. Lift Axle Air Bag Pressure
8 Tractor Axle Loads for 8 Car "Stinger" Auto 31

Hauler (Vehicle 19) vs. Tag Axle Air Bag Pressure
9 Axle Loads for 8 Car "Stinger" Auto Hauler 32

(Vehicle 19) vs. Trailer Rear Axle Air Bag
Pressure
10 Typical Installation of D.C. Tachometer Used 37

to Provide Wheel Speed Signal for Lockup
Detector System
11 Typical Instrumentation Rack Utilized in Test 39

Vehicles
12 Aerial View of Transportation Research Center 41

of Ohio Track Facilities
13 Graphical Averaging Technique Used to Determine 46

Sustained Control Line Pressure
14-A Stopping Distance for Best of Six Stops (Limited 50

Lockup Criteria)
14-B Stopping Distance for Best of Six Stops (Limited 51

Lockup Criteria)
14-C Stopping Distance for Best of Six Stops (Li mited 52

Lockup Criteria)
14-D Stopping Distance for Best of Six Stops (Limited 53

Lockup Criteria)
14-E Stopping Distance for Best of Six Stops (Limited 54

Lockup Criteria)
xi
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
Figure No. Page No.
14-F Stopping Distance for Best of Six Stops (Limited 55

Lockup Criteria)
14-G Stopping Distance for Best of Six Stops (Limited 56

Lockup Criteria)
14-H Stopping Distance for Best of Six Stops (Limited 57

Lockup Criteria)
14-1 Stopping Distance for Best of Six Stops (Limited 58

Lockup Criteria)
14-J Stopping Distance for Best of Six Stops (Limited 59

Lockup Criteria)
14-K Stopping Distance for Best of Six Stops (Limited 60

Lockup Criteria)
14-L Stopping Distance for Best of Six Stops (Limited 61

Lockup Criteria)
14-M Stopping Distance for Best of Six Stops (Limited 62

Lockup Criteria)
14-N Stopping Distance for Best of Six Stops (Limited 63

Lockup Criteria)
14-0 Stopping Distance for Best of Six Stops (Limited 64

Lockup Criteria)
14-P Stopping Distance for Best of Six Stops (Limited 65

Lockup Criteria)
14-Q Stopping Distance for Best of Six Stops (Limited 66

Lockup Criteria)
14-R Stopping Distance for Best of Six Stops (Limited 67

Lockup Criteria)
14-S Stopping Distance for Best of Six Stops (Limited 68

Lockup Criteria)
14-T Stopping Distance for Best of Six Stops (Limited 69

Lockup Criteria)
15 Characteristics of Typical Automatic Front Axle 73

Limiting Valve
xii
Figure No. Page No.
16 Combination Vehicles Furnished by Fleets 87

Through AT A for Straight Line Testing
17 Stopping Distance vs. Brake Distribution 99

Relationship for a Given Two Axle Vehicle,
Speed, Load and Surface
18 Free Body Diagram of Single Unit Vehicle 102

During Braking
19 Free Body Diagrams of Tractor and Semi-Trailer 104

During Braking
20 Digital Comparator/Timer Instrument Used in 109

Conjunction with Fifth Wheel System to Time
Speed Changes
21 Stopping Distance from 40 mph on 30SN Surface 122

vs. Ratio of Actual to Ideal Percent of
Braking on the Front Axle for 17 Vehicles
22 Stopping Distance from 60 mph on 81SN Surface 12.3

vs. Ratio of Actual to Ideal Percent of
Braking on the Front Axle for 17 Vehicles
2.3 40 mph/30SN Stopping Distance vs. Ratio of 126

Actual to Ideal Percent of Braking on the
Front Axle for Post 121 Ford 4x2 Truck
(Vehicle 6)
24 60 mph/81SN Stopping Distance vs. Ratio of 127

Actual to Ideal Percent of Braking on the
Front Axle for Post 121 Ford 4x2 Truck
(Vehicle 6)
25 Ranges of Ideal and Actual Percent of Braking 130

on the Front Axle for 17 Vehicles
26 Lane Change and Curve Maneuvers used to Evaluate 135

Directional Controllability During Braking
27 Lane Change Maneuver Layout (View From the Exit 136

Looking Toward Entrance)
28 Test Vehicle 6 Braking in 500' Radius Turn on Wet 137

20SN Jennite Surface - Initial Speed .35 mph (.16 g)
29 "Split "Surface Test Lane Used for Evaluating 138

Steering Pull
xiii
Figure No. Page No.
30 Close up of 50 Acre Vehicle Dynamics Area (VDA) -- 140

10,000 yd 2 Jennite Pad is at Right (South) End
31 5,000 GaHon Water Truck with 16 ft Gravity Feed 141

Bar Used to Wet Surfaces for Control1ability Tests
and for Making Ice Surface
32 Test Vehicle 16 After Braking in 500' Radius 142

Turn on Ice -- Initial Speed 18 mph (.04 g)
33 Steering Wheel Torque Transducer UtHized to 149

Measure Steering Wheel PuH
34 Safety Cables Used to Limit Tractor to Trailer 153

Articulation Angle
35 Typical Front Tire and Steering King Pin 176

Orientation Showing Definition of King Pin Offset
36 Front and Rear Brake Chamber Pressures and 190

Trailer Control Line Pressure with Bendix
Proportioning System Activated in Vehicle 11
37 Front Brake Chamber Pressure with Bendix 191

Proportioning System in "Off" Mode in Vehicle 11
38 Front and Rear Brake Chamber Pressures for Wagner 193

Proportioning System Activated in Vehicle 12
39 Front and Rear Brake Chamber Pressures for 195

White ABS Proportioning System Activated in
Vehicle 17 (Similar System in Vehicle 13)
40 One of Three Essentially Identical 6x4 Tractors 208

Leased From Ruan for Initial Brake Temperature
Studies
41 Braking Force Versus Control Pressure for Tractors 218

and Trailer Used on East Liberty/Columbus Runs
42 Initial Brake Temperature for East Liberty / 223

Columbus Run
43 Initial Brake Temperature for East Liberty/ 224

Columbus Run
44 Initial Brake Temperature for East Liberty/ 225

Columbus Run
xiv
Figure No. Page No.
45 Initial Brake Temperature for East Liberty! 226

Columbus Run
46 Relative Stopping Capability of Heavy Duty 232

Vehicles - From 60 mph on Dry Road
LIST OF TABLES
Table No. Page No.
Test Sequence Used in Determining Straight 13

Line Stopping Distance Capability
2 Test Vehicle Configurations for Straight Line 24

Stopping Distance Tests
3 Analog Output Code for Lockup Detector Box 38
4 ASTM Skid Number for TRC Skid Pad Areas Used 43

During Straight Line Stops
5 Stopping Distance (ft) for Best Stop - Loaded 48

Test Vehicles
6 Stopping Distance (ft) for Best Stop - Unloaded 49

Test Vehicles
7 Straight Line Stopping Distance (ft) for Three 76

Axle Vehicles With and Without Front Brakes
(Best Stop of Three)
8 Comparison of Straight Line Stopping Distances 78

for Pre and Post FMVSS 121 Vehicles
Stopping Distance vs. Speed for Seven Vehicles 82 .

in Various Conditions
10 Comparison of Actual and Predicted Stopping 83

Distance Data for Seven Vehicles
11 Test Vehicles Furnished by Fleets through A TA 86
12 Straight Line Stopping Distance (tt) for Best 89

Stop by Fleet Vehicles Furnished Through AT A
13 Straight Line Stopping Distance (£t) for Three 94

Axle Fleet Vehicles With and Without Front Brakes
xv
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table No. Page No.
14 Weight Distribution and Braking Distribution 117

for Test Vehicles
15 Effect of Front Axle Limiting Valves on 120

Braking Distribution
16 Test Vehicles, Front Brake Configurations, 151

Loads and Maneuvers Evaluated in Directional
Controllability Experiments
17 Performance of Pre and Post 121 School Buses 156

(Vehicles 1 &. 2) in Controllability Tests
18 Performance of Pre 121 IH 4x2 Truck (Vehicle 5) 160

in Contro1JabiIity Tests with Various Front
Brake Configurations
19 Performance of Post 121 Ford 4x2 Truck 161

(Vehicle 6) in Controllability Tests with
Various Front Brake Configurations
20 Performance of Post 121 GMC 6x4 Truck 164

(Vehicle 8) in ControUabiJity Tests with
21 Performance of Post 121 Peterbilt 4x2 Tractor 166

(Vehicle 11) and Great Dane Single Axle
Trailer in Contro1JabiJity Tests with Various
Front Brake Configurations
22 Performance of Post 121 IH 6x4 Tractor (Vehicle 15) 169

and Fontaine Two Axle Trailer in Control!abiHty
Tests with Various Front Brake Configurations
23 Performance of Western Star 6x4 Tractor {Vehicle 16) 170

and Two Axle Trailer in Controllability Tests with
24 Performance of Stinger Auto Hauler Rig 173

(Vehicle 19) in ControHabiJity Tests with
25 Results from 35 mph Straight Line Stops on Split 175

Coefficient Surface to Evaluate Steering Pull
26 Results of Directional ControUability Tests 180

With Drivers Furnished Through A TA and the
Teamsters - 500 Foot Jennite Curve
27 Brake Proportioning Systems Evaluated 189
xvi
UsT OF TABLES (Continued)
Table No. Page Noo
28 Results of 60 mph Straight Line 815 N Stopping

Distance Tests on Brake Proportioning Systems
29 Results of 35 mph, 500 Foot Radius Wet Jennite 199

Curve Tests on Brake Proportioning Systems
30 Results of 18 mph, 500 Foot Radius Ice Curve 200

Tests on White 6x2 Bobtail Tractor (Vehicle 17)
31 Results of Tests on Brake Proportioning Systems 202

with Drivers Furnished through AT A and the
Teamsters - 500 Foot Radius Wet Jennite Curve
32 Test Vehicles and Brake Systems Utilized for 207

Initial Brake Temperature Studies
33 Temperatures During Steady State Portion of Burnish 212

(40-20 mph Snubs on 1.0 Mile Interval at 10 ft/sec 2)
34 60 mph Stopping Distances (ft.) Versus Initial Brake 2i4

Temperatures
35 60 mph Stopping Distance for Tractors Utilized 216

in Initial Brake Temperature Studies When Attached
to FM VSS 121 Control Trailer
36 Brake Force (Jbs.} Versus Control Line Pressure 216

For the Four Tractor Brake Systems and Trailer Used
in Initial Brake Temperature Studies
37 Percent of Braking on the front Axle for the Four 2~9

Brake Systems Used in the Initial Brake Temperature
Studies
38 Percent of Braking Provided by Tractor in Vehicle 219

Combinations Used in East Liberty/Columbus Runs
39 Duty Cycle Parameters Recorded During East Liberty / 221

Columbus Runs Segregated by Type of Roadways
Encountered
40 Maximum Initial Brake Temperatures, of for Various 227

Brake Systems on East Liberty /Columbus Run
41 Average of the Maximum Initial Brake Temperatures 228

(oF) Recorded on the East Liberty/Columbus Runs
Corrected for Ambient Temperature and Compared to
Steady State Burnish Initial Snub Temperatures
xvii
NHTSA Heavy Duty Vehicle Brake Research Program -- Report Number 1:
Stopping Capability of Air Braked Vehicles
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report is the first in a series of technical reports to be pubJished by the

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (N HTSA) on its Heavy Duty
Vehicle Brake Research Program which was initiated in 1979. This program was
originaJJy set up to study air braked vehicles and was later amended to include
heavy duty (over 10,000 Ib G VW R) hydrauJic braked vehicles as well. This first
report covers air braked vehicles only and is primarily concerned with their
stopping capability.
1.1 Air Brake Rulemaking History
The N HTSA's predecessor agency (the National Highway Safety Bureau) began
rulemaking for air brake systems on heavy duty commercial vehicles in 1967
with the issuance of Docket No. 1-2, Notice 67-5, an Advance Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (AN PRM). This notice indicated the Agency's intention
to extend its passenger car braking system standard, FM VSS No. 105, to
mUltipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses and trailers. In 1970, N HTSA,
because of pending Congressional action on a heavy truck biB, prioritized
rule making for heavy vehicle brake systems and in June of that year issued two
Notices of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM). One NPRM, Docket 70-17, Notice 1,
proposed requirements for air brake systems used on trucks and buses and
Docket 70-16, Notice 1, proposed requirements for air brake systems on
trailers. The proposed effective date in both N PRM's was January 1, 1972. A
public meeting on the proposed standards was held in September 1970. The
N HTSA combined both N PRM's into one final rule which was issued in
February 1971 with a January 1, 1973 effective date. A number of amendments
were made to the requirements and the effective date of the standard before it
finaJJy went into effect for trailers on January 1,1975 and for trucks and buses
on March 1, 1975.
The standard, as issued, required that trucks and buses stop within certain
distances, from specified speeds, without leaving a 12 foot wide lane and
without lockup of any wheel more than momentarily. Trailers were also
required to stop in a 12 foot lane without wheel lockup but with an application
pressure specified instead of a stopping distance. These stopping requirements
were set forth for both empty and loaded vehicles on high and low coefficient
of friction surfaces. The standard also specified brake actuation and release
times, established inertia dynamometer requirements for brake retardation
force and fade/recovery performance, and contained requirements for parking
and emergency brake systems. In addition, the standard included requirements
for air gauges, reservoirs, compressors and other air brake system equipment.
Although the standard did not specifically require that antilock systems be
instaJied on vehicles, the stopping distance requirements were such that some
means of preventing premature wheel lockup under the various loading and road
coefficient conditions was necessary for most vehicles. Vehicle manufacturers
elected to use electronically controlled antiJock systems to meet these
requirements although for trucks and buses there were other possibilities such
as load senSing proportioning devices. The vehicle manufacturers felt that
antilock systems were the only practical means available for meeting the
standard's requirements.
After the standard went into effect, N HTSA amended it a number of times
between 1975 and 1978 in response to petitions and public hearings. The most
significant changes related to relaxations of the stopping distance requirements
which permitted truck manufacturers to use less powerful front brakes without
front axle antilock systems. These relaxed stopping distances, however, were
not so long that trucks could meet the stopping requirements consistently
without antilock systems on the rear axles. Only long wheelbase buses could
meet the requirements without any antiJock systems.
In April 1978, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision which
became effective October 11, 1978, invaJidating the "no lockup" requirements and
aU of the stopping distance requirements in the standard except those for
2
buses. The court was responding to a petition for judicial review filed in 1975
by PACCAR, a truck manufacturer, who was later joined by the American
Trucking Association (AT A) and the Truck Equipment and Body Distributers
Association (TEBDA). The court held that although N HTSA was justified in
promulgating a standard requiring improved air brake systems, the Agency was
remiss in its failure to conduct more intensive testing of vehicles certified
under the standard. The court stated that there was substantial evidence that
"in-use" performance of vehicles equipped with antiJock was not consistent with
performance required by the standard and in some circumstances could be more
hazardous than the performance of prestandard vehicles. In short, the court
felt that antiJock might not be reJiable and ruled that until the Agency could
demonstrate that it was, requirements that necessitated its use were invalid.
The court also addressed certain test conditions in the standard for conducting
stopping distance tests stating that they lacked specificity and were not
practicable. Although the "no lockup" and stopping requirements for trucks and
traiJers in the standard were invalidated by the court, the remainder of the
standard's original requirements remained in effect.
FM VSS 121 has been a contro.versial standard; its requirements necessitated

major changes and a general upgrading of air brake systems. There has been
much discussion and concern over the "cost" and reasonableness of the
standard. The antiJock reliability issue addressed by the Ninth Circuit Court
had been thoroughly debated at a number of public hearings prior to the
issuance of the court's decision. Much attention has been focused on air brake
systems in general since the issuance of the standard. Both manufacturers and
users alike have raised and debated issues welJ beyond those discussed in the
court decision. Many of these issues remained unresolved in ! 978 and required
further research.
1.2 N HTSA's Heavy Duty Vehicle Brake Research Program
In January 1979, the Office of Heavy Duty Vehicle Research of N HTSA

established the Heavy Duty Vehicle Brake Research Program at the Agency's
Vehicle Research and Test Center (VR TC) in East Uberty, Ohio, The purpose
3
of this program was to study many of the issues surrounding FM VSS 121 and air
brake systems in general. This program was not to address the reliability issues
since the N HTSA's Office of Heavy Duty Vehicle Research was to initiate
separate programs for this purpose.
The VR Te program as established would:
1. Determine the straight line stopping performance of a large sampling of air

braked vehicles configured with 1979-80 * production braking systems.
These vehicles would be tested without antilock (after the court decision
most vehicles were built that way). The Agency at the time was
considering reestablishing stopping distance requirements that could be
achieved without the use of antilock and such data was to form a basis for
those requirements.
2. Investigate the controllability characteristics of 1979-80 production air

braked vehicles without antilock during braking and turning maneuvers to
determine if these vehicles exhibited control problems. There was concern
that simply removing antilock from a vehicle without de powering brakes to
pre-121 levels would result in braking systems that would be difficult to
control due to the fact that wheels would lockup too easily and cause loss
of stability.
3. Investigate issues raised by the court relative to test conditions in FMVSS

12 l. Develop a speC;:ification for "time between tests" or some other means
of establishing an objective and repeatable initial brake temperature
condition for stopping distance tests.
"Air Brake system performance has changed very little since 1980 and the results and
data presented later in this report should essentially apply to current production
vehicles as well.
4-
4. Study brake apply and release timing requirements in FM VSS 121 and
determine if the present levels are optimum particularly for tractcr trai1er
combinations. Develop an improved device for measuring trailer timing.
The device specified in FM VSS 121 delivers air much faster to trailers tha;,
truck tractors. Trailer brake timing measured with the traile, ccrmected
to the existing device does not correspond to trailer brake tim.ir.g as
measured in a tractor trailer combination.
5. Study other issues raised by manufacturers and users during the course of
the standard.
6. Provide an on-going research, test and evaluation program to study current

problems with air brake systems, evaluate newly developed devices for
improving brake performance and support in-service fleet eva!~C'.t]o~S by
providing proving ground and laboratory test data for air brake system
components being evaluated.
In 1981 the program was amended to include heavy duty (GVWR over 10,000 Jb)
hydraulically braked vehicles and to determine their stopping capability C'.s
well. The program would provide data upon which to base decisions for future
rulemaking activity on this type of brake system.
1.3 Report Structure
The report which follows presents the results of research conducted to

determine the stopping capability of air braked vehicles. Section 2.0 discusses
the evaluation of the straight line stopping performance of a large sample of air
brake vehicles without antilock. Section 3.0 covers the topic of braking force
distribution among the various axles on a vehicle and shows how it impacts
stopping capability. Section 4.0 addresses directional controllability (and
stopping capability) during braking and turning maneuvers as a function of front
axle braking level. Section 5.0 gives an evaluation of several brake
proportioning systems and shows how they effect straight line and turning
5
stopping performance. Section 6.0 shows how initial brake temperature affects
stopping capability and addresses the issues of "time between tests" raised by
the Ninth Circuit Court in their 1978 decision. Section 7.0 provides a summary
and conclusions.
Four additional reports on the Heavy Duty Vehicle Brake Research Program are
in various stages of preparation and are expected to be issued in the near future
covering: the effect of air brake adjustment on performance, trailer emergency
and parking brake systems, pneumatic timing and the stopping capability of
heavy duty hydraulicalJy braked vehicles. In addition, research is currently
underway to investigate tractor and trailer air brake system compatibility
problems. Although this work is expected to be covered by the sixth report in
the series, planned publication of this report is at least one year away pending
completion of necessary testing and analysis of results.
1.4 Definitions
This section provides definitions for a number of terms and abbreviations that
are used frequently throughout the report.
- "FM VSS 121" means Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard number 121, Air
Brake Systems.
- "Pre-121 vehicle" means a vehicle built before FM VSS 121 went into effect in
1975.
- "Post-121 vehicle" means a vehicle built after FMVSS 121 went into effect in
1975 and whose brake system is or has been modified to the 1979-80 (or later)
configuration.
- "Adverse loading" means the loading of a power vehicle such that the entire
load is carried by the rear axle(s) of the vehicle with the rear axle(s) being
loaded to its GA WR.
- "Limited Lockup" means lockup of no more than one wheel of an axle (or two
wheels of a tandem axle) at speeds greater than 20 mph and with unlimited
lockup at speeds of 20 mph or less.
6
- "Best stop" means the stop in a series of like stops in which the test vehicle
stopped in the shortest distance without leaving the 12' wide test lane.
- "O.E." means original equipment.
- "Average in-lane stopping distance" means the average stopping distance for
those stops of a series of like stops where the vehicle stayed in the test lane.
- "IBT" means the initial brake temperature which is the brake temperature at
the time of a brake application.
- "ALY" means an automatic front axle pressure limiting valve.
- "Brake distribution" means the distribution of total vehicle brake force

among the axles of a vehicle.
- "Ideal brake distribution" means percentage of total vehicle brake force

genera ted by each axle is equal to the percentage of vehicle weight on each
axle when the vehicle is decelerating at the maximum possible rate permitted
by the tire/road surface coefficient of friction.
- "Ideal percentage of braking on the front axle" means the percentage of total
brake force generated by the front axle is equal to the percentage of total
vehicle weight on the front axle when the vehicle is decelerating at the
maximum possible rate permitted by the tire/road surface coefficient of
friction.
- A/I ratio means the ratio of the actual percentage of vehicle braking on the
front axle to the ideal percentage.
2.0 STRAIGHT LINE STOPPING PERFORMANCE
In the first phase of the program, tests were conducted to determine the
straight line stopping capability of a broad range of vehicles without antilock.
Since the possibility of reestablishing stopping distance requirements to replace
those invalidated by the court was being considered, it was necessary to develop
a data base from which to work. Because the court required that N HTSA
demonstrate the reliability of antilock systems before reestablishing
requirements necessitating their use, any interim stopping requirements had to
be such that vehicles without antilock systems could meet them.
7
Nineteen test vehicles were selected and each of the vehicles in the group were
subjected to a complete series of stopping distance tests in accordance with the
FMVSS 121 test sequence. Five of the vehicles in the group were of pre-121
vintage and were selected to match corresponding post-121 vehicles. These
pre-I21 vehicles would provide baseline data. The fourteen post-121 vehicles
were all equipped with 1979-80 braking systems and were tested with antilock
systems (if so equipped) disconnected. In addition, limited testing was
conducted on six in-service combination vehicles furnished by trucking fleets
through the American Trucking Associations (A TA).
2.1 Test Procedure
2.1.1 :"imitations on Wheel Lockup
In order to determine the straight line stopping distance capability of vehicles

without antilock, it was necessary to establish a test methodology different
than that typicaJly used for evaluating vehicles equipped with antilock. With a
fully antilock equipped vehicle, the test driver simply makes a "full treadle"
application (fully depresses the brake pedal) and allows the antilock system to
control wheel lockup during the stop. Without any antilock, such a technique
would produce fully locked wheels under most test conditions. At high speeds,
this would cause an inordinate amount of tire wear and pose a safety hazard due
to the loss of lateral stability that occurs with locked wheels. Vehicle braking
performance measured with such a test, or any test that would permit unlimited
wheel lockup at high speeds, would be greatly influenced by driver skill, the side
slope or crown of the test road, and most importantly, tire properties. Very
little would be determined about the brake system except for its ability to lock
wheels, Braking distribution or balance between axles, a parameter which is
very critical to safe braking system performance (especially without antilock),
would not be measured in such a test.
Consider, for example, a bobtail tractor without antilock. In this test program
such a vehicle was stopped with all wheels locked within a twelve foot wide
8
lane on a completely flat dry surface from 60 mph in approximately 200 feet.
This would tend to indicate its braking performance is quite good; this distance
is shorter than most loaded trucks or tractor trailers can achieve and not that
much longer than a typical passenger car's stopping distance. From a practical
standpoint, however, a bobtail tractor, without antilock, is a poor performing
vehicle in a braking situation. The very large rear brakes on the tractor, which
are sized for carrying a loaded trailer, tend to lockup at very low control line
pressures before any significant output can be developed from the front brakes.
At highway speeds on an actual road, if the rear axle(s) lock up, lateral skidding
and spin out may occur depending upon the crown (side slope) and curvature of
the road. The bobtail tractor, which stopped in 200 feet from 60 mph without
lockup restrictions, required approximately 350 to 400 feet to stop when lockup
was restricted. The latter case, however, is a much more meaningful measure
of the vehicles braking performance and relates directly to how the vehicle
performs on the road. By limiting lockup, a measure of the balance of braking
on a vehicle's axles is obtained and a safe test without excessive tire wear is
possible.
In this program, it was decided to restrict lockup during stopping distance tests;
however, the restriction took the form of a limitation as opposed to a total
prohibition on lockup. The amount of lockup permitted is called "limited
lockup" in this report and is defined as lockup where "not more than one wheel
per axle or two wheels per tandem axle locked at speeds above 20 mph
(unlimited lockup at speeds of 20 mph and below is permitted)". This deviation
from a total no lockup criteria was selected for two basic reasons:
1) By permitting unlimited lockup at 20 mph or less, data obtained in this

program would directly correspond to Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety
(BMCS) requirements and data collected for in use vehicles involved in
interstate commerce. Lockup at or below vehicle speeds of 20 mph does
not cause safety problems in testing nor does it result in significant tire
wear.
2) By allowing one wheel per axle to lockup, side to side imbalances in

loading, as well as braking, which do not drastically reduce stability are
9
permitted. With tandem axles, allowing two of the four wheels to lock
permits side to side or axle to axle imbalances to exist. In either case
(single or tandem axles), lockup of lIone half" of the wheels does not result
in stability problems in testing since almost half of the side force
generating capabilities of the tires remain. (This premise was confirmed in
Section 4.0.) By allowing partial lockup, significant tire wear can occur in
high speed stops if a large amount of side to side (or axle to axle in a
tandem) imbalance in loading and braking exists. However, for the vehicles
tested in the program, it was not a problem since vehicles were
symetrically loaded and brakes properly conditioned/adjusted. With
unlimited lockup permitted, it is doubtful that this would be the case.
In conducting a stopping distance test, the test driver modulated the treadle
valve (brake foot valve) to achieve the shortest possible stop without exceeding
the control line pressure at which more than one wheel per axle (two wheels per
tandem) locked up at speeds greater than 20 mph. This was somewhat of a trial
and error procedure, but the driver was permitted six attempts* to achieve the
best stop.
Typically in a series of stops, one or more stops were made with low control
pressure and no wheels locked, and one or more were made with too high a
pressure with too many wheels locked. In this manner, the test driver insured
that he had reached the "limit" performance level. Some of the vehicles in the
loaded condition did not have sufficient brake torque to lock any wheels and, in
those cases, the driver made full treadle applications (after one or more stops
at lower pressures were made to establish the lack of capability to lock
wheels). In making stops from 20 mph, at least two full treadle stops were
made regardless of brake torque available. All six stops from 20 mph were not
*With most of the vehicles, only three attempts were used to determine emergency
system performance in each of the possible failure modes to save time and avoid
excessive conditioning of the brake linings. Normal convention is to run the emergency
system tests only in the "worst case" failure mode. In any event, emergency system
stopping perfor'mance has not been an issue; most vehicles can easily meet the FM VSS
121 emergency brake system stopping requirements which do not prohibit wheel lockup.
10
made with a full treadle application since, at the time the procedure was
developed, there was interest in determining performance with a 10 mph limit
placed on wheel lockup similar to that imposed in FM VSS 121 and the hydraulic
brake system standard (FMVSS 105-75). With such a limit, modulated stops are
required from 20 mph. Although such performance can be determined from the
detailed test data presented in the appendix to this report, it was not given
serious consideration due to the fact that it is extremely difficult to modulate
to a limit condition in a stop with an initial speed of 20 mph. The stop is over
with before the driver obtains a "feel" for the limit.
2.1.2 Use of Control Trailers with Truck Tractors
When the stopping distance requirements in FM VSS 121 were valid for trucks,
control (standardized) trailers were used to provide the load necessary to test
truck tractors at their gross vehicle weight rating (GVW R). Two different size
flat bed trailers were specified in the standard: a single axle 27 foot trailer for
tractors with a total rear gross axle weight rating (GA WR) of 26,000 pounds or
less and a 40 foot tandem axle trailer for tractors with a total rear GA WR
greater than 26,000 pounds. Control trailers have to meet all requirements of
the standard, including no lockup (necessitating antilock) and dynamometer
retardation force requirements. In addition, the control trailer's service and
emergency brakes when applied at a specified rate have to be able to stop the
control trailer (in combination with the tractor being tested) in specified
distances.
For the purposes of this program, it was decided to use control trailers just as
specified in FMVSS 121. When testing the truck tractors (without antilock) in
the program, the control trailer antilock was left fully operational. This
appeared to be the most reasonable approach since it eliminated the hazards
and problems associated with trailer wheel lockup and permitted the test driver
to concentrate on achieving limit performance for the tractor without worrying
about trailer wheel lockup.
11
2.1.3 Test Sequence
Each of the test vehicles was subjected to the original stopping sequence
specified in Table I of FMVSS 121 with the following exceptions:
1) Parking brake tests were not run on any of the vehicles. This was not an
issue and all vehicles were expected to easily pass.
2) Control trailer emergency brake IIcalibration" stops were not run. Such
calibrations are only necessary where the trailer is to be used with a
tractor whose emergency brake system includes modulating the spring
brakes on the trailer. None of the test tractors utilized such a system.
The only other case where the trailer emergency system becomes
operational during testing is in the failed trailer control line tests when
system pressure falls to the tractor protection valve actuation point. If
this occurs, which is rarely the case, it usually does so at very low speeds
where the output of the trailer emergency brakes has a very smal1 effect
on total stopping distance.
3) No emergency system tests were run on the pre-l2l vehicles except for
failed control line tests which were run on pre-121 truck tractors. The
pre-121 vehicles did not have split or dual air systems and failure of a
reservoir would have resulted in automatic application of the spring brakes.
4) Stops from 40 mph on a 30 SN surface were added for both empty and
loaded vehicle conditions. It was felt that brake modulation capability of a
vehicle on the low coefficient surface would not be adequately defined by
only 20 mph stops.
The stopping sequence used is shown in Table 1 for reference. For the
emergency system tests, up to three failure modes were evaluated at each
speed and load condition: failed primary reservoir, failed secondary reservoir
and failed trailer control line (if the test vehicle was a tractor). The trailer
control line was simply disconnected and vented to atmosphere to "failll it. To
12
TABLE 1
Test Sequence Used in Determining
Straight Line Stopping Distance Capability
1. 500 stop burnish
2. Control trailer service brake "calibration" stops from 60 mph (truck tractors only)
3. Stops with vehicle at G VWR
a) 20 mph Service Brake Stops on 81 SN surface
b) 60 mph Service Brake Stops on 81 SN surface
c) 20 mph Service Brake Stops on 30 SN surface
d) 40 mph Service Brake Stops on 30 SN surface
e) 20 mph Emergency Brake Stops on 81 SN surface
f) 60 mph Emergency Brake Stops on 81 SN surface
4. Stops with vehicle at unloaded weight plus 500 Ib
a) 20 mph Service Brake Stops on 81 SN surface
b) 60 mph Service Brake Stops on 81 SN surface
c) 20 mph Service Brake Stops on 30 SN surface
d) 40 mph Service Brake Stops on 30 SN surface
e) 20 mph Emergency Brake Stops on 81 SN surface
f) 60 mph Emergency Brake Stops on 81 SN surface
13
fail either the primary or secondary reservoir, a solenoid valve with a one-half
inch diameter orifice was installed. Before each emergency system test stop,
the system was fully charged to compressor governor cut-out pressure and the
failure was induced. The failed reservoir was allowed to fully bleed down
before making the stop. This procedure is somewhat different than the
procedure used in N HTSA's compliance testing where the solenoid valve is
activated with the vehicle traveling at the test speed and the brakes are applied
as soon as the low air pressure warning device activates. In our procedure,
which is a "more severe" situation, the failed reservoir is essentially at zero psi,
whereas with the compliance test procedure, the failed reservoir is at or above
the minimum warning pressure specified in FMVSS 121 (60 psi).
2.1.4 Burnishing
The 500 stop burnish specified in FM VSS 121 was utilized for all of the test
vehicles to condition the braking systems before conducting stopping distance
tests. The loading of truck tractors requires further ex plana tion, however.
Although FM VSS 121 does not state specifically how a truck tractor is loaded
during burnish, it implies in the road test conditions that the vehicle should be
connected to a control trailer to achieve the necessary G VW R loading. It
further implies that the control trailerCs brakes must be working. Burnishing a
truck tractor with a braked control trailer poses several problems, however.
First, from a practical standpoint, many manufacturers, or test operations,
have only a limited number of control trailers and donit want to tie them up on
time consuming burnishes. Burnishing the control trailer every time it is used
to test a tractor also results in unnecessary wear and tear on the control
trailers brakes. The control trailer is a test device that must have a very
closely controlled brake output and repeated burnishing may Change brake
output such that modifications must be made to the trailer's braking system
after the burnish to bring it into specifications, In addition, variations in the
performance of the brakes on different control trailers at snub pressures (40-60
psi) may cause the output of the trailers to be different during the burnish,
resul ting in more or less conditioning of the tractor's brakes.
14
To avoid these problems and achieve a repeatable burnish, it has become
common practice to attach an unbraked traHer (not necessarily a control
traHer) to the test tractor and to load the front end of the trailer such that the
total gross weight of the tractor trailer combination equals the GVWR of the
tractor. Such a loading results in the brakes on the tractor always braking a
load equivalent to GVWR, even though the tractor is not totally supporting all
of the weight (i.e., part of the weight is supported by the unbraked trailer
axle). The trailer ballast is located as close as possible to the trailer kingpin so
that the tractor axles are as close as possible to their rated loadings. If this is
not done, the tractor rear axles may be too lightly loaded and lockup at the 10
2
ftjsec deceleration required in the burnish.
Since the unbraked trailer method of loading truck tractors during burnish
appears the most reasonable and efficient and also is common practice in
industry, it was utilized in this program. Consideration should be given to
specifying this method in FMVSS 121.
2.1.5 Test Conditions
Basically, the test conditions specified in FM VSS 12 1 were used for each of the
straight line stopping distance tests conducted in this program.
It was necessary, however, to impose several additional conditions as follows:
a) Initial Brake Temperature (lBT) - Stops were made with the average initial
temperature of the brake linings on the hottest axle between 150 and 200
degrees Fahrenheit. In the case of truck tractors, the average initial
temperature of the hottest axle on the control trailer was also required to
be between 150 and 200 degrees Fahrenheit.
b) Manual Front Axle Limiting Valves - The pre-121 vehicles that were
equipped with manual front axle pressure limiting valves were run with the
valves in the "Dry Road" position for the tests on an 81 SN surface and in
the "Slippery Road" position on the 30 SN surface.
15
The selection of the IBT condition was based on the fact that FMVSS 105 for
hydraulic brakes specifies this same condition and also the fact that the
dynomometer test conditions in FMVSS 121 specify an IBT of 125 - 200 degrees
Fahrenheit for performance stops on each brake tested. The lack of such a
specification in FMVSS 121 was cited by the court as a definiency of the
standard (the Court actually made reference to a lack of a specification for
"time between tests" which relates directly to initial brake temperature). As
shown later in this report (Section 6.6), an IB T of J.50°F to 200°F is a reasonable
1ST for vehicles with drum brakes.
It should be pointed out that since this program was designed to gather a
stopping distance data base for future regulations, the general philosophy for
testing, therefore, was to select, when possible, test conditions which would
result in the longest stopping distance. For example, since the test track was
not perfectly level (1/2% grade), the zero grade specified in FMVSS 121 could
not be complied with exactly. In this program, high speed stopping distance
tests were run "downhill" as this is the more adverse condition. Performance
measured in this manner does not appear better than could be achieved with
exact test conditions.
2.2 Test Vehicles
A sample of nineteen vehicles was selected for testing in this portion of the
program. The sample included:
a) 4 - Buses (see Figure I)
b) 2 - 2 Axle Trucks (see Figure 2)
c) 3 - 3 Axle Trucks (see Figure 3)
d) 4 - 2 Axle Tractors (see Figure 4)
e) 4 - 3 Axle Tractors (see Figure 5)
f) 2 - Auto Transporter Rigs (see Figure 6)
In each of the categories a) - e) above, one pre-12 I vehicle was included to

serve as a performance baseline. Each pre-121 vehicle was selected to match,
as closely as possible, the characteristics of a post-121 vehicle in the group
including GA WR's, wheelbase, steering, suspension, empty weight
16
!J _, '~~,r~~h
,~~
Pre-121 IH School Bus -

Vehicle 111
Post-121 IH School Bus -

Vehicle 112
Post-121 FordjIH Simulated

Short School Bus
- Vehicle 113
Post-121 Thomas Transit Bus -

Vehicle 114
FIGURE 1
Buses
17
Pre-121 IH 4x2 Truck -
Vehicle 115
Post-121 Ford 4x2 Truck -

Vehicle 116
FIGURE 2
Two Axle Trucks
18
Pre-121 GMC 6x4 Truck-
Vehicle 117
Post-121 GMC 6x4 Truck -

Vehicle 118
Post-121 Mack 6x4 Truck -

Vehicle 119
FIGURE 3
Three Axle Trucks
19
....... -..-. L
-~.'
Pre-12l Peterbilt 4x2 Tractor -

Vehicle IlJO
Post-l2l Peterbilt 4x2

Tractor - Vehicle 1111
Post-I21 Ford 4x2 Tractor -

Vehicle tIl2
> ,
" >
~ "vll~k~1t1.{.~
Post-I21 White 4x2 Tractor -
Vehicle tl13
FIGURE 4
Two Axle Tractors
20
Pre-121 IH 6x4 Tractor -
Vehicle 1J14
Post-121 IH 6x4 Tractor -

Vehicle 1115
Post-121 Western Star

6x4 Tractor - Vehicle 1116
Post-121 White 6x2 Tractor-

Vehicle 1117
FIGURE 5
Three Axle Tractors
21
-- '--"
\.
Post-J 2 J Stuart Conventional

Auto Hauler - Vehicle 1118
Pos t-121 Stuart Stinger

Auto HauJer - Vehicle 1119
FIGURE 6
Auto Transporter Rigs
22
distr ibution, tire size, etc. With the exception of the two axle trucks, the pre-
and post-121 vehicle pairs were basicaUy identical models from the same
manufacturers. In the two axle truck case, the vehicles were built by different
manufacturers but had similar characteristics.
Table 2 provides a summary description of the nineteen test vehicles and

includes detail information on the vehicles' braking systems; vehicles 1, 5, 7, 10
and 14 are the pre-121 vehicles. More information on each vehicle is provided
in Appendix A. Vehicle 3, the short wheelbase school bus, is actuaHy a
simulated school bus; it is vehicle 6 with a different brake system. A short
wheelbase school bus was not available for the program, and since the shortest
school bus chassis produced has a wheelbase of 150 ins, it was decided to
simulate the school bus with the Ilj.6 inch wheelbase Ford truck chassis (vehicle
6). The brake system was modified to that used by IH on their short school bus
chassis since IH is the only manufacturer of the short wheelbase school bus.
This modification was performed utilizing information and guidance provided by
IH Engineering. A load frame was installed and ballasted in such a way as to
represent a typical short wheelbase school bus body.
2.2.1 Brake System Configurations
All of the 121 vehicles tested (14 vehicles) were equipped with 1979-80 braking
systems, configured such as they would be on vehicles bullt without antilock.
Since many of the vehicles available to VRTC were of the 1975 to 1978 vintage,
it was necessary in most cases, to modify the brake systems to update them to
current production configurations. Vehicle manufacturers provided guidance
for changing components such as slack adjusters, air chambers, brake linings,
val ves, etc. to update the vehicles. Braking systems on the five pre-121
vehicles, which were built between 1971 and 1973, were refurbished to their
original equipment configurations.
The components in all of the braking systems were carefully inspected and any
defective or worn components were replaced before the start of testing. Brake
drums were replaced on all of the pre-121 vehicles and several of the 121 units.
23
TABLE 2
Test Vehicle Configurations for Straight Line Stopping Distance Tests
PreT2~ Post 121 IH Pos~ 121 Fonlrm---Post 121 Tholllls Pre 121 IH Post 121 Fort!
School Bus School Bus Short School Bu s Transit Bus 4x2 Truck 4x2 Truck
Vehicle No. I Vehfcle No. 2 Vehicle No. 3 Vehicle No. 4 Vehicle No. 5 Vehicle 110. 6
Model 1703 1703 Modified Ford RE305 Chassis 2051lA F-7000

Prod. Date 73 7175 8/78 73 6177
Wheelbase,ln. 254 254 146 258 146 146
GYWR (GAWR'S),Klbs. 23.7 (7.5/16.2) 23.7 (7.5/16.2) 26.5 /19/17.5) 33.3 (12.1/21.2) 27.5 (9/18.5) 27.5 (9/18.5)
loaded Test Weight (F/R),KlbS. 7.5/16.2 7.5/16.2 9/17.8 12/21.2 9/18.3 9.1/18.2
Empty Test Weight (F/R),Klbs. 5.6/8.7 5.7/8.7 4.9/7.2 7.3/14.4 6.6/4.2 5.6/4.0
CGhefght/WB (Loaded/Empty) .20/.20 .20/.20 .31 I. 27 .45/.25 .45/.25
Front Brakes Wedge Cam Cam S-Cam Cal:! Cam
SI le, In. 15x3 15x3-112 15x4 16-1/2x6 16-l/4x3-1/2 15x3-1/2
Char.lbers,1 n. 2 9 (sfrPiJlel 16 16 24 16 9
Slack s, f n. 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5
Llnfngs MMB62 MMB62 551 C ABB693 MM!62 MM8C5
Real' Brakes S-Cam S-Cam S-Cam S-Cam S-Cam S-Cal:!
SI le, f n. 16-1/2x6 16-1/2x6 16-1/2x6 16-1/2x10 16-I/2x7 16-I/2x7
ChilClbers,l n. 2 24 30 30 30 30 24
Slack s, 1 n. 5.5 6.5 6.5 6 6 6
Lf,,1 ngs MM-262-E SM14/D39 SM14/D39 ABB 693 MM262E MM8C5
Front Axle lfmftf ng Valve None None Ilone ~Ione Manual tlone
Ti re s-Fro nt 9-ZOC-R 9-20E-R 10-2(J" -R 10-2CG-R I 0-2OF-R 10-2OF-R
Rear 9-20E-R 9-Z0E-R 10-20F -CL 10-20G-R 10-2OF -Cl I 0-2!F" -Cl
I Pre 121 GMC Post 121 G~IC Post 121 Mack Pre 121 Peterbi 1 t Post 121 Peterbllt Post 121 Ford
~
"" 6x4 Truck 6x4 Truck 6x4 Truck 4x2 Tractor 4x2 Tractor 4x2 Tractor
I Vehicle No.7 Vehi cle ~o. 8 Vehicle No. 9 Vehicle No. 10 Vehicle No. 11 Vehicle tlo. 12
Model JH9670 J9C064 DM6855X 282S73 2B2573 LIl 8(100
Prod. Date 71 9/78 5178 9/71 5/76 4/77
Wheelbase,in. 169 169 191 118 119 138
GVWR (GAWR'S),Klbs. 50 /12/38) 50 (12/38) 63.9 (14.8/49.1) 34 [l2/23} 30 (12/18) 27.5 (9/19)
Loaded Test Weight (F/R),Klbs. 11.8/38.5 12/38 14.8/49.7 9.7/18.2 9.1/18 8.8/19.3
Empty Test Weight (F/R),Klbs. 7.8/6.8 7.9/7.3 9/10 8.1/5.3 8.5/5.6 6.2/4.8
CGheight/WB (Loaded/EmptyJ .44/.23 .44/.23 .40/.15 .33 .33 .29
Front Brakes Car.! Cam S-Car.1 Cal!1 Cat:! Cal!1
Si ze, i n. 15x3-1/2 15x4 16-1/2x5 16-1/4x3-1/2 15x4 15x3-1/2
Chilr.1bers, i n. 2 16 24 24 16 20 9
Slacks, f n. 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5
Li ni ngs 551 C 5510 551 D 551C 551 C. MM8C5
Rear Brakes S-Cam S-Cam S-Cal!1 S-Car.! S-Cal!1 S-Car:1
Size,in. 16-1/2x7 16-1/2x7 18x7 16-1/2x7 16-1/2x7 16-1/2x7
Chambers, i n. 2 30 30 30 30 30 24
Slacks, in. 6 6 6 5.5 5.5 6
Li ni ngs 551 C 551C 551 D 551C 551 C MM 8C5
Front Axle Limiting Valve Manual Auto None Manual Auto lIone
Tf re s-Fro nt 10-2OG-R 10-20G-R 11-22H-R 11-24.5F-R 11-24. SF-R I 0-2OF-R
Rear I O-ZOF -CL 10-20F-CL 11-22G-CL 11-24. 5F -CL II -24. SF -CL I 0-2OF -CL
TA8LE Z (Conti nued)
Test Vehicle Configurations for Stral ght Li ne Stoppl ng Distarce Tests
Post 121 Whlt-e--- Pre 121 IH Post 121 IH Post 121 western Star Post 121 Whlte
4x2 Tractor 6x4 Tractor 6x4 Tractor 6x4 Tractor 6x2 Tractor
Vehicle tlo. 13 Vehicle No. 14 Vehicle No. 15 Vehicle ~Io. 16 Vehicle No. 17
Model RX42T COF407OA COF40708 4964-2 Road Bo ss 2

Prod. Date 5/76 73 11/74 8/76 5/78
Wheel base,l n. 98 152 150 182 136
GVWR (GAWR'S) ,Klbs. 29.9 (10.9/19) 48.5 (10.5/3B) 48.5 (10.5/3B) 46 (12/34) 45 (11/34)
Loaded Te st Wei ght (F /R l,K 1 bs. 10.9/19 10.6/37.8 10.4/3B 11. 6/34 11/33.9
Empty Test Weight (F/R),Klbs. 9.4/3.B 9.1/B.2 9.6/9.1 B.l/7.7 8.9/8.1
CChelght/WB (Loaded/Empty) .34 .33 .33 .27 .37
Front Brakes Di sc (KH) Wedge Cam CaJ:l Wedge (Bx)
Si le, in. 15-1/4xl-1/2 15x3-1/2 15x4 16-1/2x5 15x5
Ch ambers, I n. 2 12 9 (single) 20 9 12 (single)
Slacks,i n. 2-1/4 5.5 5.0
Li nl ng s MNTX M172 MMB62 55lC RMC441GH BX BY GG
Rear Brakes S-Cam S-Car.J S-Car.J S-Car.J S-Cao
SI ze, I n. 16-1/2x7 16-1/2x7 16-1/2x7 16-112x7 16-112x7
Chambers, 1 n. 2 30 30 30 24 24
Slacks,i n. 5 6.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 (auto)
Li ni ngs C531X MM262E 551 C MI~8C5 5510
Front Axl e limit! ng Val ve ABS (F&R) Manual t!one Auto Auto
Ti re s-Fro nt 10-2Cf -R 1 0-2Cf-R 10-2Cf-R 11-22.5G-R 11-24.SF-R
Rear 1O-20F-CL 1 0-20F -CL 1 0-2Cf -CL 11-22. 5F -CL 11-24. SF -CL
• _ _ _h __ tlo"sTT2I Stuart Stl nger
Post 121 Stuart
r Conventional Auto Hauler Auto Hauler
", Vehicle No. 18 Vehicle tlo. 19
'" 'frac tor TraIler 'frac tor TraIler
Model GMC HI 9640A 2 G~'CHH 9670 fi9

(TTE MIla) Stuart M178 (HE M177) Stuart Ml77 liOnS:
Prod. Date 6/78 & l/78 7/78 2/76 & 5/76 5/76
Wheel ba se, i n. 110/158 444 197/2~7 375 (1) All Post 121 vehicles
GVWR (GAWR'S),Klbs. 31 112/13.9/19) 49.3 (13.9/13.9) 33. Z (l2/21. 2/21. 2) 40.7 (15.6/15.6) equipped wi th 1979-RO
Loaded Test Wei9ht (F/I/R),Klbs. 10.6/13.1(16.6 13.1/13.6 11.3/10/15 15.5/14.5 braki ng systCr:1S irrcgard-
[mpty Test Weight (F/I/R) ,Klbs. 10.3/0/12.7 5.4/5.5 8.3/13.6/1. 9 5.5/5.4 less of production nate
CGhei ghti,;B (Loaded/Empty) ,K 1 bs.
Front Brakes CaJ:l S-Cam Cam S-Car.J (7) Code for tire s:
Sf le, i n. 15x3-1/2 12-1/4x7-1/2 15x3-1/2 12-1/4x7-1/2 R " ri D tread
Char.IDers,! n. 2 16 24 16 30 CL " cross lug tread
Slacks,i n. 5.5 6 5.5 6 (both are bias ply)
Li ni ngs 551 D SFA 551 D SFA
Inten:ledi ate Brakes S-Cam S-CaJ:l
Si le, i n. 12-1/4x7-1/2 16-1/2x7
Char:1bers, f n. 2 30 30
Sl ack s, in. 6 6
U ni ngs SFA 551C
Rear Brakes S-Cam Same as Front S-CaJ:l S-Cam
SI ze, i n. 16-1/2x7 " 16-1/2x7 12-1/4x7-1/2
Char.lbers, f n. 2 30 30 24
Slacks,fn. 6 6 6
Lf ni ngs 551C SFA SFA
Front Axle Limiting Valve Auto N/A Auto N/A
Tires-Front 11-22. SG-R 9-15F -R 10-2CF-R 9-15F-R
Inter. 9-15F -R 10-2CF-R
Rear 11-22SG-R 9-15F -R 10-2CF-R 9-15F -R
Brake linings were replaced on all of the vehicles, with the exception of a few
of the vehicles that were received with new linings. In all cases, special care
was taken to insure that the brake lining formulations were those specified by
the vehicle manufacturers as original equipment. Detailed information on the
test vehicle braking system configurations is given in Table 2 and in Appendix A.
2.2.2 Test Vehicle Tires
To eliminate tires as a variable in testing, all vehicles were equipped with new
bias ply tires all of which were produced by the same manufacturer and all of
which used one of two specific tread patterns. A rib tread tire was used on aU
steering axles, all trailer axles and tag axles and some of the drive axles (buses
and auto haulers) and a cross lug tread tire was used on most of the drive axles.
These two specific tire lines were chosen because of their popUlarity.
Tire pressures used were those specified in the Tire and Rim Association
(T&RA) tables of static tire loading versus pressure. In a few isolated cases, it
was necessary to overload tires on the steering axle several hundred pounds
(approximately 5%) to reach desired axle test loads. This did not cause any
problems and, in fact, no tire failures were experienced during the entire
program. Tire sizes and load ratings are shown in Table 2 for front and rear
axles on the test vehicles.
2.2.3 Vehicle Loading
As per F MVSS 121, vehicles were tested both empty and loaded to G VW R.
Table 2 gives the axle by axle loadings (to the nearest hundred pounds) for each
vehicle in the empty and loaded conditions. Table 2 also lists the GVWR and
GA WR's of each vehicle as well as the empty and loaded center of gravity
height/wheelbase ratios. For tractors, the empty and loaded CG height/WB
ratio is identical since any loading that occurs is considered to be associated
with the trailer.
26
The empty condition for truck tractors is actually the "bobtail" mode
(uncoupled from a trailer) and, with the exception of the auto transporter rigs*,
no unloaded or empty trailer tests were run in this portion of the program. For
the truck tractors of the auto transporter .igs, the only unloaded tests were
those run with an empty trailer (no bobtail tests were run). As was mentioned
earlier, tractors (again the auto transporters are the exception) were loaded by
coupling them to loaded control trailers. For one of the tractors (vehicle 11),
which had a fixed fifth wheel, it was not possible to reach GVWR without
exceeding GA WR for the rear axle. It was tested at 3,000 pounds below G VW R
(i.e., 3000 pounds below the GA WR of the front axle). Vehicle 10, which was the
pre-121 IIsister" of vehicle 11 was loaded the same way as vehicle 11 for
comparative purposes even though it had a sliding fifth wheel and could have
been adjusted to transmit more load to the front axle.
Each straight truck was loaded by installing a load frame on the vehicle's
chassis and loading it with reinforced concrete blocks. Each load frame
weighed approximately 2800 pounds. The load frames were removed for the
empty tests and the trucks were tested with IIbare" frame rails in order to have
the configuration which would produce the longest stopping distance. Height of
the loads on the load frames were adjusted by placing spacers under the loads to
achieve the desired center of gravity height. The center of gravity height was
the maximum certified by the vehicle manufacturer.
The three buses with bodies were loaded with sand bags. Three 100 pound bags
were seat belted to each seat and the remainder of the required ballast was
placed on the floor in the center aisle area. The short wheelbase school bus
(vehicle 3) was equipped with a load frame which was loaded with steel blocks
to keep the center of gravity height low enough to match that of a typical
loaded school bus body. This frame was unleaded and left on the vehicle during
the empty testing to represent an unloaded body.
*Auto transporter rigs are considered as one vehicle in FMVSS 121 since tractor and
trailer are not subject to interchange and are certified by the same final stage
manufacturer.
27
The auto transporter rigs were loaded with actual cars that were available at
VR TC. In addition, each car was ba1!asted with approximately 1000 pounds of
sand bags. The average car weight (including ballast) on the 7 car conventional
rig was 4800 pounds and on the 8 car stinger rig was 4900 pounds. Even though
these would be considered "heavy" cars, this was not sufficient weight to load
all of the vehicles' axles to GA WR; to do so wouid have required an additional
5,000 pounds on the seven car rig and 11,300 pounds on the eight car rig. There
was no realistic GVW R to restrict loading. The final stage manufacturer of the
auto hauler rigs (same company for both vehicles) added the "dead" or undriven
axles to the tractors to increase the load capacity but did not change the G VW R
for the tractors to reflect the capacity of the added axle. The original GVWR
would not permit the rigs to carry a fuB load of even relatively light weight
cars.
The "dead ll axles on both of the auto hauler tractors were equipped with air bag
suspensions and in-cab controls to vary the bag pressure. On the seven car rig,
the dead axle was located forward of the driven axle and was provided with
retracting springs which could raise the axle off the ground when the air bag
pressure was exhausted. Increasing the air pressure on the bags would shift load
from the drive axle to the dead axle; it would also shift a small amount of load
from the front axle to the dead axle. Figure 7 shows the effect of air bag
pressure on the loading of the tractor axles for the seven car rig when fully
loaded. The vehicle was tested with 70 psi in the air bags in the loaded mode;
this pressure produced the 2000 to 4000 Ib bias in loading on the drive axle
which the autohauler manufacturer said was common. This 70 psi would not
stay constant during the tests and varied up or down approximately 5 psi.
Figure 7 indicates that this variation in pressure can cause large changes in axle
loadings. When testing the unloaded rig, the dead axle was raised by exhausting
the air pressure. The seven car rig trailer used air bag suspensions for both
axles, but the pressure in these bags was fixed at equal levels fiOnt and rear so
that axle loads on the trailer remained equal, The pressure in these air bags did
not fluctuate.
28
Note: Fu\I 7 Car Load
25,000
U; 20,000
.J:l
"C
C
o Pressure During Loaded Tests I
-' (Zero for Empty Tests ) ~
Q) 15,000
)(
« I
10,000
5,0000
20 40 60 80 100
Lift Axle Air Bag Pressure (PSI)
FIGURE 7
Tractor Axle Loads for Seven-Car Auto Hauler (Vehicle 18)
Versus Lift Axle Air Bag Pressure
29
The eight car stinger rig tractor utilized a trailing dead axle with adjustable air
bags. This axle did not have retracting springs and remained on the ground
when the bags were at zero pressure. (This is how the vehicle was tested
empty.) Figure 8 shows axle loading for the eight car rig tractor as a function
of tag axle air bag pressure. For this vehicle, the load increases on the front
axle as bag pressure is increased. Bag pressure for this vehicle, during the
testing at fuJI load, was adjusted to 60 psi. This provided a load bias toward the
drive axle.
The eight car rig trailer also had air bag suspensions on both of its axles with
the rear axle being adjustable. The forward axle was fixed at 60 psi. Figure 9
shows loading for aJI of the axles on the rig as a function of bag pressure on the
rear trailer axle. The rear axle is made adjustable so that loading can be
transferred off of the trailer onto the tractor by increasing the bag pressure.
Figure 9, however, indicates that only 300 to 400 pounds is transferred to the
tractor for a change in bag pressure from 40 psi to 60 psi. This pressure
change, however, transfers about 5000 lb from the rear trailer axle to the
forward trailer axle. For test purposes, the bag pressure was set at 60 psi so
that trailer axles would essentially be loaded equaUy.
FMVSS 121 refers to liftable axles stating that they should be down with the
vehicle at loaded weight and up with the vehicle at empty weight; it does not
specify a method of setting adjustable axles such as those described above.
Such a method needs to be established since it is quite clear from Figures 7, 8
and 9 that the weight on the various axles of a vehicle with an adjustable axle,
can vary significantly depending upon the adjustment setting.
2.2.4 Center of Gravity Height
The center of gravity (CG) height to wheelbase ratios in Table 2 are based on
estimates of C.G. height and not on actual measurements. These estimates
were made using information provided by the vehicle manufacturers for empty
vehicle center of gravity heights and calculations of center of gravity locations
30
Note: FullS Car Load
I
25,000 I
I·
I
I
-..c
(/) 20,000
I
-
"0
0
0
I
---'
Q) 15,000
)(
<{
10,000
Pressure During Loaded Tests I

(Zero for Empty Tests) ~
5,000 0~--~2'-=-0--~40L-----160-'-----Je-o----'Ioo
Tag Ax Ie Ai r Bag Pressure (PS I)
FIGURE 8
Tractor Axle Loads for Eight-Car "Stinger" Auto Hauler
(Vehicle 19) Versus Tag Axle Air Bag Pressure
31
Note: ( I ) Tractor Tag Axle Bag
Pressure at 60PSI
25,000 (2) Ful! 8 Car Load
_ 20,000
(/)
-
.J:)
"0
o
o
-'
Q) 15,000 Tractor Tag
)(
<:(
~
10,000
Pressure During
I All Tests
I
5,OOOO'='"'--~-:-2~O~~~4~O~~~60~--~8-:-0-----IIOO
Rear Axle Air Bag Pressure (PSI)

FIGURE 9
Axle Loads for Eight-Car "Stinger" Auto Hauler (Vehicle 19)
Versus Trailer Rear Axle Air ?ag P:-essure
32
for the test loads. In most cases, vehicle manufacturers stated that using the
height to the top of the frame rails was a reasonable estimate for empty
vehicle center of gravity height. In a few cases, manufacturers had made
actual measurements and supplied this data. Usually actual center of gravity
height is sJightly below the top of the frame rails. Calculation of the load
center of gravity height was relatively straight forward since the concrete
baJlast used for loading consists of uniform blocks. The center of gravity
heights of the 2800 pound load frames, used to carry the blocks, were
determined by experiment, however, since they were relatively complex
structures from a calculation standpoint. The center of gravity height data
shown in Table 2 should be accurate to within several inches considering the
magnitude of tolerances in the estimating procedure.
2.3 Instrumentation
Test vehicles were equipped with instrumentation to measure the following

variables:
a) vehicle speed
b) stopping distance
c) deceleration
d) control line pressure
e) brake lining temperature
f) wheel lockup
Speed and stopping distance were measured using a commerciaJly available fifth
wheel system. The fifth wheel drives a magnetic pick-up and pulses from this
pick-up are fed into two digital meters. Electronics in the meters sum the
pulses from the wheel to indicate distance traveled and differentiate this
distance traveled continuously with respect to time to indicate speed. The
system has a 12 volt trigger circuit to initiate distance measuring and
"memorize" speed at the instant of trigger. The trigger circuit is connected to
a 12 volt source through a micro switch on the brake pedal which is adjusted so
that a slight movement 0/8 inch or less) of the pedal provides the trigger
signal. During stopping distance tests, the driver simply brings the vehicle up
to the desired test speed by watching the speed meter and then appJies the
-33-
brake. When the vehicle completes the stop, the distance meter indicates the
stopping distance (to the nearest 0.1 ft.) and the speed meter indicates the
speed (to the nearest 0.1 mph) at which the brakes were initially applied. The
system does not measure suspension rock-back at the end of a stop (it stops
counting the first time the wheel reaches zero speed) and it does not stop
counting distance if the brake pedal is fully released by the driver during
modulation of pedal force while the vehicle is moving.
Calibration of the stopping distance system was accomplished by running the

vehicle over a 1000 foot measured course. Fifth wheel tire pressure was
adjusted so that distance indicated agreed with the measured course.
Calibration of speed was performed on a motor driven calibration stand.
Overall accuracy of the system was determined to be better than .:to.2 percent
of indicated reading for distance and .=0.2 mph for speed.
The burnish procedure in FMVSS No. 121 specifies that snubs be made from
various initial speeds to a final speed of 20 mph at a deceleration of 10 ft/sec.
Since it is difficult for the driver to watch the deceleration meter and the
speed meter at the same time, an audible alarm system was used to indicate the
20 mph final snub speed. With this system, the driver only need watch the
speed meter until the correct initial snub speed is obtained and then transfers
his attention to the deceleration meter until he hears the alarm. The alarm
indicates that brake release is necessary. The system consists of an adjustable
digital comparator (usualJy set to 1 or 2 mph above the desired final snub speed
to allow for driver reaction time) which is connected to the speed meter digital
signal output jack and a buzzer. When the comparator receives a signal
corresponding to a value at or below its set point, it closes a relay which
provides power to the buzzer.
In addition to the triggered or "memorizing" speed meter, a second untriggered

meter (in parallel with the triggered meter) was used with it's output driving a
digital to analog converter to provide a continuous speed signal suitable for
strip chart recording and to provide a reference signal for the lockup detector
system.
-34-
Vehicle deceleration measurements were only made during the brake system
burnish. A IIU-tube ll decelerometer was used by the driver to control the
vehicle's deceleration rate to the constant 10 ft/sec 2 required. This device
has no provision for signal output and thus, no recordings were made of
deceler a tion.
Brake system control1ine pressure was measured by piping a 1/4 inch 0.0. nylon
tube from a tee instal1ed in the control line to the dash area in the cab. A
pressure gauge (visable to the driver) and a strain gauge pressure transducer
were then plumbed into the end of this line. The pressure transducer was
excited by a 12 volt d.c. modular power supply and provided a signal suitable for
recording. Overall accuracy of the system (calibrated with a dead weight
tested was ;!;.2 psi.
Thermocouples, fabricated from 20 gauge iron-constantan wire, were utilized to

measure brake lining temperatures. IIQuick tip" crimp-on connectors were used
to form the thermocouple junction. These thermocouple tips, which, when
crimped, form a hexagon shape, were installed by drilling an undersized hole in
the lining and then dri ving the tip to a depth of 0.40 inches. This configuration
is essentially equivalent to the "typical" thermocouple installations shown in
Figure 2 of FMVSS No. 121.
Each test vehicle was equipped with a single channel high impendance digital
thermocouple readout and a multi-position thermocouple selector switch to
which all of the thermocouples were connected (including those of the control
trailer if the test vehicle was a tractorJ. By rotating the switch, the driver
could observe the lining temperature of each brake. During the testing, the
driver recorded all brake temperatures just before accelerating the vehicle to
test speeds for the stop and just after the stop. The temperature readout was
calibrated with a precision millivolt potentiometer and thermocouples were
checked for conformance to established thermocouple sensitivity curves with
constant temperature baths. Overall system accuracy was determined to be
better than ;!;.5 degrees Fahrenheit.
-35-
The system used for determining wheel lockup consisted of d.c. tachometer
generators installed at each wheel (as shown in Figure 10) and a "lockup box"4
with electronic circuitry to which the signal from the wheel tachometers were
connected. Also connected to the circuit was an analog signal from a digital to
analog converter "reading" the vehicle speed meter. An analog comparator
circuit in the box compares "wheel speed", which is equal to the wheel's
rotation rate multiplied by the rolling radius of the wheel, to the vehicle's speed
as measured by the fifth wheel. Whenever the "wheel speed" falls below five
percent of the vehicle speed (i.e., whenever the wheel slip exceeds 95 percent),
the wheel is considered to have locked up and the comparator triggers
additional circuits. The system is designed to disregard lockup at vehicle
speeds below 10 mph.
Although the exact definition of wheel lockup requires that the wheel be at 100
percent slip, the lockup detectors use the 95 percent slip criteria because it
greatly simplifies the electronics by eliminating the need to know when wheel
velocity is at exact zero. The error introduced by using this criteria is very
small because any wheel that reached 95 percent slip will continue to 100
percent slip almost instantaneously since it is operating in an unstable region of
the tire-road coefficient of friction curve.
Each lockup box has six latching front panel lamps (it can be used for up to six
wheels) which are used to indicate whether or not the corresponding wheel
locked at any time during the test run. To determine when during a run each
wheel locked, two analog outputs are provided. The "left" analog output
indicates the status of wheels connected to channels 1, 3 and 5 of the lockup
detector while the "right" analog output indicates the status of wheels
connected to channels 2, 4 and 6. This is accomplished by outputting a
specified step voltage, depending on which wheels are locked. Table 3 shows
• the output voltage for each of the possible wheel lockup combinations.
4This lockup system was designed originally by Automotive Research Associates (ARA)
in San Antonio, Texas under contract to N HTSA. The hardware used in this program
was built by the en division of Smithers Scientific in Ravenna, Ohio to ARA drawings
and later extensively modified by VRTC to make it easier to use and calibrate. Such a
system is not known to be commercially available.
-36-
'-"
7)
. ~
"
.·~i,
FIGURE 10
Typical Insta1!ation of D.C. Tachometer Used to
?rcYAde Whee! Speed Signal for Lockup Detector System
-37-
TABLE 3
Analog Output Code for Lockup Detector Box
Analog Output at Wheel Positions That Locked

"Right" or "Left"
Channel Left Right
o Volts None None

I Volt I 2
2 Volts 3 4
3 Volts 1&3 2&4
4 Volts 5 6
5 Volts 1&5 2&6
6 Volts 3&5 4&6
7 Volts 1,3& 5 2,4-& 6
NOTE: Wheel positions are numbered from the front of the vehicle to the rear with odd
numbers on the left side and even numbers on the right. Dual wheels are
considered one wheel position.
With this system, it is possible to monitor the activity of up to six wheels with
only two recorder channels. With the exception of the auto haulers, one box
was used in each test vehicle. It was not felt to be necessary to monitor
control trailer wheels since they were controUed by antilock systems. In the
case of the auto haulers, which had five axles without antilock control, two
lockup boxes were necessary to handle the ten wheel positions.
A four or six channel strip chart recorder was used in each test vehicle to
record speed, control line pressure and wheel lockup signals. Electrical power
(115 vac) for the recorders was provided by a dc to ac static inverter powered by
the vehicJe's electrical system. Figure I I shows a typical instrumentation rack
that was used in the test vehicles to hold the recorder and most of the other
instrumentation. This rack was usually installed to the right of the driver and
bol ted to the floor pan or engine "dog house". The control line pressure gauge
and the untriggered velocity meter were not installed on the rack but were
placed in the driver's forward field of vision.
-38-
Triggered Speed &. Stopping
Distance Readouts Lockup Detector Box
1
...--
.
!
I
2 \\'2.y Radio
D/A
Converter • i;:;;o!!lt-==--- Temperature
Readout
4 Channel
/ Recorder
FIGURE 11
Typical Instrumentation Rack Utilized in Test Vehicles
-39-
2.4 Test Site Utilized
AU tests were conducted by the N HTSA Vehicle Research and Test Center
(VRTC) which is located at the Trar:sporta'::ion Research Center (IRC) in East
Uberty, Ohio. Figure 12 shows an aerial view of the TRC track facilities.
Brake burnishing was conducted on the 7.5 mi.Ae high speed track and all straight
line stopping distance tests were run on the skid pad facility. The skid pad
which runs approximately north to south has a total length of 9000 feet,
includes a test area 6 lanes wide by 2500 feet iong at its mid-section and has
309 foot radius super elevated turn around Aoops at each end. The six lane test
area has a maximum grade of 0.5 perce~t (down to the south) and two distinctly
different surface finishes. The bulk of the test area is br;Jshed concrete which
has a nominal dry ASTM skid number of 80 at 40 mph when measured with an
ASTM E501 15 inch tire. A small portion of the test area (approximately 15 X
600 feet) has been polished with a grinding machine and a rubber drag
lubricated with water to produce a smooth finish that has a nominal wet ASTM
skid number of 30 at 40 mph.
For purposes of this test program, a 12 foot wide test lane was established on
each of the two different surfaces and these same lanes were used for straight
line stops throughout the entire program. The test lane on the high coefficient
surface was approximately 600 feet long and was located at the south end of
the skid pad where the grade was 0.5 percent. Since the grade was downhill for
most of the approach to the test area, test vehicles had the benefit of the grade
when accelerating for high speed (60 mph) stops which were only made
southbound. For low speed (20 mph) stops on the high coefficient surface, runs
were made in both directions. The low coefficient wet polished concrete test
lane was approximately 400 feet long and was located near the north end of the
skid pad where the grade is essentially zero. This lane was used in both
directions at both the 20 mph and 40 mph test speeds.
The ASTM skid number of both test areas was monitored by iRC with an ASTM
skid trailer approximately twice a mcr.th during the straight line stopping
distance test portion of the program, Table 4 shows the results of this
-40-
9000 ft 50 Acre 7.5 Mile
Skid Pad Vehicle Dynamics Area High Speed Test Track
, ., ... " " • • ~_ I
'.:,<.'.~:.,;.:;:~:' ....;~:;.;.~.:'. -
... .......
n".!.:",~ ~·,·:--.··~···?('~~j:~~~·,"~,
. -.....
FIGURE 12
Aerial View of Transportation Research
Center of Ohio Track Facilities
-41-
monitoring. Until the end of 1979, skid number averaged approximately 33 on
the low coefficient pad and 79 on the high coefficient pad. In early 1980 when
the last two vehicles (the auto haulers - Vehicles 18, 19) were tested, skid
number on the low coefficient surface rose to the 38-40 range. Normally this
area is not used in the winter and typically the skid number rises during the
period of non-use. It was only due to the fact that unusually good weather
occurred in mid-winter that these vehicles were tested. This allowed the
vehicles to be returned to the owners at an earlier date. Some caution should
be used when considering the low coefficient stopping distance data (presented
later in this report) on all of the vehicles, and especially the auto haulers, since
the surface was always at or above the 30 S N target value. Performance of the
vehicles as actually measured may have been better than that which could have
been achieved on a surface with exactly a 30 SN. However, an increase in skid
number is not proportionally related to a decrease in stopping distance. The
percentage change in stopping distance is usually considerably less and depends
upon a number of factors including brake application rate and degree of
modulation. It is estimated that the 20 mph low coefficient stopping distance is
within 2 feet of what it would have been if the SN was exactly 30. Maximum
possible "error" in the 40 mph data due to the higher skid number is estimated
to be in the order of 15 feet. Since the high coefficient surface was always 82
or less, the measured performance on this surface was always essentially equal
to or less than that which would have been obtained if all the tests were run on
a surface with exactly an 81 SN (i.e. stopping distances on an 81 SN surface
could be shorter than those obtained in some of the test cases).
Since all of the dry stops were in the same lane during the program, a
considerable amount of tire rubber build-up accumulated during the tests due to
wheel lockups that occurred on some of the stops. The effect of this rubber
build-up was checked by comparing results shown in Table 4 with similar
measurements made in another lane in the same general area that did not have
the tire marks. The difference due to the rubber was found to be an increase in
the order of 2 5 N or less. This may account for at least part of the general
increase that occurred during the first few months of the program. The last
-42-
TABLE 4
ASTM Skid Number for TRC Skid Pad Areas

Used During Straight Line Stops
SN40 SN40
Low Coefficient (1o-co) High Coefficient (hi-co)
Date Surface (Wet) Surface (Dry)
5-23-79 33
5-30-79 76
6-1-79 33 75
6-18-79 34 79
7-13-79 30 82
7-17-79 34 79
8-22-79 35
8-29-79 81
9-13-79 80
9-25-79 33 80
10-5-79 35 78
11-20-79 31 79
11-28-79 34
1-17-80 38
2-14-80 40 76
Notes: 1. Each value represents the average of 10 skids run at 40 mph with ASTM
E501 15 inch tire.
2. The la-co surface was measured with onboard water delivered to surface;
hi-co surface was measured dry.
-43-
measurement shown in Table 4, made on February 14, 1980, was back down to
the level existing at the beginning of the program. This was probably due to the
fact that the surface was not used very much between the November 20, 1979
measurement and the February 14, 1980 measurement and much of the rubber
was removed by the natural weathering process.
2.5 Test Results
Appendix B contains detail data sheets for the straight line stopping distance
tests conducted on each of the nineteen test vehicles used in this part of the
program. The detaiJ data sheets contain the foHowing information about each
stop made during this portion of the program.
-actual speed and stopping distance
-corrected stopping distance
-average sustained control line pressure
-wheel lockup above 10 mph
-deviation from 12 foot wide lane
Actual speed and stopping distance is that measured by the fifth wheel and
displayed to the driver at the end of the stop. Actual speeds usuaUy varied
slightly from the required test speeds (20, 40 or 60 mph) due to the difficulty in
controlling vehicle speed at an exact level at the instant of brake application.
In order to compare results on a uniform basis, stopping distances were
corrected to exact test speeds using the equation:
2
V
spec
SD
corr
= SDact 2
where: SD = corrected stopping distance, ft.

corr
SD = actual stopping distance, ft.
act
V = specified test speed, mph
spec
V = actual test speed, mph
act
This formula appears in SAE Recommended Practice J-299 "Stopping Distance

Test Procedure" and its use is recommended in those cases where the actual
-44-
test speed is within .:.2 mph of the specified tes-;: speed, If we assume that
deceleration is cons tan: during a stop, -::hen simple kinematics indicate that the
correction formula would hold no matter what the deviation from the test
speed. In practice, however, deceleration is not purely constant. A finite apply
ramp exists and the substained level varies somewhat. In addition, other
factors vary with speed such as lining coefficient of friction and tire/road
coefficient of friction. Thus the .:.2 mph limitation is placed on the use of the
formula. For a few of the vehicles tested in this program, engine power and
avaiJable acceleration distance limited the top speed in the loaded
configuration to Jess than 58 mph. (The auto haulers could only reach 50 mph;
other vehicles could reach at least 55 mph.) The correction equation was stiU
appJied in these cases to correct the data to 60 mph. Section 2.6.8 discusses
why the equation is still reasonably accurate even in these cases.
Average sustained control line pressure shown on the data sheets in Appendix B
is determined by graphicaJJy averaging the control line pressure trace from the
recorder starting at the point in the stop where the apply ramp is essentially
complete (when the slope of the curve decreases rapidly) through to the end of
the stop. This technique is shown in Figure 13. Average sustained control line
pressure is not a precise parameter but is simply a gross measure of how "hard"
the brakes were applied during the stop. Caution should be exercised when
comparing two stops with the same average sustained control line pressure. If
in one of the stops the sustained level was increasing with ti.me and in the other
the sustained level was decreasing with time, the later case would be expected
to produce a shorter stop due to the application of more braking torque while
the vehicle velocity is still high.
Wheel lockup information in Appendix B indicates which wheels locked up above

10 mph. The numerical code used to identify wheels labels wheels on the left
side of the vehicle as odd and aJJ those on the right side as even. Counting
starts at the front of the yehicle and proceeds to the rear in a
-45-
Average Sustained Level
Selected such that Area A =Area B
Q)
~
~
Q)
~
0-
Q)
c:
~
\End of Apply Ramp
o
~
C
o
u
Time
FIGURE 13
Graphical Averaging Technique Used to
Determine Sustained Control Line Pressure
-46-
left/right, left/right, ••• ,left/right fashion. The wheel lockup data specifies
which wheels locked at speeds above and below 20 mph. When there is no
indication of speed in the IIlockup (I 0 mph" column, wheel lock started above 20
mph (except for the 20 mph stops). When lockup occurred only below 20 mph,
the data sheets indicate this fact. In some cases, some of the wheels lock
above 20 mph and others lock below 20 mph in the same stop; the data sheets
also indicate these cases.
Deviation from a 12 foot wide lane during the stops only occurred in a few
isolated cases. The data sheets indicate in these cases how far the vehicle left
the lane in feet (distance from an extreme point on the vehicle to the edge of
the lane). An "X" in the lane column indicates the vehicle stayed completely
within the 12 foot wide test lane.
In order to compare the stopping performance of each of the test vehicles, the
"best" stop was selected for each set of test data. The "best" stop is defined as
the shortest in-lane stop in a 6 stop series (3 stops in some of the emergency
brake tests) meeting the "limi ted lockup" criteria. Table 5 and Table 6 present
the corrected stopping distances recorded for "best" stops for loaded and empty
vehicle configurations respectively for both service and emergency brake tests.
Figures 14-A through 14-T are bar graphs presenting the data shown in Tables 5
and 6. These bar graphs show comparative results for the 19 test vehicles for
each of the 10 loaded and 10 empty test conditions. The stopping distances
specified in FM VSS 121 shown on the bar graphs for reference. Bars
representing pre-I21 vehicles are marked with an asterisk (4) so that they can
be easi.1y identified.
2.6 Discussion of Results
2.6.1 Service Brake Performance @ 20 mph on 81 SN Surface
With loaded vehicles (Table 5 and Figure 14-A> stopping distance varied from 25
to 36 feet for the five pre-121 vehicles and from 23 to 31 feet for the 14
post-l 21 vehicles. AU vehicles with the except ion of the pre-I21 6x4 truck
(Vehicle 7), stopped in less than the 35 foot FMVSS 121 requirement. However,
-47-
TABLE 5 - Stopping Distance (ft) For Best Stop - Loaded Test Vehfcles'
Service Brakes Emergency Brakes (81SN)

Failed Failed Failed Trl.
Vehicle 81 SN Surface 30 SN Surface Prfma~t Secondarx Control Line
Number Vehicle 60 mph 20 mph 40 mph 20 mph 60 mph 2 mph 60 mph 20 mph 60 mph 20 mph
Pre 121 IH School Bus 318 25 179 29

2 Post 121 IH School Bus 209 23 158 29 310 28 396 33
3 Post 121 Ford/IH Short School Bus 250 27 212 34 375 36 433 40
4 Post 121 Thomas'transit Bus 217 " 27 167 33 292 36 363 39
5 Pre 121 IH 4x2 Truck 305 31 218 42
6 Post 121 Ford 4x2 Truck 313 31 224 38 331 36 410 43
7 Pre 121 GMC 6x4 Truck 314 36 198 42
8 Post 121,GMC 6x4 Truck 315 29 231 39 528 54 396 40
9 Post 121 Mack 6x4 Truck 295 30 195 37 363 44 386 39
10 Pre 121 Peterbilt 4x2 Tractor 259 30 187 42 464 46
11 Post 121 Peterb1lt 4x2 Tractor 254 27 186 33 407 39 315 36 425 44
12 Post 121 Ford 4x2 Tractor 278 29 236 38 289 30 319 33 461 45
13 Post 121 White 4x2 Tractor 303 29 289 38 366 42 388 38 429 44
I
~ 14 Pre 121 IH 6x4 Tractor 321 33 279 42 521 46
, 0<0
I 475
15 Post 121 IH 6x4 Tractor 226 29 187 35 51 316 39 564 45
16 Post 121 Western Star 6x4 Tractor 251 28 214 35 431 46 298 31 423 44
17 Post 121 White 6x2 Tractor 230 28 179 37 531 44 481 43
18 Post 121 Stuart Conventional' Auto Hauler 267 28 151 31 434 43 335 34 477 38
19 Post 121 Stuart Stinger Auto Hauler 249 28 200 33 354 39 319 34 399 37
Notes: 1) Best stop is shortest in-lane stop wfthout locking more than one wheel per axle or two wheels per tandem at speeds greater than 20
mph (unlimited lock-up permitted below 20 mph)
2) Vehicles loaded to GVWR (exceptfon: several tractors with fixed fifth wheels for which this would cause rear GAWR to be exceeded -
see vehfcle informatfon sheets for exact loadfng)
3) Tractors tested with FMVSS 121 control traflers (exception: auto 'hauler tractors tested with auto hauler trailers)
TABLE 6 - Stopping Distance (ft) For Best Stop - Unloaded Test Vehicles
Service Brakes Eme~ency Brakes (81SN)

Failed Failed Faned Tr1.
Vehicle 81 SN Surface 30 SN Surface Prima~ Secondaijl Contro1 If ne
.Nuniler Vehicle 60 mph 20 mph 40 mph 20 mph fiO mph mph fiO mph 2 mph 60 mph 20 mph
1 Pre 121 IH School Bus 256 22 191 29
2 Post 121 IH School Bus 19B 20 140 27 184 23 293 37
3 Post 121 Ford/IH Short School Bus 241 20 220 29 277 ·22 298 36
4· Post 121 Thomas Transit Bus 215 23 166 34 213 27 305 34
5 Pre 121 IH 4x2 Truck 286 23 277 29
6 Post 121 Ford 4x2 Truck 309 24 314 26 461 25 404 54
7 Pre 121 GMC 6x4 Truck 325 26 282 34
B Post 121 GMC 6x4 Truck 422 24 289 30 269 32 457 46
9 Post 121 Mack 6x4 Truck 280 23 322 33 358 29 350 40
10 Pre 121 Peterbilt 4x2 Tractor 334 28 323 38
11 Post 121 Peterbflt 4x2 Tractor 380 26 325 30 299 34 512 65
I
~
12 Post 121 Ford 4x2 Tractor 347 25 271 28 378 27 442 56
..0
I 13 Post 121 White 4x2 Tractor 290 27 216 31 239 34 713 74
14 Pre 121 IH 6x4 Tractor 362 25 341 39
15 Post 121 IH 6x4 Tractor 308 26 237 32 521 36 427 42
16 Post 121 Western Star 6x4 Tractor 375 25 379 28 327 42 462 45
17 Post 121 Vhf te 6xl Tractor 396 24 293 32 362 35 421 46
18 Post 121 Stuart COnventtonal Auto Hauler 225 25 237 32 359 36 297 33 306 33
19 . Post 121 Stuart SUnger Auto Hauler 314 24 268 29 392 31 388 31 265 32
Notes: 1) Best stop is shortest in-lane stop ~thout 10ckfng more than one wheel per axle or two wheels per tande. at speeds greater than 20
IIIPh (unl1a1ted lock..;up pennitted below 20 aph)
2) Buses tested .rtth unloaded bodfes
3) Trucks tested wfth load frames removed (cab a chassis only)
4) Tractors tested Bobtafl (exception: auto hauler tractors tested wfth empty auto hauler trailers)
80
60 *Pre FMVSS 121 Vehicle

..:
GI
--
u
c
D 40
OIl
- FMVSS 121 Requirement (35')
a f--
,---,
Dl
c --ft~- r- f--
Q.
Q. ~
£
VI '" 20
o
* * * * *
2 3 4 ,5 6,,7 8 9 ,10 11 12 13, ,14 15 16,J.L ...!8~
4x2 bx4 4x2 6x4 bx2, AUTO
BUSES HAULERS
TRUCKS TRACTORS
TEST VEHICLE NUMBER
Figure 14-A Stopping Distance For Best of Six Stops (Limited Lock-up Criteria)
Loading: _,;;;G..:..VWR=~_ __ Speed:~mph Surface:~SN System: Full Service

400
* Pre FMVSS 121 Vehicle
- -
300 r-- FMVSS 121 Requir ement (293 1 )
~ - r- -- -
I-- - -- - -- -- -- - -- --
~
--- -
- r-- f---
e- -
-
III
u
c: - -
-----
E 200
,~
0
Dl
c:
D.
D.
~
VI '" 100
-
* * * * *
2 3 4 ,56,,789, .10 11 12 13,,14 15 16,JZ..... ,18 19,
4x2 6x4 4x2 6x4 6x2 I AUTO
BUSES HAULERS
TRUCKS TRACTORS
TEST VEHICLE NUMBER
Figure 14-B Stopping Distance For Best of Six Stops (Limited Lock-up Criteria)
Loading: __
G_VW=_ __ Speed:~mph Surfa(e:~SN System: Full Service
FMVSS 121 Requirement (60')

60 - -- - - - - - - - - -- -- -- -- - - -
~
--III
v
I: r-- - - r---
2 40 ~
oil - f--- r----
C r--_
- r--
Cl
r::: -
Q.
a.
0
\I)
20
VI
tv
* * *
* *
2 3 4 ,5 6,,7 8 9 ,10 11 12 13,,14 15 16 I~ ..l8~
4x2 6x4 4x2 ox4 6x2 AUTO
BUSES J
HAULERS
TRUCKS TRACTORS
TEST VEHICLE NUMBER
Figure 14-C Stopping Distance For Best of Six Stops (Limited Lock-up Criteria)
Load ing : ----'G""'VIffi"""""'--_ __ Speed:~mph Surface:22..SN System: Full Service

(NOTE: FMVSS 121 did not have requirements for 40 mph/30 SN stops)
300
--
~
II
u
c:
0 200 r---
-VI
i5
m
c:
,J HL
~
Q.
Q.
0
\.II VI
-
\.N 100
I I
1 1 1 1 * 1 1* 1 1 *1
*1 1*
,10 11 1213,,14 15 16,~ L 18 19 ,

2 3 4 ,5 6, J 8 9
4)(2 bx4 bx2 AUtO
BUSES 4x2 bx4 HAULERS
TRUCKS TRACTORS
TEST VEHICLE NUMBER
Figure 14-D Stopping Distance For Best of Six Stops (Limited lock-up Criteria)
Load ing: _G_VWR---,,~_ __ Speed:~mph Surface:12-SN System: Full Service

'--- -- ,, --
80
60
r--
r--
Q,I
I-- ~
~ ~
--..,
I: r--
tJ 40 1---'
VI
C r-- n
en
c: -
n. ,...---
n.
0
\ I)
- 20
'-"
.j::'
2 3 4 ,5 6, ,7 8 9 ,10 11 12 13, ,14 15 16 ,~ .lB_J-'l...

4x2 6)(4 4x2 6x4 bx2 I AUTO
BUSES HAULERS
TRUCKS TRACTORS
TEST VEHICLE NUMBER
Figure 14-E Stopping Distance For Best of Six Stops (Limited Lock-up Criteria)
loading: --'G:....:VWR~::....-_ __ Speed:22- mph Surface:~SN System: Failed Primary

800
FMVSS 121 Requirement ( 613')

600 - -- -- --- ---
.--- .
.:=
-
III
u
c
E 400 -.
III
~.
i5 1---.
m r---
c r---
Q. r- 1---.
c. 1--.
0
VI
VI 200
VI
2 3 4 ,5 6,.7 8 9 ,10 11 12 13.,14 15 16.~ ~B_._Y~-J

BUSES 4x2 6x4 4x2 bx4 6x2 Auro
HAULERS
TRUCKS TRACTORS
TEST VEHICLE NUMBER
Figure 14-F Stopping Distance For Best of Six Stops (Limited lockup Criteria)
Loading: _G_VWR~_ _ __ Speed:~mph Surface:~SN Syslem: Failed Primary

,
r-- --- --- -
80
60
..:
IIJ
---
v
r::
r--
2 40 -- -- r--
r-
c'" -
m - r- I
r::
Q.
Q.
£
VI I
20 I
VI
(1\
2 3 4 ,5 6,,7 8 9 ,10 11 12 13" 14 15 16 ,~ c.l8_~

4x2 6>;4 6x2. AUTO
BUSES 4x2 6x4 HAULERS
TRUCKS TRACTORS
TEST VEHICLE NUMBER
Figure 14-G Stopping Distance For Best of Six Stops (Limited Lock- up Criteria)
Loading: _G:;;..VWR~,"--_ __ Speed:~mph Surface:~ SN System: Failed Secondary

800
FMVSS 121 Requirement (613' )

600 r-- -- -- --- -- --- --- --
III
---
u
I:
~
,--
D 400 ~
,----~" ,..--"
.~
~
C
- ~
Dl ,..-- -
I:
Q.
-
Q.
0
VI
-
I..n
200
i
"
, 1 2 3 4 , 5 6, ,7 8 9 ,10 11 12 13,,14 15 16 , ~ ...!~" _J'?..J

4x2 6x4 4x2 6x4 6.2, AUTO
BUSES HAULERS
TRUCKS TRACTORS
TEST VEHICLE NUMBER
Figure 14-H Stopping Distance For Best of Six Stops (Limited Lock- up Criteria)
Load ing: GVWR Speed:~mph Surface:~SN System: Failed Secondary

~ -- -- -- -- -- .-- -- -- -- -
80 Pre FMVSS 121 Vehicle
*
60
e
III
u
- r--~ ~ - I--- r - - -
c: I---
E 40
-t--
0'"
DI
c:
Q.
Q.
0
Vi
20
VI
00
* *
2 3 4 ,5 6,,7 8 9 ,1011 1213 .. 14 15 16,~ ~8_. __
.rL
4x2 6x4 4x2 61(4 6x2 AUTO
BUSES HAULERS
TRUCKS TRACTORS
TEST VEHICLE NUMBER
Figure 14-1 Stopping Distance For Best of Six Stops (Limited Lock-up Criteria)
loading: _G_VWR.;;.:;:._ _ __ Speed:-.3.Q.mph Surface:~SN SY$tem: Failed Trailer Control Line

800 * Pre FMVSS 121 Vehicle

600 -- -
--
-GI
v
I:
0 400
-
&5'"
CI
I:
0..
Q.
0
en
200
VI
\,()
* *
~------'---
2 3 4 ,5 6, ,7 8 9 ,10 11 12 13, ,14 15 16,~ .J..8_ t~

BUSES 4x2 6x4 4x2 bll4 bx2 , AUTO
HAULERS
TRUCKS TRACTORS
TEST VEHICLE NUMBER
Figure 14-J Stopping Distance For Best of Six Stops (Limited Lock-up Criteria)
Loading: _G_VWRc.o.==--_ __ Speed:~mph Surface:~SN System: Failed Trailer Control Line

80 • Pre FMVSS 121 Vehicle
60
.;
e
..,•
c
~ 40 FMVSS 121 Requirement (35')
...
Q f--
m
c::
'Q.
D. r---~1---1...-
0 r-r--
.----- I""""""i ~r-I--
Vi
0\
20
0
* * * * *
2 3 4 ,5 6, ,7 8 9 ,10 11 12 13,,14 15 16,JJ,L ..l1L~

4)1.2 6114 411l 6)1.4 b1l2 I
AU10
BUSES HAULERS
TRUCKS TRACTORS
TEST VEHICLE NUMBER
Figure 14-K Stopping Distance For Best of Six Stops (Limited Lock-up Criteria)
loading: _Em_P....t;;,lL.-_ __ Speed:~mph Surfa(.:~SN System: Full Service

* Pre FMVSS 121 Vehicle
r---
400
~
~
r----
r----
I--
FMVSS 121 Requirement (293') r--
.---
~
~ t----
300
~ , -~ t- - l- I- ~
-- - - r----
- - +- - f-- -
t--
r--
..: ;----
e
GI .---
OJ ~
c:
.E 200 r-----
..,
C
Cl
t::
D-
C.
0
Vi 100
a-.
-
* * * * *
2 3 4 ,5 6,,7 8 9 ,10 11 12 13, ,14 15 16,~ ..lB_J1..
4x2 6x4 4x2 6x4 6x2 AUTO
BUSES HAULERS
TRUCKS TRACTORS
TEST VEHICLE NUMBER
Figure 14-L Stopping Distance For Best of Six Stops (Limited Lock- up Criteria)
Loading: Empty Speed:..iQ..mph Surface:~SN System: Full Service

* Pre FMVSS 121 Vehicie
80

60 f-- -- -- -- -- -
.:
.:::.
CII
v
r::
E 40
r---
\1\ ..-
C r-- r--- r-- r---
CI ~
.~ r-- r--
f-- 1--1-- I--
n. r--
n. - r--
.2
VI
20
(J"'\
tv
* * * * *
2 3 4 ,5 6,,7 8 9 10 11 12 13.,14 15 16)~ ~8 __ 1~
4x2 6)(4 4x2 61<4 6112 AUTO
BUSES HAULERS
TRUCKS TRACTORS
TEST VEHICLE NUMBER
Figure 14-M Stopping Distance for Best of Six Stops (Limited Lock-up Criteria)
loading: Empty Speed:2Q....mph Surfa(e:-1O... SN System: Full Service

*Pre FMVSS 121 Vehicle
400L
(NOTE: FMVSS 121 did not have requirements
for 40 mph/30 SN stops) r-----
r-
r----r ,----r-
300l
I ~
r---"
~ r---
-- I I
GI
v
c: r--l
U
D 200
-
C
II> I r-----
l--
ifill Il
Dl
c:
"n.D- ~
o
VI
-
0\
100
VJ
1
* 1 ·1 1 1 1* 1 1 *1 1*1 1*
2 3 4 ,5 6,,7 8 9 ,10 11 12 13,,14 15 16,~ --lB__1.2....

4)(2 6)(4 4)(2 6)(4 6 I!. 2 I AUTO
BUSES HAULERS
TRUCKS TRACTORS
lEST VEHICLE 1\1UMBER
figure 14-N Stopping Distance For Best of Six Stops (limited Lock-up Criteria)
Loading: _Em~p-=t.z...Y_ __ Speed:~mph Surface:~SN System: Ful~_ Service

-------
(85') (83 ')
(83')
...--- -
80
FMVSS 121 Requirements
60
III
--
u
C ~
0 40
C'" r-- I-- r--
.-- r---
01 .-- ~
C
f-------
0. r----
0. .-------
2 I
In ~
20
0'\
~
,S 6,,7 8 9 10 11 12 13,,14 15 16,~ ..l8__ ~

2 3 4
4x2 6)(4 4x2 bx4 bx2 AUTO
BUSES HAULERS
TRUCKS TRACTORS
TEST VEHICLE NUMBER
Figure 14-0 Stopping Distance For Best of Six Stops (Limited lock-up Criteria)
Loading: Empty Speed:2£.mph Surface:~SN System: Failed Primary

800
(720' )
-- -- -- --
(613' ) (613' )
~ -- -----
600 -- - - -- - - -
r---
..:
e-
r---
li/
v
c
~
400 .-----
VI ...--
r---
i5
~
01
C .-----
-
Q. r---
Q. r---
0 r------- ~
Vi 200 f---
0'\ ~
VI
2 3 4 , ,5 6 ,7 8 9 ,10 11 12 13,,14 15 16,~ ..!~_ _1~

.
4~2 bx4 bxl, AU10
BUSES 4x2 b,,4 HAULERS
TRUCKS TRACTORS
TEST VEHICLE NUMBER
Figure 14-P Stopping Distance For Best of Six Stops (Limited Lock-up Criteria)
Loading: Empty Speed:~mph Surfa(e:~SN System: Failed Primary

(85') (83' )
~ _ __(83_')_
----
80
r--
60
f---
r---
~
- ~
ell r--'--
u
C ~
0 40 I---
..
(5 '--I---~
OJ r---f--
C
Q.
Q.
0
VI
20
(1'\
(1'\
2 3 4 ,5 6, ,7 8 9 ,10 11 12 13, ,14 15 16 ,~ ..l8_~

BUSES 4112 bx4 4112 6114 bll2 AUTO
HAULERS
TRUCKS TRACTORS
TEST VEHICLE NUMBER
Figure 14-Q Stopping Distance for Best of Six Stops (limited lock-up Criteria)
loading: Empty Speed:~mph Surfa(e:~SN System: Failed Secondary

800
(720 ')
--,.---
(613' ) (613' )
600~
r---
.------ r--
1\1 I----
u .--
c: I---
.E 400 .---- .---
o'" I---
m
c ~ r--
0.
0.
o
V)
- 200
C'\
......
, 1 2 3 4 I ,5 6 ~~ ,10 11 1LJl.., ,14 15 16 ,~ ..18 19--1

41<2 6,.4 4,.2 6,.4 6)(2 AUTO
BUSES HAULERS
TRUCKS TRACTORS
TEST VEHICLE NUMBER
figure 14-R Stopping Distance lFor Best of Six Stops (Limited lockup Criteria)
loading: Empty Speed:~mph Surface:.§.LSN System: Failed Secon,;;;.;d;:.;a;;.,:r:..y'--_ __

FHVSS 121 Requirement (83')
--- - - - ---
80
60
--
CII
OJ
t:
E 40
'"
Q
Cl
I:
"0.
Co
2
VI
0\
20
00
2 3 4 ,5 6,,7 8 9 ,10 11 12 13,,14 15 16,....!Z..... 18 19,

BUSES 4112 0)(4 4,.2 6x4 6112 J AUTO
HAULERS
TRUCKS TRACTORS
TEST VEHICLE NUMBER
Figure 14-8 Stopping Distance For Best of Six Stops (Limited lock-up Criteria)
Loading: Empty Speed :-.2Q..mph Surface :~SN Syslem:Failed Trailer Control Line
800

600
.......
- III
u
c:
E 400
.~
c
OJ
c:
Q.
Q.
2
V'I
0\ 200
\0
2 3 4 , 5 6,,7 8 9 ,10 11 12 13,~~~~ ..l8_ 19_.

BUSES 4x2 6x4 4x2 6x4 6x2 , AUTO
HAULERS
TRUCKS TRACTORS
TEST VEHICLE NUMBER
Figure 14-T Stopping Distance For Best of Six Stops (limited lockup Criteria)
Load ing: _Em--=.JP:o.:t::.ly_ _ __ Speed:~mph Surface:~SN System: Failed Trailer Control Line
the FMVSS post-121 requirement is for stops with no wheels locked above 10
mph and in this test program there were no restrictions on lockup below 20
mph. The detailed test data in Appendix B indicates that many of the vehicles
would have difficulty meeting the FM VSS 121 requirements with no wheels
locked above 10 mph. It is extremely difficult to modulate the brakes
efficiently for the no lock condition in a 20 mph stop because the stop is over in
less than 3 seconds; the apply rate is a very critical parameter. The Bureau of
Motor Carrier Safety (BMCS) stopping distance requirement from 20 mph for
vehicles in use is 35 feet for single unit vehicles over 10,000 Ib and 40 feet for
bobtail tractors and tractor-trailers with no restrictions on lockup. Only the
pre-121 6 x 4 truck (Vehicle 7) did not meet this requirement.
With empty vehicles, the 20 mph stopping distances on the 81 SN surface (see
Table 6 and Figure 14-B) were shorter than those for the loaded cases. Stopping
distance ranged from 22 to 28 feet for the pre-12l vehicles and from 20 to 27
feet for the post-121 vehicles. If lockup was restricted as in FMVSS 121,
however, the unloaded vehicles would not perform as well as the loaded vehicles
due to an even greater difficulty in modulating brakes to avoid wheel lockup on
the lightly loaded axles.
At 20 mph in all cases, buses as a group performed better than the other types
of vehicles.
2.6.2 Service Brake Performance at 60 mph on 81 SN Surface
This is the test condition that has received the greatest attention during the
course of FM VSS 121. Most of the controversy associated with the standard has
been centered around the 60 mph service brake requirements. When the
standard was initially issued, the required stopping distance from 60 mph was
245 feet. This requirement was subsequently relaxed to 258 feet, then to 277
feet and finally to 293 feet where it stood until the Court invalidated the
requirement.
-70-
At GVWR (Table 5 and Figure 14-C) the stopping distance range for the five
pre- 121 vehicles was from 259 to 321 feet and for the 14 post- 121 vehicles from
209 to 315 feet. Four of the five pre-l2J vehicles could not stop in less than
293 feet. In the case of the post- 121 vehicles, aJl buses, tractors (except for
the very short 98 inch wheelbase Vehicle 13) and auto haulers were able to stop
shorter than 293 feet; however, none of the trucks were able to do so. If lockup
were not permitted above 10 mph as in FM VSS 121, the detailed test data
indicates the situation would not change significantly except that the
conventional auto transporter (Vehicle 18) would have some problems due to
premature lockup of the lift axle.
In the empty mode (Table 6 and Figure 14-D) the stopping distance range for
the pre-121 vehicles was from 256 to 362 feet and for the post-l 2 I vehicles
from 198 to 422 feet. Of the pre-121 vehicles, only the school bus (Vehicle 1)
and the 4x2 truck (Vehicle 5) could stop in less than 293 feet. Of the post-121
vehicles all three buses, one truck (Vehicle 9), one tractor (Vehicle 13) and the
conventional auto hauler (Vehicle 18) could stop in less than 293 feet; all other
vehicles could not. The buses did well because their rear axle loading did not
decrease either statically or dynamically as much as it did on other types of
vehicles when they were unloaded. The pre-12 I 4x2 truck (Vehicle 5) had
relatively large front brakes as did the post-121 6x4 truck (Vehicle 9). This
provided a definite advantage in the empty mode where a large percentage of
the vehicle weight is on the front axle. Vehicle 13, a very short wheelbase (98
inch) 4x2 post-121 tractor, was the only bobtail tractor to stop in less than 293
feet. This vehicle was unique in that it was equipped with a brake proportioning
system developed by White Motor Corporation. This system, described in
Section 5.1 basically senses pneumatically when a trailer is not connected to
the tractor and automatically reduces air pressure to the rear brakes while at
the same time amplifying pressure to the front brakes.
The post-121 6x4 truck (Vehicle 8) had the longest stopping distance, 422 feet
(except for the Vehicle 13 with its proportioning system disconnected). This
vehicle required almost 100 feet longer to stop than its pre-121 counterpart
-71-
(Vehicle 7). The two vehicles are very similar except that the post-121 vehicle
was equipped with an automatic front axle limiting valve (ALV). This valve,
common on post-121 vehicles but not used on pre-121 vehicles ~ reduces
pressure to the front brakes up to a control line pressure of approximately 40
psi at which point brake pressure begins a lib lend-back II to control line pressure
which occurs at approximately 60 psi. Characteristics of a typical valve are
shown in Figure 15. While the AL V has little effect on the braking performance
of loaded vehicles on dry pavement where brake application pressures are
generally greater than 60 psi, it has a significant effect on empty vehicle
braking performance where application pressures are usually less than 40 psi.
This is due to the fact that it reduces braking on the front axle when more front
axle braking is actually needed.
To quantify the effect of the ALVan Vehicle 8, additional tests were run with
the ALV by-passed. With ALV bypassed, the stopping distance for the best stop
of six trials was 335 feet, a reduction of 87 feet (21 %). The effect of the ALV
on braking distribution is discussed in more detail in Section 3.0 and its effect
on controllability is discussed in Section 4.0.
If lockup above 10 mph was prohibited in the empty mode at 60 mph, the data in
Appendix B indicates that none of the empty vehicles except the long wheelbase
buses (Vehicles 1, 2 and 4) and the conventional auto hauler (Vehicle 18) could
have met the 293 foot FM VSS 121 requirement.
In the loaded mode, Table 5 and Figure 14-E indicate that the pre-121 vehicles
stopped between 29 and 42 feet and the post-121 vehicles stopped between 29
and 39 feet. This is well below the 60 foot requirement in FMVSS 121.
However, had the vehicles been restricted to no lockup above 10 mph, it appears
that the buses and auto haulers would have been the only vehicles that could
meet the 60 foot requirement.
"Many Pre-121 vehicles use a manual limiting valve (commonly called a Dry
Road/Slippery Road Valve) that is controlled by a pneumatic switch in the cab. In the
"Dry Road" position, the valve is a 1:1 valve. In the "Slippery Road" Position, it reduces
front brake pressure to 50% of control line pressure at all control line pressure levels.
-72-
100
-o-
-
f/)
a.
~ I: I Region
::J
en
en
Q)
~
Cl.
.i 50 Operating Point for

o~
Empty Vehicle Stop
CD on 81 SN Surface
.....
c:
o....
l1..
50 100
Control Line Pressure (psi)
FIGURE 15
Characteristics of Typical Automatic
Front Axle Limiting Valve (ALV)
-73-
In the empty mode, Table 6 and Figure 14-F indicate a 29 to 39 foot range for
pre-!21 vehicles and a 27 to 34 foot range for the post-121 vehicles. This is
also well below the 60 foot FMVSS 121 requirement but with a no lockup above
10 mph restriction, only buses could meet the required FMVSS 121 level.
Actually, the empty and loaded 20 mph stops on the 30 SN surface were of
limited value. Distances were not very different from those obtained on the 81
SN surface at 20 mph. The overall range for the 81 SN stops was between 20
and 36 feet and for the 30 SN stops, between 27 and 42 feet. This does not
reflect the 2.7:1 ratio in surface coefficients of traction. Obviously, at 20 mph,
the application transient is a very large factor in panic brake application stops
such as used to generate the above data. Further substantiation of this is seen
in the longer stopping distances required for pre-121 vehicles compared to their
counterpart post-121 vehicles which had faster application times.
Due to the limited value of 20 mph stops for determining low coefficient
stopping capability and brake modulation characteristics, 40 mph, 30 SN stops
were conducted even though such a condition is not specified in FM VSS 121. In
the ioaded case, the performance range for pre-121 vehicles was from 179 to
279 feet and from 151 to 289 feet for post-12l vehicles (Table 5 and Figure
14-G). Long wheelbase buses (Vehicles 1, 2, and 4) and the conventional auto
hauler (Vehicle 18) were the best performers.
In the empty mode, the five pre-121 vehicles stopped between 191 and 341 feet
and the 14 post-121 vehicles stopped betwen 140 and 379 feet (Table 5 and
Figure 14-H). The long wheelbase buses (Vehicles 1, 2, and 4) were the best
performers and were the only vehicles that stopped in less than 200 feet.
2.6.5 Emergency Brake Performance
FM VSS 121 required that emergency brake systems be capable of stopping all
vehicles except bobtail tractors in 83 feet from 20 mph and 613 feet from 60
mph.
-74-
Requirements for bobtail tractors were less stringent: 85 feet from 20 mph and
720 feet from 60 mph. The data in Tables 5 and 6 and Figures 14--1 through 14--T
indicate that all vehicles stopped in shorter distances than those necessary to
comply with FM VSS 121. Only the short wheelbase tractor (Vehicle 1.3) running
bobtail, came close. With the secondary system (front brakes) failed, the
vehicle required 74- feet to stop from 20 mph and 71.3 feet to stop from 60 mph.
The detailed stopping performance in Appendix B indicates that even if lockup
above 10 mph was prohibited, all vehicles would stop in less than the required
distances. All vehicles met the BM CS required emergency brake stopping
distances from 20 mph which are 85 feet for single unit vehicles and 90 feet for
bobtail tractors and tractor-trailer combinations.
2.6.6 Effect of Front Wheel Brakes on Stopping Distance
Emergency brake system tests which consisted of failing the front brakes
provided useful information in quantifying the value of front wheel brakes in
stopping a vehicle. This "no front wheel brake II data is of particular interest for
.3 axle trucks since such trucks are in service today without front wheel brakes.
Although FM VSS 121 requires brakes on the front axle of new vehicles, there
are some post-121 vehicles without front brakes because their owners have
removed them. There are also pre-121 vehicles without front wheel brakes.
The BMCS does not require front wheel brakes on .3-axle vehicles. Table 7
shows the effect of removing front brakes on straight line stopping
performance. It includes data for the failed secondary system tests on the
post-121 vehicles as well as results of additional tests that were run on the two
pre-121 three axle vehicles. Values shown in Table 7 are the IIbest stop" of
three stops (without lockup of more than one wheel per axle or two wheels per
tandem above 20 mph) since only three stops were typically made with the
secondary system failed.
Table 7 indicates that, generally, removal of the front brakes has a significant
impact on the straight line stopping capability of three axle vehicles. The only
cases where the difference was negligible were the 60 mph loaded stops for
Vehicle 14 and the 60 mph empty (bobtail) stops for Vehicle 17. Vehicle 14 is a
pre-121 vehicle with relatively small front brakes which could account for this
-75-
TABLE 7
Straight Line Stopping Distance (ft) for Three Axle Vehicles
With and Without Front Brakes (Best Stop of Three*)
20 mEh, 81 SN 60 mEh, 81 SN
Empty [oa(Je(J Empty [oa(Jed
With Without With Without With Without With Without
Vehicle Front Front Front Front Front Front Front Front
Number Vehicle Brakes Brakes Brakes Brakes Brakes Brakes Brakes Brakes
7 Pre-121 GMC 6x4 Truck 26 45 36 43 325 416 314 363
8 Post-121 GMC 6x4 Truck 24 46 29 40 440 457 315 396
(355)**
9 Post-121 Mack 6x4 Truck 23 40 30 39 297 350 295 386
.....
0'1
14 Pre-121 IH 6x4 Tractor not run not run 396 451 369 367
15 Post-12l IH 6x4 Tractor 26 42 29 39 358 427 254 316
16 Post-121 Western Star 6x4 25 45 28 31 375 462 251 298
Tractor
17 Post-121 White 6x2 Tractor 24 46 not run 418 421 not run
(324)**
* Since most of the failed secondary tests had only three runs. the best of the first
three service brake stops (six were run) were selected for comparative purposes.
** Best of 3 stops with auto limiting valve by-passed.
FMVSS 121 requirements: 20 mph - 35 ft; 60 mph - 293 ft.
BMeS requirements: (20 mph only) Straight Trucks - 35 ft; Bobtails and Tractor Trailers - 40 ft
small difference; also these small brakes may have been prone to in-stop fade in
the loaded 60 mph stops. Vehicle 17 was equipped with an ALV, which permitted
very little front braking (thus very little change occurred when front brake
were disconnected). Additional stops were run on this vehicle in the bobtail
mode with the ALV by-passed to quantify the effect of the ALV. Stopping
distance dropped from ~18 feet with the valve to 324 feet without it.
Comparing this data to the "no front brake" distance of 421 feet confirms that
the ALV allowed very little front braking.
Although BMCS regulations state that 3 axle trucks and tractors may operate
without any front axle brakes in a normal service mode, the data in Table 7
indicates that none of the vehicles tested empty at 20 mph, could meet the
BMCS service brake system stopping distance requirements without front
brakes. In the loaded mode,· none of the three trucks met the BM CS
requirements without front brakes although the two loaded tractor-trailers that
were run did. (BMCS requires that from 20 mph, single unit vehicles be able to
stop in 35 feet and bobtail tractors and tractor-trailers in 40 feet.) The pre-121
6x4 truck (Vehicle 7) when loaded could not meet the requirements even with
front brakes operational.
2.6.7 Comparison of Straight Line Stopping Distances for Pre & Post FM VSS 121
Vehicles
In order to more easily compare the performance of pre-121 and post-12l

vehicles, Table 8 was constructed from the data in Tables 5 and 6. Table 8
shows the service brake performance for "matched" pairs of pre-121 and
post-121 vehicles.
In the case of the school buses (Vehicles I and 2), the post-121 vehicle clearly
out perfor med the pre-121 vehicle. The post-121 bus had larger brakes on the
front axle which resulted in a more favorable brake distribution. In addition,
the post-121 vehicle did not have an automatic front axle limiting valve. With
these larger front brakes, the 30 S N stopping distances are significantly shorter
indicating that premature front wheel lockup on the low coefficient surface was
not a problem. The difference in the 60 mph loaded stopping distance (318 feet
versus 209 feet) is considerably more than expected indicating that the brakes
on the pre-121 were probably prone to in-stop fade under full load.
-77-
TABLE 8
Comparison of Straight Line Stopping Distances for Pre and Post FMVSS 121 Vehicles
Best Sto~ g
of Six Ft
Vel'ricle 91 ~~ GVRri 30 SN GYWR 91 SN EMPTV ~D s~ EMPTV
Number Vehi c'I e 20 mpn """b()me!!. 20 mph 40 mph 20 mE.5, !Q. mph 20 mJili 4~
1 Pre-121 IH School Bus 25 318 29 179 22 256 29 191

2 Post-121 IN School Bus 23 209 29 158 20 198 27 140
5 Pre-121 IH 4x2 Truck 31 305 42 218 23 286 29 277

(189) * (193)*
6 Post-121 Ford 4x2 Truck 31 313 38 224 24 309 26 314
7 Pre-121 GMC Truck 36 314 42 198 26 325 34 282

...... (176)* (233)*
00 8 Post-121 GMC Truck 29 315 39 231 24 422 30 289
10 Pre-121 Peterbilt 4x2 30 259 42 187 28 334 38 323

Tractor (170)* (270)*
11 Post-121 Peterbi1t 4x2 27 254 33 186 26 380 30 325
Tractor
14 Pre-121 IH 6x4 Tractor 33 321 42 279 25 362 39 341

15 Post-121 IH 6x4 Tractor 29 226 35 187 26 308 32 237
*Manua1 limiting valve in "dry road" (no limiting) position

The pair of 4x2 trucks (Vehicles 5 and 6), are the only pair in which both
vehicles are not identical model vehicles produced by the same manufacturer.
Both vehicles had similar wheelbases, loads, etc, but their braking systems were
considerably different. The post-l2 1 had less brake torque on the front axle
than· the pre-121 vehicle (typically the reverse is true). As a result of this
greater front brake torque, the pre-l21 vehicle had a more favorable brake
distribution (brake distribution and its effect on stopping distance is discussed
in Section 3.0). This accounts for the better stopping performance of the
pre-121 vehicle as shown in Table 8. The 30 SN performance of the pre-l21
vehicle was improved further when the manual front limiting valve was placed
in the "dry road" (no limiting) position. The values in parenthesis in Table 8
indicate results of additional stops run in the "dry road" position (as stated in
Section 2.1.5, any manual limiting valve is placed in the "slippery road" position
for the 30 SN wet surface tests).
The 6x4 trucks (Vehicles 7 and 8) are very similar in configuration with the
exception that the post-121 vehicle has nominally higher torque front brakes.
This vehicle, however, has an ALV which offsets this higher torque level at low
brake application pressures as discussed in Section 2.6.2. Table 8 indicates that
although the 20 mph performance (unlimited lockup) of the post-121 vehicle is
superior (probably due to faster brake timing), performance at 40 and 60 mph is
equal to or below that exhibited by the pre-12l vehicle. Performance is equal
at 60 mph for the loaded vehicle where higher brake application pressures are
required but poorer where low application pressure are required to prevent
wheel lockup (i.e., empty vehicle and/or slippery surfaces). Table 8 shows that
operating the pre-l21 vehicle with the manual limiting valve in the "dry road"
valve position on the 30 SN surface greatly improved performance just as for
the 4x2 truck.
The 4x2 tractors (Vehicles 10 and 11) are very similar in configuration (same
models) including their level of front brake torqu~. The post- 121 vehicle,
however, has an AL V which, as Table 8 indicates, degrades performance
particularly in the bobtail mode. Performance at 20 mph is better with the
-79-
post-121 vehicle, again probably due to its superior brake timing. Also again,
opera ting the pre-121 vehicle with the manual Ii mi ting valve in the "dry road"
limiting valve position significantly improved performance.
The 6x4 tractors (Vehicles 14 and 15) which are basicaUy identical models have
somewhat different braking distributions. The post-121 vehicle has higher
torque front brakes but lower torque rear brakes. This post-121 vehicle does
not have an ALV and as a result has a more optimum brake distribution
throughout the operating pressure range. Table 8 shows the result of this better
brake distribution. Stopping distance is shorter for the post-121 vehicle in aU
cases.
In summary, a comparison of the pre-121 and post-121 vehicle stopping distance

data indicates that only those two post-121 vehicles that did not have ALVs
were able to consistently out perform their pre-121 counterparts. The post-121
vehicles with these AL Vs, in many cases, performed considerably below the
pre-12 1 companion vehicles.
2.6.8 Effect of Speed on Straight Line Stopping Distance
Additional tests were performed on seven of the test vehicles to evaluate the
effect of speed on stopping distance and to compare this effect to that
predicted by the commonly used stopping distance correction equation:
2
V
spec
SD = SD X
corr act 2
Vact
The above equation which was given in Section 2.5 is a very simplified form of a
complex relationship but is accepted to be reasonably accurate when used
where V is within 2 mph of V t.
• The effect of speed on
spec ac
parameters such a tire/road coefficient of friction, brake lining coefficient of
friction, parasitic drag, etc. aU of which affect stopping distance is considered
to be small when the speed difference is small.
·SAE J 299 "Stopping Distance Test Procedure" recommends use of this equation where
Vact is within 2 mph of Vspec
-80-
In these additional tests to evaluate speed sensitivity, the accuracy of this
equation was evaluated at speed differences of up to ~iO mph. Since there is
the possibility that any "new" standard might specify performance at the
national speed limit of 55 mph or the European regulation test speed of 80 km/h
(50 mph), it was of interest to determine if background data generated at 60
mph could be utilized to predict vehicle performance at 50 or 55 mph. Also,
since some of our test vehicles were speed limited due to engine size and could
not reach 60 mph, it was desirable to know if their stopping capabilities from 60
mph could be predicted.
Appendix B includes detailed data obtained in the speed sensitivity study. Six
stops were made at various speeds for various vehicle configurations. Loaded
and empty tests were run and both service and emergency brake systems were
evaluated. Comparisons of actual and predicted data were made based on mean
(average) stopping distance measured for each six stop series. In order to
determine if differences between actual and predicted data were statistically
significant, means were compared using the Student's T test at the 95 percent
confidence level. This is a classical statistical test which takes scatter of the
data into account. Obviously, if there is a large standard deviation (scatter) in
the stopping distance data for a given six stop series, the confidence in the
mean value is limited.
The two page table in Appendix B presents actual stopping distance data for
each stop, average values (means) and standard deviations (S) for each six stop
series. Table 9 is a summary of the detailed data in Appendix B and presents
the average stopping distance for each vehicle at each speed, load and brake
configuration. Table 10 shows percent differences between actual and predicted
data over the 10 mph range. Values marked with an ~ in this table are the only
cases where the differences are statistically significant. In all other cases, it is
not possible to reject with 95 percent confidence the hypothesis that the actual
and predicted data means are the same; or simply stated: in all other cases the
means are probably the same. The three vehicle configurations where the
differences are significant are as follows:
-81-
TABLE 9
Sto~~ing Distance vs. S~eed for Seven Vehicles in Various Conditions
Average Stopping Distance
(ft) for Six Sto~s
Vehicle Brake
Number Vehicle Load System Application 45 50 55 60
--
1 Pre-121 IH School Bus Empty Service M 183 228 276
GYWR Service FT 196 264 336
2 Post-12l IH School Bus Empty Service M 139 175 206
GVWR Failed Secondary FT 270 317 411
9 Post-121 Mack 6x4 Truck Empty Service M 232 269
GYWR Service M 182 212 255
GVWR Failed Primary FT 195 238 298
00
N 12 Post-12l Ford 4x2 Tractor Bobtail Service M 245 296 357
GVWR Service M 207 240 302
14 Pre-12l IH 6x4 Tractor Bobtail Service M 278 317 396
GVWR Service M 239 284 369
GVWR Failed Trl r. M 386 469 550
Control Line
15 Post-12l IH 6x4 Tractor Bobtail Service M 276 330 373
GVWR Service FT 183 217 261
GYWR Failed Trlr. FT 350 429 553
Control Line
16 Post-121 White 6x2 Tractor Bobtail Service M 292 346 432
GVWR Failed Primary FT 211 267 339
Notes: 1) M: modulated, FT = full treadle application

2) Limited lockup criteria (not more than one wheel per axle or two wheels per tandem 20 mph)
3) Average SO used instead of best stop for statistical purposes (i.e., to use T test)
4) SD correction equation used to correct values to exact target speeds (deviation
1 mph)
TABLE 10
Comparison of Actual & Predicted Stopping Distance Data for Seven Vehicles
Difference in Percent Between Actual & Predicted Stoppi nQ Distance

PredictinQ Stopping Distance @ Hiqher Speed PredictIng Stopping_ Distance @ Lower ~_eed
45 mph 50 mph 55 mph 50 mph 55 mph 60 mph
Test Test Test Test Test Test
Predict Predict Predict Pred i ct Predict Predict Predict Predict Predict Predict
Vehicle Brake Appli- to to to to to to to to to to
Number Vehicle Load System cation 50 mph 55 mph 55 mph 60 mph 60 mph 45 mph 50 mph 45 mph 55 mph 50 ,",,-h
I Pre 121 Empty Servi ce M. -3 -5 -2 +3 +1 +5

IH School
Bus GVWR Service F. T. -10* -16* -7* +11* +7- +19*
2 Post 121 Empty Servi ce M. -4 -3 +1 +4 -1 +3

IH School GVIIR Service F.1. -3 -3 -1/2 +3 +1/2 +3
8us GVWR Primary F. T. +3 -6 -8 -3 +9 +6
only
9 Post 121 Empty Service M. +4 -4

Mack 6x4 GYWR Service M. +6 +7 +1 -5 -1/2 -6
Truck GVIIR Secondary F. T. +1 -2 -3* -1 +3- +2
only
12 Post 121 Bobtai 1 Service M. 0 -1 -1 0 +1 +1

I
Ford 4x2
\.>.>
"" Tractor GVWR Service M. +4 -1 -5 -4 +6 +1
I
14 Pre 121 Bobtail Service M. +6 +1 -5 -6 +5 -1

IH 6x4 GYWR Service M. +2 -7 -8 -2 +8 +7
Tractor GVIIR Tractor M. +1/2 +1 +1 -1/4 -1 -1
only-Failed
Tra iler
15 Post 121 Bobta i 1 Service M. +1 +6 +5 -I -5 -6

IH 6x4 GVWR Service F. T. +2 +1 -I -2 +1 -1
Tractor GVWR Tractor F.T. -1 -9* -8* +1 +8* +10*
only-failed
Trai ler
17 Post 121 Bobtail Service M. +2 -3 -5 -2 +5 +3

White 6x2 GVWR Service F.T. -2 -3 -2 +2 +2 +4
Tractor GVWR Secondary f. T. -3 -7 -5 +2 +5 +8
only
Notes:
I) Values marked with * are statistically different at the 95% confidence level as per Student's T test.
2) (+) indicates that prediction is high; (-) Indicates it is low.
SO - SD
3) I Difference. predicted actual X 100
SOactual
(J) Pre-I2l IH School Bus (Vehicle 1) @ GVWR - Service Brake System
(2) Post-121 6x4 Truck (Vehicle 9) @ GVWR - Emergency Brake System (Failed
primary)
0) Post-12l IH 6x4 Tractor (Vehicle 15) @ GVWR - Emergency Brake System

(Failed trailer control line)
For case (1), the differences are quite "large (i.e., in extrapolating 60 mph data
down to 50 mph the prediction was 19 percent higher than the actual measured
stopping distance for a 50 mph stop). This indicates a large amount of in-stop
fade at the higher speeds for the pre- 121 brakes. For case (2), the differences
are smaU 0 percent). They are statistically significant, however, since the
stopping distance in this configuration had a very low scatter; apparently a
smaU amount of in-stop fade occurs at the higher speeds. For case 0), the
differences are moderate (8 to 10 percent); however, this is to be expected since
the failed trailer control line is exhausting reservoir air and at the higher the
speed the stops take longer permitting more air pressure to be lost. It is
interesting to note that the pre-121 I H Transtar tractor did not experience the
same difference in a similar configuration. Apparently, the smaller (slower)
"Pre-12JIi plumbing to the failed trailer control line glad hand results in less air
being lost. !n addition~ this pre-12l vehicle was equipped with "high powered"
rear brakes and the driver initially used less air pressure to prevent wheel
lockup (the post-12! vehicle rear wheels would not lock even at full pressure).
Table 10, indicates that the commonly used stopping distance correction
equation is reasonably accurate for making predictions of performance at 50
and 55 mph from 60 mph data if the pre-121 school bus data is eliminated as not
being representative of present production braking capability. Table 10 also
shows that predictions to a lower speed in the majority of cases indicate a
performance leve! less than that which the vehicle is capable of providing.
Some care should be exercised, however, in predicting performance at 60 mph
from lower speed data as the vehicle may not perform as well as expected.
-84-
2.7 Additional Straight Line Stopping Distance Testing on Truck Fleet Vehicles
Furnished Through AT A
At the request of the Technical Advisory Group (TAG) of the American

Trucking Associations (AT A), six combination vehicles furnished by truck fleets
were tested during this phase of the program to determine their straight line
stopping distance capability. The purpose of these tests was (1) to determine
the braking performance of vehicles in service in fleets and to compare it to
that measured with vehicles having brake systems prepared and conditioned in
accordance with FMVSS 121, (2) to evaluate the effectiveness of the FMVSS 121
control trailer as compared to conventional fleet trailers including double and
triple trailers, and (3) to obtain brake timing data on typical fleet vehicles,
primarily the longer double and triple trailer combinations. The last item,
timing, will be discussed in a separate report.
Table 11 gives a description of the six combinations which included three tractor
semi-trailer rigs, two sets of "doubles" and a set of "triples". Figure 16 is a
composite photograph of the six rigs. Vehicles were instrumented with fifth
wheel systems but since they were available for testing for only a brief period
of time it was not possible to install more extensive instrumentation. Two of
the rigs were furnished loaded (Branch and Transcon), the Matlack trailer was
loaded with water and the remaining three rigs were loaded at VR Te with
concrete blocks. Vehicles were then tested lias is", without burnishing the
brakes.
Tests were run at as many of the "standard" test conditions as possible in the
time frame avaiJable. The fleet combinatons were tested as complete units
(i.e., fleet tractors with loaded fleet trailers); in addition, the fleet tractors
were tested in the bobtail condition as weJl as with loaded FM VSS 121 control
trailers. The "limited lockup" criteria was used in these tests. lockup was
determined by using observers to note which wheels locked up and estimated
the vehicle speed at which lockup occurred. AU of the fleet vehicles were run
without any antiJock system operational except for limited tests on the Branch
-85-
TABLE 11
Test Vehfcles Furnished by Fleets Through ATA
Gross Test Wei9ht

-w?Fleet w/ControT Braking Com~onent Vehicles
Fleet RiL--_ Trail ers Trailers S~stems " ractor Tra, 'fe"r(S,.----~
Branch Tractor/Trai I er 69,210 75,610 S-cam (All) 6x4 GMC C.O.E. 45'- 2 axle Van
(1979) (1978 )
Spector Tractor/Trailer 79,340 76,650 S-cam (All) 6x4 GMC 45'- 2 axle Van
Conventional (1978)
(1979)
Matlack Tractor/Tra f 1er 74,530 76,020 Di sc Tractorl 6x4 Mack 6500 gal. Tanker
I
Wedge Trailer Conventional (1968)
0(1 (1975)
c,-...
I
Signal Delivery Doubles (45') 96,870 47,780 Disc (All) 4x2 ~Jhite 45'-2 axle Vans Single Axle
Conventional (2) (1978) (1978)
(1978)
East Texas Doubles (27') 80,490 47,530 S-cam (All) 4x2 Ford C.O.E. 27' Single Axle Single Axle
Motor Freight (1979) Vans (2) (1978) (1979)
Transcon Triples (27') 107,980 49,030 Wedge (All) 4x2 Frefghtlfner 27' Sin le Axle sinfe A)(les
C.O.E. (1978) Vans (3 (1974)
1 (2 (1974)
Notes:
1) 6x4 tractors tested with 2 axle control trailer, 4x2 tractor tested with sfngle axle control trailer.
2) Tanker trafler and trfple trailers w/dollies are pre-121 vintage.
". ,.
i
CJl
c:
t,: ' ...,
CIl
~~~~,;::::.. :
QJ
t-
QJ
.--.Jc:
...,
..r:.
CJl
;,,; t· , co
...,c..
.,,,'J,·'i· <,"~' :
U'l
:"" ;'~ c..
'I :~'. " o
'+-
«t-
«
..r:.
CJl
::J
e
..r:.
t-
...,
CIl
-
QJ
QJ
lL.
>.
.D
"0
QJ
.c
CIl
c:
c..
::J
lL.
<I)
-:c
QJ
()
OJ
>
c:
.9
.....
co
c:
.D
E
o
U
87
rig. In many cases, combination vehicle perfomance with fleet trailers was
limited by trailer wheel lockup, something which does not occur when tractors
are tested with antilock equipped control trailers.
Table 12 presents the results of the tests on the fleet vehicles. This table gives
the best stop with "limited lockup" for each set of test runs at each condition.
Typically, six stops were made for the 40 mph and 60 mph service brake tests
although in some cases (as indicated by the numbers in parenthesis beside the
stopping distance) the number of stops was reduced due to time constraints.
Two stops were made in the 20 mph service brake tests and aU emergency brake
tests. Caution should be exercised in comparing the results within Table 12 and
when comparing this data with previous results obtained on "regular" test
vehicles due to the limited number of stops and method of estimating wheel
lockup.
Generally Table 12 indicates that the stopping capability of the fleet tractor in
combination with the control trailer is better than the stopping capability of
the fleet combination. This is primarily because of the operational antilock
system on the control trailers which did not permit trailer wheel lockup to limit
brake application pressure. This was particularly evident in the 40 mph, 30SN
surface tests. Some of the control trailer advantage at the higher speeds was
also due to the greater braking force per unit of trailer weight (control trailer's
brakes are fully burnished and must comply wi th more stringent braking
performance requirements than "regular" production post-12! trailers). The
20 mph data, for which there are no lockup restrictions, indicates that for
several of the vehicles (Signal, ETFM and Transcon) the control trailer is
providing more braking force per unit of trailer weight than the fleet trailers.
The only significant case where the fleet combination outperformed the fleet
tractor with control trailer was the Transcon rig at 60 mph with full service
brakes. As a "triples" rig, the combination stopped in 278 feet versus 297 feet
when the tractor was coupled to the control trailer. This difference may not be
real, however, since as triples (107,980 Jb GCW) the vehicle could only reach 50
-88-
TADlE 12
Straight line Stopping Distance (ft) for Best Stop by Fleet Vehicles Furnished Through ATA
Servi ce Brakes Emergenc~Brakes (81SN)

Fal led Fad ed FaIled Trl.
81 SN Surface 30 SN Surface Primary Secondar~ Control line
Fleet Vehicle 60 mph 20 mph 40 mph 20 mph 60 mph 20 mph 60 mph 20 mph 60 mph 20 mph
Branch Tractor & Van Trailer 302 28 215 44 32 47
Tractor & Van Trailer w/Antilock 246(3) 153 253
Tractor & Control Trailer 264(5) 23 165 43 34 45
'Bobtai 1 Tractor 3511(2) 242
Bobtail Tractor w/Antilock 249(2) 128(3) 431
Spector Trac tor & Van Trail er 296 29 221 534 49 395 35 45
Tractor &Control Trailer 251 29 201l 502 50 302 33 545 44
Bobtail Tractor 315
MatI ach Tractor & Tanker Trailer 336 34 305 347 41 385 40 60
Tractor & Control Trailer 302(4) 36 171 355 42 369 40 637 64
Bobtail Trac tor 258
Signal Doubles (45') 357 29 227 37 39 63
Tractor &Control Trailer 285( 4) 26 204 44 379(1 ) 38 44
Bobtail Tractor 365(2) 23 335
EmF Ooubles (27') 336 33 259 61
Tractor & Control Trailer 271 (4) 26 lA9 40
00
\.0 Ilobtail Tractor 435(2) 282
Transcon Triples (27') 278 30 235 39 35 41 114
Tractor &Control Trailer 297 27 191 500 47 379 37 814 51
Bobta fl Trac tor 324
Notes:
1) Distances shown are the best stops in a series such that no more than one wheel per axle or two wheels per tandem are locked above
20 mph and the vehicle Is within a 12' wide lane.
2) 6 stops were made for service brake stops at 40 and 60 mph, 2 stops were made in all other cases. Numbers in parenthesis indicate
number of stops in cases where there were exceptions to the rule.
3) Branch vehicle tests with antilock - all axles except front (steer) axle equipped.
4) FMVSS 121 Requirements Service Brakes: 60 mph/81 SN - 293'; 20 mph/81 SN - 35'; 20 mph/30SH - 60'.
Emergency Brakes (81 SN only): 60 ~ph - 613' (Bobtails 720'); 20 mph - 83' (Bobtails 85').
5) BMCS Requirements Service Brakes: Straight Trucks - 35'; Bobtails and Tractor Trailers 40'.
(20 mph/81 SN only) Emergency Brakes: straight Trucks - 85'; Bobtails and Tractor Trailers 90'.
mph in the distance available and the 278 feet at 60 mph is an estimated value
using the SAE correction equation explained in Section 2.5. With the control
trailer (49,030 Ib GCW), however, the tractor could easily reach 60 mph and no
correction was necessary. Since, as we have mentioned above in section 2.6.7,
some caution should be exercised in correcting stopping distance up to higher
speeds, the 278 feet is somewhat questionable. The Signal Delivery doubles
(96,870 Ib GCW) was also speed limited, being able to only reach 52 mph in the
tests with this doubles combination, however, the stopping distance was longer
than the stopping distances for the tractor with control trailer.
The results of the failed trailer control line tests are obviously very sensitive to
weight of the trailer(s) since the heavier the load being towed, the greater the
demand on the tractor brakes when the trailer brakes are failed. This is the
reason for the relatively long faiJed trailer control stopping distances with the
doubles and triples combinations. The total weight of the multiple trailers is
considerably greater than that of the control trailer.
A comparison of the performance of the fleet tractors, both bobtail and coupled
to control trailers, with that of the "regular test vehicle" tractors in the same
modes, as shown in Tables 5 and 6, indicates that generally well maintained
fleet vehicles perform witl:\in the range exhibited by the post-l 2 I test tractors.
Such a comparison is somewhat in precise since exact vehicle model and
equipment match-ups can not be made. There are several cases however, where
fleet tractor data does appear to be "out of line" with regular test vehicle
data. The Matlack 6x4 tractor coupled to the control trailer required 36 feet to
stop from 20 mph and 302 feet to stop from 60 mph (with full service brakes
operationaJ). This is significantly longer than stopping distances for the
"regular" 6x4 post-121 test tractors. Al so, with the trailer control line faiJed,
the 637 foot stopping distance is longer than the FM VSS 121 emergency brake
system requirement of 613 feet. This tractor would not lock its wheels when
loaded, indicating the brakes were torque limited. This performance was
somewhat unexpected since this tractor was equipped with disc brakes.
-90-
The Transcon tractor's 60 mph stopping distance with loaded control trailer (and
full service braking) was also long in comparison to that exhibited by other test
vehicles. Although the vehicle's best stop was 297 feet, this stop was the last in
the six stop series; the first five stops were considerably longer (372, 344, 320,
306, 321 feet respectively). This tractor had wedge brakes which could not lock
any wheels upon full treadle application. The 75 foot decrease in stopping
distance from the first stop to the sixth stop was not typical of other test
vehicles and it indicated some type of conditioning taking place in the brakes
during the stops. Had the brakes been burnished as per FMVSS 121, this
phenomena probably would not have occurred.
The failed trailer control line performance of the Transcon tractor was also less
than expected. The vehicle required 814 feet to stop from 60 mph. During the
stop, the tractor protection valve (TPV) activated (due to low tractor reservoir
pressure) causing the trailer's parking brakes to apply. This has not occurred on
any other test vehicles. Because this vehicle had wedge brakes which typically
have smaller total chamber volumes than S-cam brakes, the tractor reservoirs
(which must be 12 times the total brake chamber volume as per FM VSS 121)
were relatively small. When the control line was opened to atmosphere and the
brakes applied, these reservoirs bleed down relatively fast.
Although the exact Transcon 4x2 tractor reservoir volume was not known, based
3
on FMVSS 121 requirements, its minimum volume was at least 1870 in • A
comparable tractor with S-cam brakes on the other hand must have at least
2850 in 3 of reservoir volume. In order to evaluate and compare the effect of
the reservoir size, the Transcon tractor and the post-121 PeterbiJt (Vehicle 11)
tractor were tested using a reservoir pressure transducer and a strip chart
recorder. The time it took for the reservoirs to drop from 100 psi down to the
TPY activation level (40 psi for both vehicles) with an open control gladhand
upon a full treadle application was determined. The following results were
obtained:
-91-
Min. Res. * Time (sec) for TPV to Fire
Tractor Brakes Volume Req'd With Control Line Open
4x2 Transcon Wedge 1872 8.5
4x2 Peterbil t S-Cam 2856 18.0
+Actual tractor reservoir volumes unknown
It is clear that tractor reservoir volume significantly influences stopping

performance of the combination with the trailer control line failed.
Two additional findings from the tests of the fleet vehicles which are of special
significance are (1) that antilock can significantly shorten stable stopping
distances and (2) removing front wheel brakes significantly increases stopping
distances.
The following data (from Table l2) generated by the Branch vehicles indicates
that use of antilock systems on vehicles in service can reduce stable stopping
distances by between 18 and 47% depending upon vehicle configuration, load
and road surface.
Best Stop (ft)

Vehicle 60 mph, 81 SN 40 mph, 30 SN
Configuration A.L. Off A.L. On A.L. Off A.L. On
Branch Tractor-Van Trailer 302 246 215 153
Branch Bobtail 358 249 242 128
The improvement with antiJock is quite significant in aU cases tested.
Table 13 also presents data extracted from Table 12 and shows the increase in
stopping distance which can result from removing front brakes on three axle
tractors. Table 13 presents this data for the Branch, Spector and Matlack
-92-
TABLE 13
Straight Line Stopping Distance (ft) for Three Axle Fleet

Vehicles With and Without Front Brakes
20 mph, 81 SN 60 mph, 81 SN
Fleet Vehicle W/F.B. W/0 F.B. 'W/F.B. W/O F.B.
Branch Tractor & Van Trailer (w /A.L.) 28 32 21j.6 253

Tractor & Control Trailer 28 34
Bobtail (w I A. L.) 249 431
Spector Tractor & Van Trailer 29 35 296 395

Tractor & Control Trailer 29 33 251 302
Matlack Tractor & Tanker Trailer 31j. Ij.O 336 385

Tractor & Control Trailer 36 Ij.O 302 369
Notes: Data extracted from Table 12
-93-
vehicles and indicates that removal of front brakes can increase the straight
line stopping distance of loaded vehicles on the 81 SN surface by up to 33% and
bobtail stopping distances by up to 73%.
2.8 Summary and Conclusions - Straight Line Stopping Performance
Tests were conducted to determine the straight line stopping capability of a

broad range of vehicles without antilock. Nineteen test vehicles were selected
and each of the vehicles in the group were subjected to a complete series of
stopping distance tests in accordance with the FM VSS J21 test sequence except
that 40 mph stops on a 30 SN surface were added. Five of the vehicles tested
were of pre-121 vintage and were selected to match corresponding post-l2l
vehicles and provide baseline data. The fourteen post-121 vehicles were
equipped with 1979-80 braking systems. Six in-use combination vehicles
furnished by truck fleets through the AT A were also tested but in the "as is"
condition to obtain additional information. The criteria used for testing was to
achieve the shortest possible stop within a 12 foot wide lane while complying
with the limited lockup criteria. This "limited" lockup criteria insures a safe
and reasonably repeatable test condition while at the same time providing an
indication of the vehicles braking performance up to its stability limit. The
procedure provided data which reflects a vehicle's brake balance, an important
criteria in brake system design. By aJlowing unlimited lockup below 20 mph,
test safety was not compromised and test results from 20 mph stops can be
compared to BMCS requirements for in-use vehicles.
Data obtained on the nineteen "regular" test vehicles and the six additional
fleet combination vehicles indictes that the service braking capability of
various types of current configuration vehicles both empty and loaded can be
ranked according to the following table:
-94-
Relative Measure *
Ranking of 60 mph Stopping Vehicle Type
Best to Worst Distance, Ft & Loading Comments
200'-250' Buses - Empty & Usually long wheelbase,

Loaded Minimum weight transfer,
similar weight distribution
empty & loaded, easier to
optimize brakes for all loading
conditions
2 225'-300' Tractor Trailers - Brakes sized to match

Loaded weight distribution reasonabLy
well, some could use more front
braking, however.
3 275'-350' Trucks - Loaded Relatively high weight transfer

to front axle not matched by
front brake sizing.
4 300'-425' Trucks & Tractor Truck & tractor drive

Trailers - Empty axles and trailer axles .too light
for brake sizing
5 325'-500' BobtaH Tractors Drive axles much too light for

rear brake sizing
«A very rough, general estimate for comparative purposes only
The following additional conclusions were reached from the testing and analysis
of the data:
Automatic front axle limiting valves used on many post-121 vehicles

significantly degrade straight line stopping performance in the empty mode
and on wet surfaces.
Manual front axle limiting valves in the "Slippery Road" positlon~ on the
pre-121 test vehicles, degraded straight line performance on wet low
coefficient (30 SN) surfaces.
Post-121 vehicles do not necessarily out perform pre-12! vehicles. Three

of the five pre-I2l vehicles tested were able to out perform their
corresponding post-121 counterparts under some conditions due to more
optimum braking distribution.
-95-
Removal of front axle brakes from three axle trucks and tractors
significantly degrades straight llne stopping capability, especially when the
vehicle is empty.
The SAE J-299 stopping distance correction equation can be used to predict
performance at speeds different from test speeds by as much as 10 mph
with reasonable accuracy for most of the vehicles tested. Caution should
be exercised in correcting up to 60 mph speeds since the error is typically
such that predicted stopping distances are less than those achievable.
Downward corrections are usually conservative.
Auto Haulers do not appear to have any unique problems in terms of

straight line stopping capability. A test condition for these vehicles, as
weJl as any other vehicles with adjustable load axles, is needed which
specifies the axle pressure adjustment, however.
The F MVSS l21 burnish procedure for tractors should be modified to

clearly specify the use of an unbraked traiJer loaded such that the total
combination vehicle weight is equal to the tractor's G VW R (most testing is
done this way already, although it is questionable as to whether it is
technically correct in terms of the present procedure).
Post-l21 vehicles tested could easily meet the emergency braking

requirements of FMVSS 121 without the benefit of antilock with two
exceptions: a very short wheelbase bobtail tractor with its front brakes
failed and a wedge braked tractor with the control line hose to the trailer
failed. The bobtail tractor marginally failed because of the small
percentage of weight on the rear axle; the wedge braked tractor failed
because of its relatively small reservoirs.
"Wedge brake chamber volumes are lower than those for S-cam brakes and
thus tractor reservoirs are typicaJly smaller.
-96-
3.0 BRAKING DISTRIBUTION
In discussing the results presented in section 2.0, Straight Line Stopping

Performance, several references were made to braking distribution and its
effect on straight line stopping distance. It became apparent in analyzing the
straight line stopping distance data, that a more complete knowledge of actual
and ideal braking distribution on test vehicles was necessary if stopping
capability was to be better understood. Efforts were undertaken to develop this
information and the section which follows details the results of these efforts.
Included in section 3.0 are: (]) a definition and equations for ideal braking
distribution, (2) a description of methodology developed to measure brake
distribution, (3) data gathered from distribution measurements made on most of
the "regular" test vehicles in section 2.0, and (4) a further discussion of the
stopping distance results in section 2,0 with respect to the brake distribution
measurements. Also included are discussions of additional tests conducted on
some of the "regular" test vehicles, where modifications to brake distributions
were made to improve stopping capability.
3.1 Ideal Braking Distribution
In stopping distance tests where wheel lockup is prohibited (or "limited lockup"
is permitted) the relative distribution of braking force between a vehicle's axles
becomes a significant factor i!l stopping perfor mance. Braking should be
distributed on a vehicle~s axles in accordance with the distribution of the total
available tire/road frictional forces on the vehicle's axles. If an axle on a
vehicle has more than its proportional or "ideal'D share of braking, the axle will
lock its wheels (assuming sufficient torque is available) before the other axles
lock their wheels. When wheel lockup is limited or prohibited to provide
stability in braking, the stopping distance achievable with a vehicle having
"unbalanced" brakes will be longer. This is because the axles with less than
their ideal share of braking are utilizing less than their maximum achievable
frictional force when the lI overbraked" axle is at its ~ncipient lockup point
having already reached its maximum achievabJe frictional force
-97-
level. With balanced braking, aU wheels reach the lockup point at the same
level of control line pressure thereby permitting aU wheels to utilize their
maximum achievable friction force.
Figure 17 shows the relationship between stopping distance and the percent of
braking on the front axle for a hypothetical two axle vehicle for specific
conditions of speed, load and road surface. Minimum stopping distance is
achieved when the percent of vehicle braking on the front axle is "ideal" (j.e.,
equivalent to the percentage of total frictional force that is avaiJable at the
front axle). When braking is greater than ideal on the front axle, the front
wheels lock prematurely (i.e., before the rear axle develops full braking
torque). When braking on the front axle is less than ideal, premature rear wheel
lockup occurs. A relationship such as that shown in Figure 17 is unique to a
given vehicle on a given surface at a given condition of loading. Although
initial speed influences the relative level of the curve, the minima point
remains at the same percentage of front braking (unless speed has an influence
on the relationship between front and rear tire frictional properties).
If the simplifying assumption is made that all of the tires on a vehicle have the
same coefficient of friction, /1, then ideal braking distribution corresponds
directly to the distribution of normal loading on the vehicle's axles during a
stop. This normal load distribution is sometimes referred to as the "dynamic
weight distribution" of the vehicle as it includes the results of load or "weight"
transfer among various axles due to inertial forces. In the equations for "ideal II
distribution calculations which follow, the assumption is made that the
coefficient of friction (/.1) is equal for aU tires on the vehicle and therefore
lIideal ll braking distribution is equal to dynamic weight distribution. Another
assumption is that for a three axle vehicle, the tandem rear axles are
considered as a single axle with normal load concentrated midway between the
pair of axles on the tandem assembly. Finally, assumptions are made that
vehicle mot.ion is purely translational and that the vehicle is a rigid body with
no suspension system.
Although these assumptions appear extensive, they significantly simplify

calculations and eliminate the need for a great deal of parametric data on tires
and suspension systems. The values of ideal brake distribution calculated using
-98-
Q)
o
c
c
..- Rear Wheels-E~-+-----;>--'Front Whee I s
.-
U)
o
Lock First Lock First
C'
c
a.
a.
o
+-
C/)
I
I
~lldeOI" Broke Distrtbutlon
I
I
I
Percent Bra king on

Front Axle
FIGURE 17
Stopping Distance Verses Braking Distribution for a Two Axle Vehicle
99
these assumptions are of sufficient accuracy to make them useful in
understanding straight line stopping performance as well as vehicle stability
during braking and turning maneuvers.
Before presenting the equations for "ideal" braking distribution, several

additional aspects of braking distribution should be mentioned. First, in stops
where there is no concern about loss directional control and/or stability and
therefore no restrictions on wheel lockup, stopping distance is relatively
insensitive to brake distribution. In these cases the premature lockup of the
overbraked axle does not limit the torque on the remaining axle(s). The driver
can simply apply more control pressure until the other axles reach their
maximum braking level. The braking distribution, however, does have an effect
on the sequence of lockup which in-turn has some effect on the unstable
stopping distance. This is because on most surfaces, the friction force
generated by locked wheels is substantially less than the peak frictional force
which occurs at about 20% of tire rotational slip. Therefore, more braking
force is generated when the braking distribution is such that the wheels on the
lightly loaded axle lock up first; a greater percentage of available friction is
lost when the wheels on the more heavily loaded axle lock up first. In a panic
stop where all wheels are locked, braking distribution has essentially no effect
on the unstable stopping distance. It must be remembered, however, that stops
with lockup of all wheels on any axle (or tandem axle) can be dangerous as such
lockup will cause a vehicle to become unsteerable and, if the locked wheels are
on a rear axle (or tandem axle), also unstable.
Second, imbalances in braking distribution can be compensated to a certain

extent by the use of antilock systems. Antilock controls the slip on the
overbraked axle around an optimum level (instead of allowing full lockup) as
more control pressure is applied to the brake system. This allows the "under
braked" axle to be operated at higher braking levels without the hazard of
lockup. on the "overbraked" axle. Brake balance, however, cannot be neglected
just because a vehicle is equipped with an antilock system. Gross braking force
imbalances cause antilock systems to cycle excessively degrading the antilock
system performance with regard to stability, stopping distance, and reducing
tire wear. Excessive cycling can also increase reservoir air consumption and, in
some cases, abuse the suspenion system.
-100-
Finally, allowing one wheel per axle to lock, or two wheels per tandem to lock,
as was done in Section 2.0, allows imbalance on an axle left to right as weU as
axle to axle imbalance on a tandem. This imbalance can either be in the form
of brake torque or weight (or both). As will be shown in Section 4.0, the loss of
lateral traction that occurs with lockup of one wheel per axle or two wheels per
tandem does not by itself result in significant stability problems. Excessive
imbalance left to right, however, can cause steering wheel pull (if it occurs on
the front axle) or yawing of the vehicle as well as excessive tire wear. The test
vehicles in this program, however, were symetricaUy loaded and well
maintained so that side to side imbalance was not a problem. The 12 foot wide
lane boundary requirement in the test criteria would have limited any excessive
steering pull or yawing to driver skill level.
Figure 18 is a free body diagram of a single unit vehicle during braking. Using
elementary dynamics, the ideal distribution of braking on each axle can be
determined by calculating the dynamic normal force on each axle and then
dividing it by the vehicle weight to determine the dynamic weight distribution.
For "ideal" braking, the frictional forces at each axle are assumed to be equal
to the peak tire/road coefficient of friction (Il) times the normal force at each
axle:
Ff=JlN f 0.1)
Fr=IlN r (3.2)
and thus the deceleration rate, a, becomes:
a =pg (3.3)
Using these relationships and solving for the normal force on the front axle
(N f> results in the foUow ing:
N
f
= Wf + C~: (W) IL
where: Wf = weight on front axle (static normal force)

CGh = center of gravity height (above ground)
wb = wheelbase
W = total vehicle weight
Il = peak tire/road coefficient of friction
-101-
CGx
C.G.
CGh
w
---F Fr _~"'~~~ ____--L.._ _
f
FIGURE 1&
Free Body Diagram of Single Uni t Vehicle During Braking
102
CGh
The term -;b" (W) ,.,. in equation 0.4) represents the weight transfer from the
rear axle onto the front axle during braking. Dividing equation (3.4) by the
total vehicle weight, W, results in the "ideal" brake ratio for the front axle
(R ):
f
CGh Il
__
wb (3.5)
Similarly, the ideal brake ratio for rear axle (R ) is:

r
CGh'
wb ,.,. = 1- Rf (3.6)
Wf Wr
The terms Wand W in equations (3.5) and (3.6) are simply the
static weight ratios for the front and rear axles respectively.
Figure 19 shows free body diagrams for a tractor and a semi-trailer during
braking. Horizontal and vertical forces at the tractor to trailer coupling are
represented as F kp and N kp respectively. Equations for ideal brake
distribution for each of the axles in the combination are derived in a fashion
similar to the single unit vehicle case but are somewhat more complex
algebraically:
Wtl a + IJ. Wtl (h k p - CGhtl)

---w- W wbtl
=- - =- - - - - - - - - - - - - - (3.7)
W
Rf = ~ =(W trac ) (CGXtrac)+(CGhtrac )( Wtrac) Il

W '\ W wb trac wb trac W
+ JA hkp ) (3.8)
wbtrac
-103-
Wtroc
Nf Nr
1E---
1 - o.
o 1. wbtrac --....;....-1/
~--fI. .CG.
r eGXII
TFKP
hKP CGhfl Wll
.....L.f_ _ _ _ _N...:..K~P_ _ _ _____'*'_____F tlo -~-... --.;::-~--
~------wbtl ----~~
FIGURE 19
Free Body Diagrams of Tractor and Semi-Trailer During Braking
104
N
Rr = ---E = 1 - (R t 1 + Rf) (3.9)
W
where:
Rtl' Rf, Rr = ideal braking ratios for trailer axle, tractor front and
tractor rear axles respectively
Ntl a , Nf, N r = dynamic normal forces on trailer axles, tractor front

and tractor rear axles respectively
W= total combination vehicle weight (GCW)
Wtl a = weight at trailer axle (static normal force)
Wtl = total trailer weight (including load)
Wtra = total tractor weight (bobtail weight)
IL = peak tire/road coefficient of friction
CGhte, CGh trac = center of gravity heights of trailer &:: tractor

respectively, (above ground)
wbtb wb trac = wheelbases of trailer &:: tractor respectively
hkp = kingpin height =fifth wheel height (above ground)
CGXtrac = horizontal location of tractor C.G. from tractor rear

axle
horizontal location of trailer kinpin forward of tractor

rear axle
The above ideal braking ratios Rtl' R f , Rr pertain to the total tractor
trailer braking force. To determine the ideal front to rear distribution of only
the tractor braking force, the following equations must be used:
R'f = Rf =-:---=R_f_ (3.10)

Rf + Rr 1 - Rtl
Rr _ R
R'r = -:---=_r_ = 1 - R'f (3.11)
Rf + Rr 1 - R t I
-105-
where: R' f = ideal ratio of tractor braking on tractor front axle
R'r = ideal ratio of tractor braking on tractor rear axle
Equations .3.10 and .3.11 assume that the braking distribution between the tractor
and trailer is ideal (j.e., both tractor and trailer wheels would lock up
simultaneously). If this is not the case (i.e., if the trailer is underbraked
causing the tractor wheels to lock up at a deceleration rate below the ideal
level) the dynamic forces at the coupling will be less and the ideal braking
distribution on the tractor will be somewhat different.
Section 3.3 presents actual braking distribution measurements on test vehicles,

and compares them to the "ideal" distribution. The ideal levels of distribution
are based on equations 3.5, 3.6, 3.10 and 3.ll. Since the tractor stopping
distance tests (at GVWR) were conducted with control trailers having relatively
aggressive brakes, the trailer axles were typicaUy the first to reach the lockup
point. However, since the control trailers were equipped with antilock, the
control trailer lockup did not limit stopping performance. Effectively, the
relatively high torque control trailer brakes coupled with trailer antiJock
produced an "ideal" brake distribution between the tractor and trailer
permitting the use of equations 3.10 and 3.ll for ideal tractor braking. Had the
test tractors been coupled to different trailers, the "ideal" levels for tractor
braking given in Section 3.3 may not be "ideal". For example, if a tractor is
coupled to an "underbraked" trailer, the combination would not be capable of
achieving maximum deceleration before the tractor locked its wheels. At this
lower deceleration rate, the weight transfer onto the front axle would be less
and a different "ideal" brake distribution would exist. Thus, for this case,
"ideal" braking on the tractor's front axle would be lower than the value
calculated from equation .3.10.
3.2 Technique for Measurement of Actual Braking Distribution
In developing a test procedure to measure braking distribution on test vehicles,

several existing procedures were evaluated and rejected. SAE J225, "Brake
System Torque Balance Code -- Commercial Vehicles" which has been utilized
-106-
in previous test programs was found to be inadequate for a number of reasons:
1) test speed is very low (snubs are made from 20-10 mph; 2) brake distribution is
only determined for one input pressure; 3) a decelerometer is the basic
measuring instrument. U-tube decelerometers are slow responding and difficult
to read accurately, especially at low deceleration levels. Electronic
decelerometers suffer from low signal to noise ratios and must be filtered
substantially to separate vehicle vibrations from low level decelerations. In
addition, any decelerometer attached to a vehicle's sprung mass errs when the
vehicle tHts or pitches during braking.
Also evaluated was a proposed SAE procedure* which uses an iterative process
comparing actual stopping distances on an axle by axle basis to calculated brake
distributions. This procedure is very time consuming due to its iterative nature,
does not take parasitic drag into account (which can result in significant errors
at low braking levels); and does not compare axle performance over the same
speed ranges.
Use of torque measuring transducers at each brake would obviously provide the
most meaningful information on brake output and distribution since
measurements could be made under actual test conditions without the need for
running "axle-by-axle" tests. Transducers have been built for truck brakes and
successfully used on a limited basis but are very expensive (over $10,000 each),
time consuming to install and are not universal (j.e., they must be designed for
a specific brake/hub/wheel configuration and are generally not interchangeable).
Dynamometer testing can also be used to determine brake output and

distribution; however, the VR TC dynamometer was not yet operational at the
time this information was needed. In addition, removal of vehicle brake
assemblies and installation on the dynamometer would be time consuming and
requires special adapters for each brake design.
*Procedure was developed in the Brake Balance Task Force in 1967, but was not adopted
in the Handbook.
-107-
Since none of the available methods to determine braking distribution were
appropria te for this test program 9 a "new'l on-vehlc Ie test procedure was
devised. To eliminate problems encountered with utilizing decelerometers, an
instrument was developed to automatically time speed changes. Deceleration
can then be calculated from the time information, The instrument, shown in
Figure 20 9 includes a dual set point digital comparator which receives
information from the standard digital speed meter used with the fifth wheel
speed/stopping distance measuring system, This digi tal comparator is
connected to a digital timer with.:!: one millisecond accuracy*. Basically, the
operator pre-selects the upper and lower snub speeds on the comparator and
then the instrument operates automatically to determine time it takes to
decelerate between these two speeds. The instrument also includes a buzzer
which is connected to the "Iowl! relay on the comparator. This buzzer comes on
when the final speed of the snub is reached so that the driver can immediately
release the brakes and not put any more energy into the brakes than necessary.
By making the speed differential relatively small 9 changes in deceleration due
to such factors as speed sensitivity of brake linings, brake fade and changes in
parasitic drag are minimized.
The actual test procedure developed is somewhat of a modification of SAE

J225. Each axie is evaluated independently over a 5 mph speed change at an
average speed of 40 mph (i.e'9 from 42.5 to 37.5 mph). The 40 mph average test
speed is considered to be more meaningful than the 15 mph average speed used
in SA E ]225. In a 60 mph stop for example, the vehicle is about midway in the
stop at 40 mph. This procedure can be used to evaluate performance at other
speeds but for this program, measurements were made at 40 mph only.
Parasitic drag is also measured with a coast down test over a change in velocity
of 5 mph at an average speed of 40 mph (if other test speeds are utilized,
* Accuracy of the time measurement is considerably less than this value, however, due
to the sampling or update period of the digital speed meter. For the fifth wheel
system used in this program, the speed sampling period was approximately 140 ms.
This introduced a random error of up to +140 ms for each snub time measurement and
it was necessary to make repeative runs to minimize the overall error.
-108-
t.~.':' "
~
.~
:~.
,-
I'
. ....'
"
FIGURE 20
Digital Comparator/Timer Instrument Used In Conjunction

Wi th Fifth Wheel System to Time Speed Changes
109
parasitic drag would also have to be evaluated at these speeds since drag varies
significantly with speed). In order to evaluate brake output and distribution at
various input levels, tests are run on each axle independently (both axles
together on a tandem) at 10, 20, 40, 60 and 80 psi control line pressures*.
Shut-off valves are installed on each axle of each vehicle and were used to
"turn off" brakes as necessary. If lockup occurs at any of these inputs, the test
is terminated for that axle. Tests are also run at the same control line
pressures with all brakes operational for a data check.
Initially, tests were run with the test driver applying the necessary "constant"
control line pressure; however, this method was abandoned due to questionable
results. Drivers could not control pressure precisely enough, particularly at the
higher pressures. In conducting distribution tests it is particularly important
that each axle be tested at the same input level so that outputs can be
superimposed to determine distribution.
Use of an adjustable treadle valve pedal stop was also tried; however, this too
did not prove to be acceptable as pressure level drifted during the snub.
Finally, a technique was developed whereby adjustable air pressure regulators

were installed ahead of the service reservoirs on the tractor or truck to
regulate pressure in the reservoirs to a level such that when the treadle valve
was fully depressed, the desired constant pressure would be achieved at the
brakes. It was first necessary to determine, via a static test for each test
vehicle, the relationship between front and rear brake chamber pressures at 10,
20, 40, 60 and 80 psi control line pressures. Typically there was little
difference between control, front and rear pressures except for the vehicles
with front axle limiting valves (tests were run with and without such valves
by-passed). In those cases where differences did exist, it was necessary to take
them into account in running the distribution tests. For example, if at a control
* School buses (vehicles I and 2) which were run early in the program were only tested
at 20 and 40 psi.
-110-
line pressure of 40 psi, the front brake chamber pressure was 1j.0 psi and the rear
brake chamber pressure was 35 psi, the front brakes would be regulated during
the distribution tests to 40 psi while the rear brakes would be regulated to 35
psi. During all testing, pressure transducers were instaJled in the brake
chambers (at least one on each axle) and recorded on a strip chart recorder to
insure that snub time data was obtained at the desired constant pressure level
and did not include the application transient. It was necessary, when running
the tests, to start the application at a high enough speed, usually 1j.4 to 46 mph,
so that when the 42.5 mph "timer on" pOint was reached, pressure was stabilized
in the brake chambers. It was also necessary to set the pressure regulators
slightly above the desired level to aUow for reservoir pressure drop upon
application of the brakes.
The regulated reservoir technique worked weJl; however, several special safety
precautions were necessary when running the test. First, vehicles operating
with brakes on only one axle with low reservoir pressure have extremely poor
stopping capabilities. Tests had to be run on an area where there was sufficient
room to stop and no traffic. Secondly, the spring actuated parking brakes had
to be avaiJable as backup in case of an emergency.
In the axle by axle tests, the reservoir for the "turned off" axle was kept at a
high enough pressure to keep the parking brakes off (simply pulling the parking
brake valve would still apply them). For running the data check tests with both
service reservoirs at low pressures, a hose was run from the "wet" tank (which
was always kept at full pressure) to the truck parking brakes (and to any trailer
emergency line) to keep traiJer parking brakes released. This line was equipped
with a valve that could be used to vent the line and apply the parking brakes in
an emergency.
When running the distribution tests, including those on each axle as well as aU
axles together, five runs were made in neutral at each control pressure. Five
coastdown runs were also made to determine parasitic drag in neutral. Three
runs as specified in SAE J225 were not felt to be sufficient to average out the
-111-
effects of experimental error. Brake lining temperature instrumentation was
utilized so that each test run was conducted at an initial brake temperature of
200°F to eliminate variations in effectiveness due to temperature changes (SAE
J225 does not require thermocouples). Test runs including those to measure
parasitic drag were always made in the same direction on a constant grade (1/2
percent) portion of the track. In this way, the grade effect was held at a
constant level and eliminated when parasitic drag was subtracted from the
individual axle and "all brake" data.
A computer program was written to process the data. This program performed
the following functions:
1) averaged coast times and calculated average drag deceleration,
2) averaged deceleration times at each control input level for each axle,
and for the "all brake" case; calculated decelerations and subtracted
out drag effects,
3) checked sum of individual axle decelerations against decelerations

measured with all brakes operational,
4) calculated total brake force for each axle based on vehicle test weight,
5) calculated average brake torque per brake based on axle brake force
and tire rolJing radius,
6) plotted graph of individual axle decelerations versus control line

pressure, and
7) calculated and plotted braking distribution as a function of control line

pressure.
Item 3 served as a data check and indicated if any fade was occurring on the
individual axle tests. Since all axles were tested over the same 5 mph speed
difference with the same vehicle weight, the energy input to each axle was
equal. This is somewhat different than in an actual "all brakes" stop where
-112-
energy input is proportional to braking distribution. The procedure could be
modified to achieve proportional energy input by varying the speed differential
or vehicle test weight for each axle, but this would require an iterative
procedure that would be relatively complex and time consuming. Using the
item 3 data check to ensure that no substantial fade occurs on any axle-by-axle
basis, eliminates the need for a complex proportional energy test. If the item 3
data check indicated a fading condition, appropriate adjustments to the
procedure would be required. In tests conducted in this program, only one
vehicle, the pre-121 4x2 truck (vehicle 5), exhibited significant brake fade and
only during the test of its front axle. It was necessary to unload this vehicle for
tests to determine the front axle brake force.
In the brake distribution tests, single unit trucks were run ful1y loaded and
tractors were run coupled to loaded control trailers. The main reason for the
loading was to prevent wheel lockup so that the distribution could be
determined at high control line pressures. If distribution measurements had
been desired only at low pressures, loads could have been reduced minimizing
the possibility of fade. Also, when testing tractors, if only tractor information
had been desired it would only have been necessary to load the trailer above the
tractor drive axles. In this program, however, it was desired to know the trailer
brake output and the trailer was also loaded above its axles.
The average brake torque calculation (item 5 above) is a reasonable

approximation of brake torque but includes several potential sources of error.
First, the static loaded radius of the tires is not exactly the same as the
dynamic radius; second, the tire "patch offset" which occurs due to the braking
force displacing the center of the tire/road contact point rearward is not
accounted for in the torque calculation; and final1y, inertial torque due to the
rotational moment of inertia and angular deceleration of the tire, wheel and
brake components is neglected. It is estimated that, based on data available in
the literature, the potential error caused by al1 of these simplifying assumptions
is in the order of five to ten percent with the calculated torqu p in item 5 being
lower than the actual by this amount.
-113-
3.3 Braking Distribution Data
Braking distribution tests were run on J6 of the 19 'Dregular" test vehicles using
the procedure described in Section 3.2. Vehicles 13, 18 and 19 were not tested
due to the fact that they were leased and were returned before this phase of
the program. The outputs of the brakes on the single and tandem axle control
trailers were also measured. Appendix C includes the results of aU these tests.
Figure C-l through C-16 are plots of the percentage of braking on the front axle
versus control line pressure. For the rear axle (or axles in the case of tandems)
the percentage of braking is simply JOO percent minus the percentage of braking
on the front axJe. Pre-121 vehicles with manual front axle limiting valves are
shown with valves in both "dry road" and "slippery road" positions and post-121
vehicles with ALV are shown with the ALVs operational as well as by-passed.
Several of the post-121 vehices (Vehicles 6, 8, 11, 14- and 16) were modified by
increasing the size of the front brake chambers in one or two steps and the
results of these modifications are also shown. Three of the tractors (vehicles 11,
12 and 17) were modified with brake proportioning systems that automatically
change distribution (increase the percentage of braking on front axle) when the
tractor is in a bobtail mode. The figures in Appendix C include braking
distribution curves for vehicles with these systems operational. The system
utilized on vehicle 17 was the same system that was installed on vehicle 13 as
original equipment (vehicle 13 was one of the three vehicles for which no
distribution tests were run). The effect of the various modifications to braking
distribution on straight line stopping capability as wel1 as control1abllity while
braking in curves is discussed in Section 5.
Figures C-l through C-16 in Appendix C also include information relative to the
"ideal" braking distribution for each of the test vehicles. A range of "ideal"
percent braking for the front axle is shown on each graph. The upper limit for
the range is the empty high coefficient (8ISN) case. When the vehicle is empty,
a high percentage of the vehicle's total weight is on the front axle, and on a
high coefficient surface, deceleration is high causing a substantial weight
transfer onto the front axle, particularly for vehicles with high C.G. height
-114-
to wheelbase ratios. In calculating the "ideal" braking distribution for the upper
Hmit of the range, equations 3.5 and 3.10 were used for single unit vehicles and
tractors respectively. A value of 0.75 was used as an approximation for the
peak tire/road coefficient of traction. The road surface has an ASTM skid
number of 81 but truck tires typicaJJy exhibit lower traction properties than
ASTM (passenger car type) tires. *
The lower limit for the "ideal" braking distribution range is based on a
hypothetical condition where the vehicle is on a "zero coefficient" surface and
aU load is placed above the centerline of the rear axle (or tandem) such that the
front axle remains at empty weight and the rear axle is at GA WR. This loading
is caJJed "adverse loadingll in this report as it places the least practical amount
of weight on the front axle. Placement of load rearward of the center of the
rear axle(s) is not considered an acceptable practice for tractors or trucks and
such a loading arrangement was not evaluated. Even when trucks were tested
with "adverse loading", test drivers complained that vehicles felt very unusual
to drive and steering characteristics were peculiar. With the hypothetical zero
coefficient surface, no weight transfer occurs and thus there is no dynamic
increase in front axle normal force. With = 0, equations 3.5 and 3.10 both
simplify to the same result: the lIideal li percent braking on the front axle is
equal to the static percent of weight on the front axle.
Within the extremes of the "ideal ll brake distribution range shown in Figures C-l
through C-16, lIideal li percent front braking levels are plotted for the three
other stopping distance test conditions specified in the FMVSS 121: G VW R
30SN; GVWR 81SN and Empty 30SN. These values were calculated using
equations 3.5 and 3.10 with estimates of = 0.3 for the 30SN surface and =.75
for the 81S N surface.
-lIN HTSA Contract No. DTN H22-80-C-07093 with Calspan Corporation. A Final Report
Number DOT -HS-806 577 is avaiJable from the National Technical Information Service,
Springfield, Virginia 22161.
-115-
A review of the actual levels of front axle braking on the test vehicles with
respect to the "ideal" levels indicates that genera!ly most vehicles in their
original equipment configurations faJl below or at the bottom of the "ideal"
range. When a vehicle's front axle braking percentage is below the range, the
rear brakes will always lock up before the front brakes no matter what the
conditions of surface and load, and non-locked wheel stopping distances will be
longer than "ideal" in all situations.
Table 14- lists the "ideal" and actual percentages of braking on the front axle at
the four FM VSS 121 test conditions for each of the 16 test vehicles. In addition,
for vehicle 13 (which was not tested for distribution), the "ideal" levels are
shown along with estimates of the actual level based on information provided by
the vehicle manufacturer. Table 14 also shows the static percent of vehicle
weight on the front axle for both the G VWR and empty (bobtal1 for tractors)
conditions as well as for the "adverse loading" condition. If the vehicles were
operating on very low coeffidents of friction surfaces (i.e.,IL= 0), the "ideal"
percentage of front axle braking would approach these values.
The "ideal" brake distribution levels in Table 14 were calculated using equations
3.5 and 3.10. The actual levels were determined from Figures C-J through C-16.
In determining the "actual" levels in Table 14 it was first necessary to
determine the approximate control line pressure used in stops under each of the
four FMVSS 121 test conditions. The data from the straight line stopping
distance tests in Appendix B was used for this purpose. These control line
pressures were entered in Figures C-J through C-16 and the actual percentages
of braking on the front axle read from the curves.
Table 14 indicates that with the exception of the two long wheelbase post-121
buses (vehicles 2 and 4), the test vehicles have wel1 below the "ideal" level of
braking on their front axles for the four FMVSS 121 test conditions. In addition,
if the static weight distribution on the front axle at GVWR shown in Table 14 is
compared to the actual distribution, it can be concluded that many of the
vehicles are "underbraked" on the front axle even for the hypothetical zero or
very low coefficient of friction surfaces.
-116-
TABLE 14 Weight Distribution and Braking Distribution for Test Vehicles
Static Percent Weight Percent Braklns on Front Axle

on Front Axle
Vehicle F-Empty GYWR 30SN GYWR 81SN EMPTY 30SN EMPTY 81SN
Number Vehicle R-GAWR GYWR EMPTY ACTuAL IDEAL ACTUAL IDEAL ACluAL IDEAL ACIOAL IDEAL
----
I Pre 121 IH School Bus 26 32 39 21 38 21 47 20 47 21 56
2 Post 121 IH School Bus 26 32 39 40 38 40 47 41 47 40 56
3 Post 121 Ford/IH Short School Bus 21 34 45 29 43 32 57 33 53 30 65
4 Post 121 Thomas Transit Bus 26 36 34 46 42 46 51 39 39 46 48
5 Pre 121 IH 4x2 Truck 26 33 61 24 46 43 66 29 69 48 80
6 Post 121 Ford 4x2 Truck 23 33 58 21 46 22 66 26 66 24 77
7 Pre 121 GMt 6x4 Truck 17 24 53 15 37 24 57 15 60 27 70
8 Post 121 GMC 6x4 Truck 17 24 52 14 37 20 57 16 59 15 70
9 Post 121 Mack 6x4 Truck 15 23 47 18 35 20 53 20 51 21 58
I
10 Pre 121 Peterbllt 4x2 Tractor 26 32 60 23 41 42 56 24 71 37 86
..... 11 Post 121 Peterbilt 4x2 Tractor 32 34 60 35 43 37 57 14 70 29 86
"'-l
I 12 Post 121 Ford 4x2 Tractor 25 29 56 23 46 21 66 24 66 24 77
13 Post 121 White 4x2 Tractor 33 38 71 33* 50 33* 68 71* 81 71* 96
14 Pre 121 IH 6x4 Tractor 19 22 53 14 30 15 43 2 60 11 72
15 Post 121 IH 6x4 Tractor 20 21 51 22 29 20 42 20 59 21 71
16 Post 121 Western Star 6x4 Tractor 19 26 51 10 33 17 44 2 58 1 68
17 Post 121 White 6x2 Tractor 21 24 52 27 34 28 48 16 61 16 75
18 Post 121 Stuart Conventional Auto Hauler 24 26 45
19 Post 121 Stuart Stinger Auto Hauler 16 26 35
Notes: 11 Actual values for White 4x2 Tractor (marked with *) are based on estimates provided by White Motor Co. and not measurements.
Vehicle has O.E. proportioning system that Increases percentage of braking on the front axle when bobtail.
2) Auto haulers not tested due to limited availability.
3) For tractors, the weight and brake distributions shown are related to the tractor total and not the entire combination (i.e •• 30
percent front braking means 30 percent of the tractors total braking IS on its front axle).
4) DEmpty" for tractors means bobtail.
5) Pre-FMVSS 121 vehicles were in ·sllpper,y road" position of front axle limiting valve on 30SN surface only (except vehicle 1 which
has no limiting valve).
Comparing the actual percentage of front axle braking at low control line
pressure (using the empty 305 N case) to the static percent weight on the front
axle indicates that the post-121 long wheelbase buses (Vehicles 2 and 4) are the
only two vehicles that have a greater percentage of braking than weight on
their front axles with the vehicle empty or at GA WR. The remaining vehicles
all have a lower percentage of braking than weight on their front axles,
although Vehicles 3, 5, 9, 12 and 15 have braking distribution levels that are
relatively close to their GVWR weight distributions; Vehicle 13 with its special
brake proportioning system has equal percentages of weight and braking on the
front axle in the bobtail condition. Even with "adverse loadingll, the percentage
of braking on the front axle of all of the vehicles, except the post-121 buses
(Vehicles 2, 3 and 4), the pre-121 4x2 truck (Vehicle 5) and the post-121 6x4
truck (Vehicle 9), is essentially equal to (within the limits of experimental
error) or below the percentage of total vehicle weight on the front axle.
Four of the vehicles in Table 14 have percentages of braking on their front axles
at low control line pressures that are substantially below the percentage of
weight on their front axles in the lIadverse loadingll condition. One of these,
Vehicle 14, is a pre-121 vehicle that has a manual front axle limiting valve.
Even with the manual limiting valve in the "dry road" position, brake torque is
very low (see Figure C-13). The other three vehicles (Vehicle 11, 16 and 17) are
post-121 units with ALVs. As discussed in Section 3.1, these valves reduce
pressure to the front brakes at low control line pressures. One of the basic
problems with these valves is that when the vehicle is in the empty mode, the
front axle pressure is halved at a time when the need for front braking relative
to the rear is high due to an increased percent of vehicle weight on the front
axle. Manual limiting valves when placed in the "slippery road" position cause a
similar problem even when the vehicle is on low coefficient surfaces (slippery
surfaces).
The manual limiting valve, if needed at all, should only be used in the IIslippery
road ll position when the vehicle is loaded and on a low coefficient surface. The
same is true for the ALV but this option is not available due to valve's
automatic control.
-118-
Table 15, which is derived from the information in Table 14 and Figures C-l
through C-16 gives the ratio of actual to "ideal" percent braking on the front
axle (All rat io) for each of the vehicles with front axle limiting valves with the
val ves Jjmiting and not limiting. Table 15 shows that removal of front axle
limiting valve in all cases brings braking distribution closer to "ideal". Table 15
indicates that removal of limiting valves would not cause the front wheels to
lock before the rears under any of the four FM VSS 121 test conditions (i.e., the
ratio is always less than 1.0). Table 15 also indicates that under all conditions
post-121 vehicles would stop shorter with their ALVs removed and pre-121
vehicles would stop shorter with the manual front axle limiting valves in the
"dry road" position. This is consistent with the data and conclusions presented
in section 2.0.
Appendix C also includes brake torque data for the 16 test vehicles and the two
"control" trailers evaluated in the 4-0 mph brake distribution tests. As
explained, this torque data is calculated from the axle by axle braking force
data using static loaded tire radius and is not a direct torque measurement.
These calculated torque valves are probably five to ten percent lower than
actual brake torque values due to the fact that tire patch shift, change in tire
radius and inertial effects of the wheel are not taken into account. Figure C-17
through C-34 present the torque data along with descriptions of the front and
rear brakes. Each figure shows the torque for a single front brake and a single
rear brake versus control line pressure. The effect of front axle limiting valves
on front brake torque is shown for a number of the vehicles. Also, the effect of
increasing front brake chamber size is shown for vehicles 6, 8, 11, 15 and 16.
Several comments about the distribution and torque data presented in this
section are necessary before moving on to the next section. The tests used to
make these measurements were run after the straight line stopping distance
tests discussed in Section 2.0 were completed. It is possible that during the
course of the straight line stopping tests, changes in brake performance
occurred such that distribution and torque shown in Appendix C are not
-119-
TABLE 15
Effect of Front Axle Limiting Valves on Braking Distribution
Ratio of Actual to Ideal Percent of Brakina on the Front Axle

Vehicle Limiting GVWR jOSN GVWR 8' SN EMpTY jOs EMpTY 81 SN
Number Vehfcle Valve w/um. 1i170 [1m. w7Lfm. 11/0 rim. lIJ[im. 1170 [lm. W7[1m. wlO Um.
5 Pre 121 IH 4x2 Truck M .52 .96 .35 .65 .42 .72 .32 .60
7 Pre 121 GMC 6x4 Truck M .39 .62 .26 .42 .24 .43 .19 .38
8 Post 121 GMC 6x4 Truck A .38 .59 .35 .35 .27 .44 .20 .36
10 Pre 121 Peterbilt 4x2 Tractor M .57 .90 .46 .74 .34 .53 .28 .43
0
""
I 11 Post 121 Peterbflt 4x2 Tractor A .82 .93 .65 .65 .20 .54 .33 .50
14 Pre 121 IH 6x4 Tractor M .23 .47 .16 .34 .04 .07 .07 .15
16 Post 121 Western Star 6x4 A .32 .58 .39 .39 .03 .06 .02 .22
17 Post 121 Whfte'6x2 Tractor A .78 .80 .58 .58 .27 .43 .22 .36
M= Manual limiting valve (Dry Road/Slippery Road)

A = Automatic Limiting Valve
representative of the initial "after burnish" levels or levels midway in the
tests. ]t is a weU known fact that brakes are sensitive to "work history" and do
not necessarily remain at a fixed output level. It is also important to note that
the distribution and torque data are based on 40 mph tests. AU brakes have
some degree of speed sensitivity and thus the data shown may not necessarily
reflect all speed conditions accurately. In short, the distribution and torque
data is not absolute. It does, however, provide reasonable approximations and
indicates relative levels that can be used for comparative purposes.
3.4 Effect of Braking Distribution on Straight Line Stopping Distance
The straight line stopping distance data presented in Section 2.0 can be plotted
as a function of brake distribution information to show the relationship between
stopping capability of the test vehicles and their braking distributions. Figures
21 and 22 are plots of the "best" stop versus the A/I ratio for the front axle for
the 40 mph 30SN and the 60 mph 81SN stops respectively (with fuU service
brakes). Empty and G VWR data are plotted together for the 17 vehicles
included in Table 14 for which distribution data are available. Figures 21 and 22
are analogous to Figure 17 but the actual distribution of braking on the front
axle is normalized to the "ideal" level. The data points in Figures 21 and 22 do
not faU on a single line such as that shown in Figure 17 since differences in
vehicle loading, component performance, driver variability and other
experimental errors can cause differences in stopping distance for a given
distribution level. In addition, the distribution data is also subject to
experimental error as discussed earlier. Some of the vehicles did not have
sufficient brake torque to lock up any of their axles when loaded and thus had
stopping distances longer than their braking distributions indicate.
Although there is scatter in Figures 21 and 22, the trend towards shorter
stopping distances as the percentage of braking on the front axle approaches
"ideal" (j.e., the A/I ratio approaches unity) is clearly indicated in both cases.
On the 30S N surface at 40 mph, stopping distance varied from about 370 feet
-121-
-....
~
-a. 400
• Loaded
~ o
fI) o Empty
1;;
o
CD
00
m 300
~
~
o 0 •
CD o. •
••
0
c 200 •• O. o
o ••
0
1;;
0 • ••• o .-
C" o
.-a.
C
100 I
a.
...
I
1
0 Ideal Brake '111 1
fI) Distri bution/' :
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2

Ratio= Actual % Braking on Front Axle
I deal % Braking on Front Axle
FIGURE 21
Stopping Distance From 40 mph on 30S N Surface versus Ratio of

Actual to Ideal Percent of Braking on the Front Axle for 17 Vehicles.
122
-
+-
......
-0- 400 o
o • Loaded
o 0
+-
en o o Empty
o 0
+-
(/)
J.O. ,
Q)
co 300
~
o .0 • • o
o
...... c:. 0 •• • •
•
Q)
(.)
•• 0
....§
(/)
,-
200 o
o
en
c
'0. 100
a.
o
+- I dea I Brake ~
CJ) Distribution.,.../" :I
I
°o~----~------~----~------~----~------~
0.2 0.4 0.6 O.S 1.0 1.2
Ratio= Actual % Braking on Front Axle
I deal % Braking on Front Axle
FIGURE 22
Stopping Distance From 60 mph on 81SN Surface versus Ratio of

Actual to Ideal Percent of Braking on the Front Axle for 17 Vehicles,
123
for vehicles with little or essentially no braking on the front axle to about 150
feet for vehicles with close to "ideal" levels of braking on the front axle. On
the 81SN surface at 60 mph, stopping distance varied from about 400 feet for
vehicles with very little braking on the front axle to about 200 feet for those
vehicles with near "ideal" levels of front braking. Figures 21 and 22 graphically
depict the fact discussed in Section 3.3, that the majority of the test vehicles
are "under braked" on the front axle for empty as well as loaded conditions on
the 30SN and 81SN surfaces. On the 30SN surface (Figure 21), all of the data
points but three are to the left of the "ideal" distribution line; on the 81SN
(Figure 22) surface all of the data points are to the left of the line.
A special straight line stopping distance test series was run on the post-121
Ford 4x2 truck (Vehicle 6) with various levels of front axle braking to evaluate
the effect of varying braking distribution and front brake torque on stopping
capability under various test conditions. This vehicle (which does not have a
front axle limiting valve) was run with the original equipment (O.E.) type 9*
front brake chambers as well as with type 16* and type 24* front chambers at
four test conditions:
I) GVWR/40 mph/30SN,
2) GVWR/60 mph/81SN,
3) Empty/40 mph/30SN,
4) Empty /60 mph/81S N
Six stops were made at each condition using the regular straight line stopping
distance procedure described in Section 2.0. The order of testing with the
various chamber sizes at a given condition was randomized to minimize bias due
to brake lining conditioning and the same test driver was used for all tests to
minimize the driver variable effect. For these tests, the vehicle's loaded C.G.
height was slightly lower (CGh/wb = .40) than it was during the "regular" tests
discussed in Section 2.0 (CGh/wb = .45). Also when the empty tests were run,
the load frame (2800 pounds) was not removed from the vehicle as it was in
*Type designation is equivalent to area of chamber diaphram in square inches.
-124-
the Section 2 tests. Because of these differences in loading, data developed
here cannot be compared to Section 2 data. Detailed test data for these special
tests is included in Table C-I in Appendix C.
Figures 23 and 24 show plots of stopping distance (best of six stops) in a series
versus the A/I ratio for the 40 mph/30SN and 60 mph/81 SN tests. In developing
these graphs, equation 3.5 was used to calculate "ideal" front braking levels.
Actual distribution and stopping distance data was obtained fom Appendix C
(Figure C-6 for distribution and Table C-I for stopping distance). Figures 23
and 24 also show "calculated" stopping distance vs. A/I ratio. Stopping distance
was calculated by the following equation:
SO = SOldeal + Rf (:,)~ - ~f) SOldeal (3.12)
V02
where: SDldeal = 2}1g
and: SD = stopping distance for non-locked wheel stop

R
f
= ideal percent of braking on front axle (see equation 3.5)
rf = actual percent of braking on front axle
W = total vehicle weight
Wr = weight on rear axle (static normal force)
Va = initial velocity
f.L = tire/road coefficient of friction
g = gravitational constant
Equation 3.12 was derived using the free body diagram in Figure 18 for the case
where rear axle lockup limits stopping distance* (which was the case for all
*For the case where front axle lockup occurs first on a single unit vehicle the following
equation applies:
where:
SO = SOldeal + Rf -
(~X~~ ~ SOldeal
Wf = static weight on front axle and the othe terms are as defined
(3.13)
above.
For combination vehicles, the equations are more complex and will not be discussed
here.
-125-
4-
~
- o Emp1y
a.
0 • Loaded
- 400~
en
( /)
CI)
--
m
'- 300 ~ 0
0
~
CI)
uc --t-- .... -- ...... _ ....~o 0
~
U) Calculated - ..........
.- 200 Loaded - .....
I 'J
- 0
0\
C"I
C
"a.
Co
J2
(/) 100
O~I------~--------~-------~-------~---------~----~
o 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
Actual % Braking on Front Axle
Ra1io =
Ideal % Braking on Front Axle
FIGURE 23
40 mph/30SN Stopping Distance Versus Ratio of Actual to Ideal percent of Braking on the Front Axle
for Post 121 Ford 4x2 Truck (Vehicle 6).
o Empty
• Loaded
-.-..... 400
- 0 ..
0
0+-
W
~ ~~~~~~f Calculated Empty
m
@
"A. '-'-"::>--..
roc~ v 00 iI'-:::::::: ------.::>:.:--..
~o_, -'~:J t:::; r..:~J {____ --"0:::::::::>-__
I!.::©... 0
Jr-J c.:::".1 C:-:::::J ('-___ '<:::-::'~::-----f""\
Ii/ ____ J '<:..v-. C",~
00 - c.::":::1 () -__, __ .v
r:---- -.. . . .:---.--.. . . .
1.0> -<J e< -j_\.-_
~ ---_1 r:-::'J r:.?;:~::-::.:_::.'_..,-~
(QJ (
<? 200 1
N W CalculC!~ed Loaded -- C::--":: ;~~~~~;;;::-::.::>:.
'I
c-.::.:,~~~
[5) -,,-j~::.~l
1OJi>
<C: I
n
n 100 I
0
~
m I
I
I
o ~~~-- __--~~~~ ___ I_~~~~~_-_L-~=~_~~~J_~~ --- L-
C) O.(~ 0.4 0.6 O.B 1_0 1.2
= _Ac~~~t~~ «'Y@ \Fjlf'(QJrrdlfb\Q) on F>rQn"[ t\~~~_
c:::::) r....... =--=-==-=-.-=_-===:::;-_--=-:._~
=-__ .:. __ .- _- . :.- _ . . . : .:_ _=__=__.:..:..._::;=___=___"'?
~l!QJ~ ~ (»
~d(£{Jl~ @g{)) (8)~(]~~ng t»n ~[:f(Q)[l[ A~~(0
FIGURE 24
60 rnph/81SI\1 Stopping Distance versus Ratio of Actual to Ideal Percent of Braking on the Front Axle for
Post 121 Ford 4x2 Truck (Vehicle 6)
stops made with the three different front chamber sizes}. Assumptions are
made that the stop is at a constant deceleration level and appJlcation time is
negligible. These assumptions introduce relatively small errors considering the
uncertainty in the tire/road coefficient of friction estimates (0.3 for the 30SN
surface and 0.75 for the 81SN surface) used to develop the relationships in
Figures 23 and 24-.
At 40 mph on the 30SN surface (Figure 23), actual loaded vehicle stopping
distances are within 10 feet of the calculated level. The empty distances,
however, show greater scatter and are as much as 45 feet longer than the
calculated values. This is attributed to the difficulty in modulating the brakes
efficiently at low pressures. The detaiJed data in Appendix C shows that only
about 15 psi is required to lock the rear wheels which makes braking control
extremely sensitive.
At 60 mph on the 8lSN surface (Figure 24-), the empty stopping distances are
within 10 feet of the calculated line. The 30 psi control pressure level needed
for a IIgood li stop makes modulation easier since the brake system is not as
sensitive. Loaded distances are still longer than the calculated level, however.
With type 9 and type 16 chambers, distances are about 15 feet longer; with type
24- charnbers, the actual distance is about 35 feet longer than calculated. In
fact, the actual stopping distance with type 24 chambers is actually 6 feet
longer than that with type J6 chambers. A review of the detailed data for the
stops with type 24 chambers indicates that the test driver did not apply as high
of a control line pressure as should have been possible with this brake
distribution. Exact reasons for this inability to achieve a shorter stop are
unknown but it is believed that the driver simply did not feel comfortable
"pushing the vehicle" harder. Achieving a high deceleration from 60 mph with a
short wheelbase truck having high C.G. load can be frightening.
The shorter stopping distances that result from increasing frent brake torque to
give a braking distribution closer -to "ideal" are not suprising. By
-128-
definition, lIideal ll brake distribution is that which produces the minimum
stopping distance. Section 4.0 addresses how optimizing braking distribution for
straight line stops affects performance in braking and turning maneuvers.
3.5 Summary &: Conclusions - Braking Distribution
"Ideal ll braking distribution is defined as the distribution of braking force on the

various axles of a vehicle such that all of the vehicle's wheels will lockup
simultaneously as the control pressure level is increased. With braking
distribution at the lIideal" level, straight line stopping distance is minimized as
a result of all axles of a vehicle reaching their maximum braking force
capability concurrently. If the assumptions are made that the coefficients of
friction of all tires on a vehicle are equal to one another and the left to right
variations in weight are negligible, then the vehicle's "ideal" braking
distribution is equal to the dynamic "weight" or normal force distribution
between the vehicle's axles. Since the loading on a heavy duty vehicle is
typically varied over a broad range in normal service and since the vehicle must
operate on a wide spectrum of surfaces with varying coefficients of fiction,
dynamic axle normal forces and "ideal" braking distribution vary significantly.
Figure 25 shows the range over which "ideal" braking on front axle varied for 17
test vehicles. The upper limit of the "ideal ll range is the high coefficient
surface ( /J. = 0.75), empty vehicle case. The lower limit is the "adverse loading"
case (very rear biased loading) on a very low coefficient surface ( j.J =0). Figure
25 also shows the range of actual percentage of braking on the front axle at
control line pressures above 10 psi * for the test vehicles. Actual brake
distribution was determined using a test procedure described in Section 3.0.
Figure 25 shows that with the exception of the post-121 buses, actual
distribution of braking on the front axle for the majority of vehicles tested is
below or in the lower region of the "ideal" distribution ranges. This would
indicate
4f)elow 10 psi relay valve opening or "cracking" pressures dominate and cause
very large deviations in distribution.
-129-
100r~~~--~~~--~~~--~~~--~~~--~-r~--r-.---r-------------,
Q)
x '~Ideal" Upper
<{ Limits:
+-
Ideal Ranges Empty Vehicles
C (Boblail Tractors)
0 80 H I-Co Surface
L.t
c
0
01
C
60
.::s:.
0
\....
OJ
0
+-
~
\.>J
-C
Q)
40
0 (,)
I
lI-
Q)
0...
"Ideal" Lower
20 Limits:
Front Axle- Empty
Rear Axle - GAWR
Zero - Co Surface
01 -I
234 1 156,,7891 110 II 1213111415161~
Buses 4x2 6x4 4x2 6x4 6x2
Trucks Tractors
Test Vehicle Number

NOTE: The position of any manually operated front axle pressure limiting valve is indicated by "DR" for dry road and
"SR" for slippery road.
FIG URE 25 - Ranges of Ideal and Actual Percent of Braking on the Front Axle for 17 Vehicles
that these vehicles wiU lock their rear wheels before their front wheels under
most operating conditions and have relatively long straight line stopping
distances under the conditions represented by the mid and upper regions of the
"ideal" front braking range. Typically the upper two thirds of the "ideal" front
braking range shown in Figure 25 represents the cases where the vehicle is on a
high coefficient surface (Io~ding does not matter) or the vehicle is empty
(surface does not matted; the extreme upper limit of the range is where both
these conditions occur simultaneously. This covers a high percentage of normal
operating conditions.
None of the vehicles tested were equipped with load sensing proportioning
valves* such as those used in Europe and as a result, braking distribution on the
vehicles was basically fixed at a level determined by brake sizing. It is obvious
from Figure 25 that the philosophy in this country is to size braking for
optimum performance when the vehicle is loaded and operating on low
coefficient of friction surfaces. Four of the pre-121 vehicles had manual front
axle limiting valves that changed distribution from one descrete level** to
another; four of the post-121 vehicles had AL Vs that modified brake distribution
at low control line pressures. However, both types of valves, when in their
limiting mode, actually caused the braking distribution to drop out of (below)
the "ideal" range. The White 4x2 tractor (Vehicle 13), as mentioned earlier, was
equipped with a system that had two discrete braking distributions depending on
whether or not it was coupled to a trailer. Of all the tractors tested, this was
the only one capable of stopping from 60 mph on an 8lSN surface in less than
300 feet when bobtail. Since this tractor had a very short wheelbase (98 inches)
and very light load on its rear axle (29 percent of its total) compared to the
other tractors, this superior performance is quite significant.
*Load sensing proportioning valves are valves which sense the load on an axle and ratio
the brake application pressure to the axle according to load.
*"*Figure 25 indicates that vehicle 5 exhibited broad ranges of actual distribution in

both the "dry road" and "slippery road" positions. This is primarily due to the fact that
at low pressures (10 psi) the rear axle relay valve attenuated pressure to the rear brakes
so that the front brakes did a large share of the braking. As pressure was increased to
20 psi and greater percent of braking on the front axle dropped to a relatively constant
level.
-131-
1+.0 DIRECTIONAL CONTROLLABILITY AS A FU NCTION OF FRONT AXLE
BRAKING LEVEL
In Section 2.0 and 3.0 9 it was shown that most of the nineteen test vehicles had
less than the ilideal il percentage of total braking on the fror.t axle for most
vehicle loading and road surface conditions and that by ir.creasing front braking
level, straight line stopping distance could be reduced. Although it would have
also been possible under some conditions to achieve "ideal" brake distribution by
reducing rear axle braking such a reduction is not practical since the total
avaiJable braking must be maintained high enough in absolute terms to handle
all conditions of road surface and vehicle loading. Ideally, the braking on an
axle should be sufficient to utilize aU of the tlre traction available. On any
surface on most of the test vehicles in this program~ reducing rear braking
would have iimited performance in the fuHy loaded condition on high
coefficient surfaces (unless the reduction was accomplished "temporarily" by a
load sensing valve which would aHow full reef bre!<ing at fuB Aoad).
There is concern, primarily among the ~ruck users, that increasing front axle
braking detracts from steer~ng control during braking maneuvers especiaUy
those that require both braking and steering simultaneously. With the advent of
F MVSS 121 in 1975, front brakes were effec~ively required on aU air braked
vehicles. Stopping distance requirements couid !lot be met without front
brakes, and brakes that were being instaHed were generaUy of a higher torque
output than those front axle brakes in use prior to fM VSS 121. In 1976, FM VSS
121 stopping distance requirements were relaxed and front brake ~orque levels
decreased somewhat; however, the controversy s;.Jrrounding the use of front axle
brakes continued. When the Courts invalidated the FMVSS J21 stopping
distance requirements for trucks in 1978, there was concern that some vehicles
might be built without front axle brakes. Because the data available to N HTSA
Indicated that removal of fron'!: axle brakes would signifAcan~!y degrade vehicle
braking performance, an amendment to PM VSS 121 was issued which specifically
required vehicles to have brakes acting on all wheels. The dynamometer
section in the standard regulates the size of these brakes by specifying
minimum torque via brake power (fade) requirements (S 5.1+.2) and brake
-132-
recovery requirements (S 5.4.3). Even so, many truck users are stil1 concerned
about the effect front axle brakes on steering control when vehicles are braked
on low coefficient or slippery road surfaces. Some vehicle users have removed
the front wheel brakes on their 3-axle trucks since the BM CS does not require
them.
It is interesting to note that the European philosophy on front axle brakes is

somewhat different. Not only do the Europeans require front axle brakes, they
prefer that the wheels on the front axle lockup before those on the rear.
Economic Commission for Europe (ECE) Regulation 13 and European Economic
Community (EEC) Directive 71/320, both of which deal with braking
requirements for motor vehicles, require that under all loading conditions and
surface coefficients ranging from 0.15 to 0.80, the front wheels must lock
before the rear wheels. Exceptions are made to the front-axle-first lockup
cd teria if the percentage of braking on the front axle is relatively close to
idea! over the full loading and surface condition range.
Hn order to address the concerns expressed by various members of the trucking

industry relative to front brake sizing and its effect on directional
contro!1ability, and determine if performance gains achieved in straight Ilne
stops by increasing front brake torque to more nearly "ideal" levels would
detract from directional controllability, a series of controllability tests were
conducted. In these tests, nine of the test vehicles were subjected to a series
of braking and turning maneuvers on various coefficient surfaces, including ice.
Three of the vehicles were also subjected to straight line stops on a "split"
coefficient lane (left wheels of vehicle on a significantly different coefficient
of friction surface than the right wheels) to evaluate the effect of front axle
brake torque level on steering wheel pull and directional stability.
Although the bulk of the controllability testing was conducted utilizing two
skilled test drivers, selected experiments were also run with a number of
professional truck drivers to determine if the findings developed with the test
dri vers could be verified by more "typical II truck drivers.
-133-
4.1 Test Maneuvers
Figure 26 shows the dimensional layout of the braking and turning maneuvers
used to evaluate directional controllability with various front brake
configurations. These maneuvers represent on-highway emergency situations.
Two lane changes and three curves were utilized. The only differences between
the two lane changes and between the three curves were the surface
coefficients of friction; dimensionally the two lane changes and the three
curves were equivalent. The initial test speeds for each maneuver were
different.
In a Jane change, it was necessary for the driver to first enter the approach lane
at the desired initial speed. When he reached the brake application target
cones (located 30 feet ahead of the start of the opening into the exit lane)
braking was initiated. While braking, the driver steered the vehicle into the
exit lane through the 100 foot opening or "gate". Figure 27 is a photograph of
the lane change layout.
For a curve, the test driver simply entered the lane at the desired initial speed
and then applied the brakes after a steady state steering condition was
reached. In the curves, the location of the start of braking was not critical to
the successful completion of the maneuver as it was in the lane changes.
Figure 28 shows a photograph of a vehicle braking in a 500 foot radius curve
maneuver.
With the exception of the curve on ice, the lane width in each maneuver was 12
feet and lane boundaries were marked with rubber traffic cones placed at 20
foot intervals. On ice, the lane width was increased to J4 feet. Initial tests run
on the ice with a 12 foot lane width indicated that vehicle speed had to be very
low « 15 mph) in order for the vehicle to stay in the lane. SmaJJ excursions
occurred on entry to the curve and traffic cones were knocked down even
before braking occurred. Even with the 14 foot width, the highest practical
vehicle speed was only 18 mph.
-134-
Brake Application
Target
_ (
I-nl----'-nl-----L-n"'----'-n~ . n_
Q
0 n n n
Wet Jenni1e Surface
n ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"'T"T"" --,.-r---~ >-T-T~~(~OS~)-.,........---HB
--.·--~35mph
D u O 0°0 0 0 0 0 0
_ 0 0 0 0
~ 30'.....,./f+-..---'--IOO'--~./
...In -nl-l...----in~0 n. . . ._. . ,. .6._ -wT"~T"'-A-sp(n:oh u)r.-fa_c_e.-n.- _:~, ~ ~ ~ ~

.................In
~ 45 or 50 mph
......... .....
,..
....
a_ItS-,sNn
....
_
o 0 0 0°0 0 0 0 0 0
Troffic Cones ot 20' Intervals
500' R to Lane t.
~~:D\:~~ lice Surface (5-IOSN)
~ 500'R to Lone t.
~::~::~ (weI Jeon;le Surface 120SNI
~ 500' R to Lone <t
~;~0:~~
t WeI Asphalt Surface 160 SN I
NOTE: All Lones 12'Wide Except
1ce Lane is 14' Wide
FIGURE 26 -- Lane Change and Curve Maneuvers Used to Evaluate Directional

Controllability During Braking
-135-
FIGURE 27
Lane Change Maneuver Layout

(View From the Exit Looking Toward Entrance)
-136-
!
!..
. .. '
- •. ," ":'..l.!_'J"'~_'_"~"":"'" N" • . "".• ,~ _-_~ •• __ ... ~~ •...." ;;-
~~~,~
<." . ".' .... ~~
<,;',::-; ~ •• '... .(;..,:;

', ... .. ,,;.;x"~~ ,
FIGURE 28
Test Vehicle 6 Braking in 500' Radius Turn on Wet 20SN Jennite

Surface -- Initial Speed 35 mph (,16 g)
-137-
Traffic Cones at 20' Intervals
FIGURE 29
''Split Il" Surface Test Lane Used for Evaluating Steering Pull
-138-
Figure 29 shows the Jayout of the split coefficient test lane utilized for
evaluating steering wheel pull and directional stability as a function of front
brake torque level. In this maneuver, the driver applied the brakes while the
left wheels were on the low coefficient of friction surface and the right wheels
were on the high coefficient surface. This resulted in an imbalance of forces on
the front axle that was transmitted through the steering linkage to the steering
wheel.
All of the controllability evaluation maneuvers were set up on the 50 acre

vehicle dynamics area (VDA) at TRC as shown in Figure 13. The VDA is inside
of the 7.5 mile high speed track and consists of a large (1200' x 1800') asphalt
rectangle with asphalt turn around loops at the north and south ends. Figure 30
shows a closer view of the VDA. At the south end is a 10,000 square yard "pad"
(dark black area) that has been coated with several layers of Jennite J-16
driveway sealer, a product manufactured by Maintenance, Inc. of Wooster,
Ohio. This Jennite pad, as well as the natural uncoated asphalt, were both used
in a wet condition as test surfaces for the bulk of the controllability tests. In
addition, a number of controllability tests were conducted on an ice surface
that was "constructed" on the VDA. A 5000 gallon water truck with a 16 foot
wide gravity fed spreader bar (Figure 31) was used to wet the asphalt and
Jennite test surfaces before each test run. The water truck was also used to
make ice. By driving the truck repeatedly over the surface in subfreezing
weather at night, a layer of ice could be bUilt-up. An ice thickness of 1/4 to 1/2
inch was developed in an 8 hour night shift and was available for use in the
morning. Figure 32 shows the ice pad. Usually about mid-day, if it was sunny,
the ice would melt and deteriorate due to solar radiation. This would happen
even though temperatures remained below freezing.
The ice pad was put down over the Jennite pad because of the convenience of
the pad's location on the VDA and the availability of brightly marked lane
boundaries which could be seen through the ice for setting traffic cones.
Unfortunately, this arrangement accelerated the melting of the ice. Because
-139-
2
1200 ft x 1800 ft Asphalt VDA 10,000 yd Jennite Pad
. ~ .'
. ~ .:..-' .:...-- ... , .
FIGURE 30
Close up of 50 Acre Vehicle Dynamics Area (VDA)

10,000 yd 2 Jennite Pad is at Right (South) End
-140-
''''e'
~\,;\[1
'. ",,'
...
<=-----"""-:;.-:'..... '~~:-~:'".~,:.::-;:;:~
--
'J -...:
-'
'\
'"
l -4-
!.t-\
~,"~"l
,
,.
: "
-
...-: ,',.
" ..... '. "."

".;;
"
,
..
" ~ ,,.
FIGURE 31
5000 GaJlon Water Truck with 16 ft. Gravity Feed Bar Used
to Wet Surfaces for Controllability Tests and for Making Ice Surface
-141-
'i~.•:.'l~'-~:;~~·-~~~ ~':' "'~. t' :" 1'-
'<""'--.'
,
. -.
. ~:
;'<
,;".' ' .. : 'I,.,
FIGURE 32
Test Vehicie 16 After Braking in 500' Radius Turn on Ice

Inl tial Speed 18 mph (.04 g)
-142-
the Jennite is very dark black, it would absorb the sun's radiation as it passed
through the clear ice creating a "greenhouse" effect. Had the ice been installed
over the gray asphalt, life of the ice pad would have been longer. In any event,
the limited life of the "pad" restricted the number of controllability tests on
the ice surface.
It should be noted that the VDA has a constant 1 percent slope running from
north to south <south is low end) and a negligible slope from east to west. The
lane changes were oriented with the lanes running west to east such that the 1
percent slope was across the lanes with the low side to the right of the vehicle.
This would be similar to a lane change on a crowned four lane road where the
driver moved from the "curb" lane to the passing lane. The split coefficient
straight line maneuver was also oriented on the VDA from west to east. The
lane basically straddled the south edge of the Jennite pad. Such a maneuver
would be similar to stopping a vehicle on a crowned road where the left side of
the lane was slippery.
The curves where situated such that at the point of initial braking, the vehicle
was running basically west to east. This resulted in a curve with a "negative
super elevation" which is somewhat unusual on actual roads. The effect of this
layout was to subject the vehicle to an additional O.Olg lateral acceleration
while in the turn due to the side slope.
While "negative super elevation" is unusual on actual roads, it does not make
the maneuver unrealistic. It would be equivalent, from a lateral acceleration
standpoint, to running on a flat or super elevated curve at a higher speed. The
18 mph run on the ice curve with the 1 percent side slope, for example, would be
similar to a 20 mph curve on a flat surface. At higher speeds the effective
difference is less; 50 mph on the curve with a 1 percent slope translates to 50.7
mph on a flat curve.
The coefficient of friction for the three different test surfaces was periodically
checked using an ASTM skid trailer with a standard ASTM 15 inch E501
pavement friction test tire. The ASTM ilO mph test speed was reduced to 20
-143-
mph for the ice surface measurements for safety reasons; the 20 mph speed also
more closely matched the actual truck test speed of 18 mph.
The wet Jennite surface was found to be quite consistent. During a two year
period from June 1979 to August 1981 when it was used for this program, skid
number (based on an average of 60 skids at various locations on the pad for each
determination) only varied from 16.7 to 18.2. The pad which was constructed
specifically for this program was pre-conditioned by dragging it with a rubber
skid (when wet) before initial use. This dropped the skid number from
approximately 30 to the 16 to 18 range and had a stabilizing effect. It should be
noted that the wet Jennite surface is nominally referred to in this report as
having a skid number of 20.
The wet uncoated asphalt surface varied over a somewhat wider range than the
Jennite surface. It was found to have a skid number of between 60 and 70
during its use in the program. This is a relatively high coefficient for a wet
surface which is probably due to the fact that the surface gets relatively little
traffic polishing compared to an actual roadway. This surface is referred to in
this report as nominally having a skid numer of 60.
The ice surface was found to be quite variable. This is not surprising since it is
a weJJ established fact that the surface coefficient friction of ice varies
considerably with ice surface temperature. Research by the National Safety
Council Committee on Winter Driving Hazards has shown that as ice
temperature decreases from 25°F to O°F, the coefficient of friction doubles.
Since the ice surface used in this program was only 1/4 to 1/2 inch thick, it was
susceptible to significant temperature variations particularly when the sun was
shining causing the "greenhouse" effect described earlier. Because of this
variation, the ice surface was not suitable for running tests to generate
"absolute" data based on coefficient of friction. It was suitable, however, for
comparative type tests where a vehicle configuration could be alternated from
run to run. In this way the coefficient of friction variation did not significantly
bias the results.
-144-
Measurements made with the ASTM skid trailer on the ice at 20 mph indicated
that SN varied from 8 to 13 during the one month period of use (January to
February 1981). Only 4 SN determinations were made during the period and it is
expected that actual total variation during the pad's use was even greater than
the measured range.
It is interesting to note that the coefficient of friction of the ice surface,

determined by calculation from the 20 mph locked wheel stopping distance of
several of the test trucks and tractor trailer combinations, was significantly
lower than indicated by the skid trailer. The test vehicles indicated a value of
somewhere between 0.05 to 0.07 (as opposed to 0.08 to 0.13 with the skid
trailed. This appears to be in line with findings of the National Safety Council
Winter Driving Hazards Committee. Although the Committee has not
established a specific relationship between the coefficient of friction of car
tires and truck tires, a review of reports of Annual Winter Tests (References
1--8) indicates that truck tires on ice typically exhibit a coefficient of friction
equal to 50 to 75 percent of that of a car tire. This would explain the
difference between data developed with a skid trailer, which uses a passenger
car type of tire, and data developed from locked wheel stops with the test
vehicles. Loaded truck tires have considerably higher pressures at the tire/road
interface which causes greater melting at the tire/road interface, providing a
slipperier surface. This is similar to the way a skate blade works on ice.
The initial vehicle speeds run in the various maneuvers, as shown in Figure 26,
where chosen with several criteria in mind. On the ice and wet Jennite curves,
the 18 and 35 mph speeds respectively were basically the highest speeds that
could be run without sliding laterally in the lanes before braking was initiated.
Above those speeds by somewhere between 1 to 3 mph, the vehicle would not
stay in the lane no matter how braking or steering was applied. Although higher
test speeds would have been possible if the curves radii had been increased, this
option was not selected for safety considerations. Above 18 mph on the ice pad
or 35 mph on the Jennite pad, there was a possibility of skidding off the pad
onto a higher coefficient surface. Such a condition could "trip" the vehicle and
produce rollover.
-145-
For the wet Jennite lane change, the 35 mph initial speed was chosen for the
same safety reasons. The dimensions of the lane change were arrived at on a
trial and error basis. The selected dimensions were such that a braking vehicle
with a 35 mph initial speed and little or no wheel lockup could just make it
through without hitting cones. This produced a "tight" maneuver that was
capable of discriminating variations in vehicle controllability.
Speeds for the wet asphalt maneuvers were selected primarily on a test safety
basis. An initial speed of 50 mph was chosen as the upper limit; however, for
some of the vehicles in some loading situations, drivers were uncomfortable at
50 mph and the test speed was reduced to 45 mph. Even so, in several cases on
the wet asphalt surface vehicles tipped to the point that a wheel or wheels left
the ground. On the wet Jennite and ice surfaces, rollover was not a concern
due to the fact that tire side forces saturated at a level below that required to
produce rollover.
4.2 Test Procedure
When running the directional controllability evaluation maneuvers, test drivers

were instructed to stop the vehicle within the test lane in the shortest possible
distance. Although no direct restrictions were placed on wheel lockup, the
driver could not maintain the vehicle in the test lane if all wheels on an axle (or
tandem) locked for any appreciable period of time. The driver was free to
modulate the brake control and steer as necessary. Ir. order to minimize driver
variable effects on the test data, six replicate runs were made for each test
condition and vehicle front brake configuration. During these six runs, the
driver was encouraged to "push" the vehicle to its limit of control. To ensure
that the limit braking performance of the vehicle was reached, one or more of
the six test runs usually went beyond the control limit and resulted in the
vehicle leaving or coming very close to leaving the test lane due to too much
wheel lockup. This was not always done on the high speed (45 and 50 mph) high
coefficient (60SN) manuevers (particularly the curves run with loaded vehicles)
due to vehicle lean and the possibility of rollover. In several cases, the data for
the 60S N surface tests does not show expected differences in performance
-146-
between various loaded vehicle configurations and this is attributed to the fact
that a driver will only push a vehicle so far (to his "confidence" limit) regardless
of the capability of the vehicle. This phenomena did not appear to occur to any
significant degree during the Jennite or ice surface maneuvers.
The same driver was utilized for all tests with a given vehicle when various
configurations of front axle braking were being compared. This was done to
eliminate driver effects from the comparisons. Two VR Te drivers conducted
the bulk of the controllability tests and became quite proficient at the
maneuvers. Although it could be argued that this made them unrepresentative
of actual over-the-road truck drivers, their skill level enhanced rather than
detracted from the value of the tests. Scatter was minimized, repeatability
was good and the drivers could usually detect relatively small differencs in
vehicle performance capabilities that would be obscurred if less experienced
drivers were used. In any event, tests conducted (Section 4.6) with a number of
professional truck drivers supported findings from the skilled test driver
experiments.
The sequence of tests was set up for each vehicle so that all front brake
configurations were evaluated on a given maneuver before progressing to the
next maneuver. Some of the configuration changes were simple: a valve was
operated or by-passed. Others involved changing brake chambers and required
more time. To eliminate bias in the data, such as that due to the driver
learning curve, weather conditions, test surface variation, etc., the order of
changing front brake configurations was randomized. As was mentioned above,
the surface variations on the ice pad were so great that only those
configuration changes that could be easily made and alternated on a run to run
basis were evaluated on the ice.
Initial brake lining temperature during the tests was kept in the 150 to 200°F
range just as it was in the straight line stopping distance tests. This eliminated
the possibility of changes in brake torque due to brake temperature variations.
In most cases, cooling time between runs was only required in the 45 or 50 mph
loaded vehicle tests. In other cases, energy input to the brakes was relatively
low.
-147-
4.3 instrumentation
Vehicles evaluted for directional controllability were equipped with the same
instrumentation package (Section 2.3) used for the straght line tests and the
same measurements were made. Vehicle stopping d:stance was the primary
measurement in the controllability tests just as it was in the straight line
stopping tests. It is reasoned that if a vehicle has directional control1ability
problems during braking, lit wl!l take longer to stop while maintaining the
desired path. If the driver cannot steer well, for example, while trying to stop
a vehicle with too much front ax!e braking, he would reduce braking to regain
steering control and stay in his lane; reduced braking would result in longer
stopping distance.
Other parameters measured in the directional controllability tests were the

maximum distance that the vehicle left the lane and the number of cones hit.
In the split f! tests~ steering whee! torque was an important measured
parameter. The strain gaged transducer shown in Figure 33 was used for these
measurements. It attaches to the existing steering wheel via three clamps and
provides a "secondary" steering wheel severa! inches above the existing wheel
which the driver uses to steer the vehicle. The transducer shown in Figure 33
was designed original!y for passenger cars and was adapted for trucks by
attaching a larger diameter wheel to the original passenger car size steering
wheel whee!.
All control1ability test runs were video taped w~th a single elevated camera
(approximately 15 to 16 feet from the ground) in order to provide a means of
reviewing overall vehicle behavior during test runs. The camera was situated
and panned so that !t provided a iront three quarter view of the vehicle during a
major portion of the test run. These video tapes were quite useful in evaluating
how directional control was lost and which axle or axles lost lateral stability
first. Invariably~ the axle which locked aU of its wheels first, as determined by
the on-board instruments, could be seen in the videotapes to be responsible for
loss of control. With only one wheel locked and the other rolling, however,
stability of the axle was maintained.
-148-
FIGURE 33
Steering Wheel Torque Transducer Utilized to Measure Steering Wheel Pull
-149-
4.4 Test Vehicles
Table 16 lists the ten vehicles selected for directional controllability tests and
shows the various front brake configurations and test loadings that were
evaluated. The maneuvers run with each test vehicle are also given in Table 16.
Not all loads and maneuvers were run with each front brake configuration. The
right hand column in Table 16 indicates the total number of combinations of
front brake configurations, loads and maneuvers that were run with each
vehicle. Since for each of these combinations, five or six replicate test runs
were made, the total number fo test runs for this portion of the pogram was
about 1000. Nine of the ten vehicles shown in Table 16 were subjected to some
form of curve and lane change maneuver. Of these nine, two (Vehicles II and 15)
were additionally subjected to the split Il, straight lane steering pull maneuver.
The tenth vehicle (Vehicle 17) was run in the steering pull maneuver only.
Where possible, lIadverse loadingll (very rear biased loading) with a low center of
gravity and very low coefficient of friction surfaces were included in the test
matrix. These test conditions minimize front wheel loading and promote front
wheel lockup. Placement of the load rearward minimizes the static load on the
front axle; a low center of gravity height and a low surface coefficient of
friction minimize weight transfer due to inertial forces.
As can be seen in Table 16, five of the test vehicles (Vehicles 6, 7,11, 15 and 16)
were tested on ice. These five vehicles represented a cross section of vehicle
configurations. The post-121 4x2 truck (Vehicle 6) and the pre-121 6x4 truck
(Vehicle 7) were tested on the ice (and on the wet Jennite) with lIadverse
loading". The center of gravity height to wheelbase ratio (CGh/wb) for the
trucks was reduced from the 0.45 (Vehicle 6) and the 0.44 (Vehicle 7) values
specified in Table 2 to 0.35 in both cases. Although this ratio could have been
reduced even further (to approximately 0.30) by using steel plates instead of
concrete blocks, it is doubtful that the difference in performance would have
been measureable.
-150-
TABLE 16
Test Vehicles, Front Brake Configurations, Loads and Maneuvers
EvaJuated 1n Directional Controllability Experiments
Front Brake, Load,

Vehicle Front Brake Configurations Vehicle Loadings Maneuver Combinations
Number Vehicle Evaluated Evaluated Maneuvers Utilized Evaluated
Pre 121 IH School Bus -Original Equipment Only -Empty -Wet Jennite Curve and Lane Change 8
-GVWR -Wet Asphalt Curve and Lane Change
2 Post 121 IH School Bus -Original Equipment Only -Empty -Wet Jennite Curve and Lane Change 8
-GVWR -Wet Asphalt Curve and Lane Change
5 Pre 121 IH 4x2 Truck -W/O Manual Limiting (Dry Road) -Empty -Wet Jennite Curve and Lane Change 14
-W/Manual Limiting (Slippery Road) -GVWR -Wet Asphalt Curve and Lane Change
6 Post 121 Ford 4x2 Truck -Type 9 Chambers (DE) -Empty -Wet Jennite Curve and Lane Change 28
-Type 16 Chambers -GVWR -Wet Asphalt Curve and Lane change
-Type 24 Chambers -Frt-Empty, Rear GAWR -Ice Curve
7 Post 121 GMC 6x4 Truck -Type 20 Chambers W/ALV (DE) -Empty -Wet Jennite Curve and Lane Change 32
-Type 20 Chambers W/O ALV -GVWR -Wet Asphalt Curve and Lane Change
-Type 30 Chambers W/O ALV -Frt-Empty, Rear GAWR -Ice Curve
-No Front Brakes
U"1
11 Post 121 Peterbilt -Type 20 Chambers W/ALV (DE) -Bobtail -Wet Jennite Curve and Lane Change 37
4x2 Tractor -Type 20 Chambers W/O ALV -W/Empty Si ngl e -Wet Asphalt Curve and Lane Change
Axle Trailer -Ice Curve
-Type 30 Chambers W/O AlV -W/Loaded Single -Spl it p Straight Lane
Axle Trailer
15 Post 121 IH 6x4 Tractor -Type 20 Chambers (DE) -W/loaded Two -Wet Jennite Curve and lane change 15
-Type 24 Chambers Axle Trailer -Wet Asphalt Curve and lane Change
-No Front Brakes -Ice Curve
-Split p Straight lane
16 Post 121 Western Star -Type 9 Chambers W/ALV (DE) -W/loaded Two -Wet Jennite Curve and Lane Change 11
6x4 Tractor -Type 9 Chanmbers W/O ALV Axle Trailer -Ice Curve
-Type 16 Chambers W/O AlV
-No Front Brakes
17 Post 121 White -W/ALV (DE) -IOLoaded Two -Split p Straight Lane 3
6x2 Tractor -W/O AlV Axle Trailer
-No Front Brakes
19 Post 121 Stuart. Stinger -W/ALV (DE) -Empty Combination -Wet Jennite Curve and Lane Change 14
Auto Hauler ' -W/O ALV -loaded Combination -Wet Asphalt Curve and Lane Change
The post-121 4x2 tractor (Vehicle 11) and post-l2l 6x4 tractors (Vehicles 15 and
16) tested on the ice had relatively low static front axle loadings because their
fifth wheels were centered above or only several inches ahead of the rear axle
(or tandem axle) centerlines. Essentially all of the trailer kingpin weight was
carried on the tractor's rear axles; front axles remained at their bobtail weight
level. The center of gravity (C.G.) height of the loaded trailers was 66 inches
which is the C.G. height specified in FMVSS 121 for control trailers. Although it
would have been possible to reduce center of gravity height approximately 5 to
10 inches by using steel plates instead of steel blocks, the effect on
performance probably would not have been detectable. In any event, 66 inches
represents the lower end of the range of CG heights found on most trailers in
service.
Test weights and center of gravity heights for the five vehicles in Table 16 that
were not tested on the ice were basically the same as those used in the straight
line stopping distance tests described in Section 2.0, Table 2 lists axle loads
and C.G. height to wheelbase (CGh/wb) ratios for each of the test vehicles,
The ten vehicles used in the directional controllability experiments were tested
with the same braking systems (Table 2) that were used in the straight line
performance tests (Section 2.0) and brake distribution tests (Section 3.0). As in
the earlier tests, all antilock systems were disconnected, Since no brake lining
changes were made, linings were fully conditioned by a 500 stop FM VSS 121
500 c F burnish as well as the large number of straight line test stops described in
Section 2.0, The only modifications made for the controllability tests were
those made to the front axle braking level as shown in :able 16.
Safety cables such as those shown in Figure 34 were used on the tractor trailer
combinations in the controllability tests. These cables, which limited the
articulation angle to approximately 20°, prevented vehicle damage and
protected the test driver. It has been determined (Reference 1) that
approximately 15° is the point beyond which it is difficult for a driver to
recover from a jackknife situation. Thus, in a controllability test when the
safety cables became tight (identified by a very distinct jolt), it was assumed
-152-
!
-'-. !
'"
L
;
j
,f
f
,
..------_.. ..:........:.--
~ ,
·FIGURE 34
"I r Articulation Angle

Safety Cables Used to Limi t Tractor to TraLe
-153-
that a jackknife would have occurred had the cables not been used and the
event was recorded on the test data sheets.
The trailers (except the auto hauler) tested in the controllability tests were the
FMVSS 121 control trailers used in the straight line stops in Section 2.0. For
the controllability tests, however, the antilock systems on the trailers were
disconnected. Since trailers did not have operational antilock, they were
responsible in a few cases for initiating loss of control via the trailer swing
phenomena. The auto hauler tractor was tested with the auto hauler trailer and
this trailer's axles consistantly locked before any of the tactor axles under all
loading conditions on all surfaces.
4.5 Test Data and Discussion of Results
4.5.1 General Discussion
Detailed data from the controllability tests is included in Appendix D. For each
test run the data sheets give the corrected stopping distance, sustained control
pressure, traffic cones hit, distance out of lane, ("Nip" means cones just lightly
contacted), whether jackknife occurred (safety cables tight) and which axle (or
tandem) locked all of its wheels first ("NL" means no lock). For each set of
runs (usually six), the data sheets also provide a summary showing the best
in-lane stopping distance, the average in-lane stopping distance and the overall
average stopping distance.
For reasons given in Section 4.3, in-lane stopping distance was used as the
primary parameter to evaluate controllability. Comparisons of controllability
of various front brake configurations were made using both the best in-lane
stopping distance and the average of the in-lane stopping distances and it was
concluded that use of either value produced essentially the same conclusion. In
59 out of 62 comparisons made, the front brake configuration that produced the
lowest best in-lane stopping distance also produced the lowest average in-lane
stopping distance. In the three cases where disagreements occurred, the
differences between the best and average stopping distances were relatively
154
small indicating that there was effectively no difference in performance
between the front brake configurations being compared. In the discussions
which follow, only best in-lane stopping distance data is given to reduce the
bulk of the data presented.
Tables 17 through 24 present the performance data on the nine test vehicles
subjected to the controllability tests with various front brake configurations.
Table 17 presents the performance data for both IH school buses (Vehicles I and
2). The performance data for all of the other vehicles tested in the
controllability tests is in a similar tabular format, the only difference being
that Table 17 compares two vehicles, whereas the other tables in this section
compare various front brake configurations of a given vehicle. For the buses, it
was easier to compare vehicles rather than change brake configurations since
the buses were already instrumented and identical except for their brake
systems. The same driver was used to run both vehicles on a randomly
alternating basis to avoid bias in the data due to test driver skill level.
Since Table 17 is similar to Tables 18-24, it is important to understand the

layout of Table 17 and the type of data that it includes. Table 17 lists the eight
maneuver/load combinations run on the buses; the combinations are listed in
order of increasing demand for front axle braking. The column marked IIIdeal %
Front Braking" shows the lIideal ll percentage of braking on the front axle for the
specified coefficient of friction surface and vehicle loading. Equations 3.5 and
3.10 of Section 3.0 which are based on the straight line stop case were utilized
to calculate this value. The coefficient of friction utilized in these calculations
was approximated as being equal to the ASTM skid number divided by 100.
In terms of performance data, the primary parameter presented in the tables is

in the column marked IIBest SDII and represents the stopping distance for the
shortest in-lane stop in a series of stops (usually six) conducted under a given
load/maneuver condition for a given front brake configuration. For comparison
purposes, the stopping distances have been corrected to the target test velocity
using the standard correction equation given in Section 2.5. The tables
155
TABLE 17
Performance of Pre and Post 121 School Buses (Vehicles 1 & 2)
in Controllability Tests
Vehiel e
Pre 121 Bus Post 121 Bus
Test Conditions (Vehicle 1) (Vehicle 2)
Ideal % First Best First Best
Speed Front A Axle to SO A Axle to SO
Maneuver J!!!2!!l Loadin!! Brakin!! T Lock (ft) T Lock (ft)
20SN Lane Change 35 GVWR 36 .56 R 186 1.11 F 171
20SN Curve 35 GVWR 36 .56 R 188 1.11 F 172
60SN Lane Change 50 GVWR 44 .45 R 175 .91 * 175
60SN Curve 45 GVWR 44 .45 R 135 .91 * 140
I *
20SN Lane Change 35 Empty 45 .44 R 186 .89 173
VI
-
0\
I 20SN Curve 35 Empty 45 .44 R 186 .89 * 160
60SN Lane Change 50 Empty 53 .38 R 186 .75 R 149
60SN Curve 50 Empty 53 .38 R 179 .75 R 155
*Both axles
appear to lock
together
Notes: 1. Shortest SO for each test condition is underlined

2. % Braking on front axle ideal is based on straight line stop case
3. Stops are best effort by driver to st~ in lane (no lock up restrictions); 5 or
6 runs were made for each configuration
4. ~ = % Braking on Front Axle, Actual/Ideal
identify the front brake configurations that produce the optimum performance
by underlining the minimum value of "Best SD" for each condition of
load/maneuver.
The tables contain two other performance measures of special interest for each
test case: the A/I ratio (ratio of the actual percentage of braking on the front
axle to the "ideal" percentage), and the first axle or tandem to lock aU its
wheels. The A/I ratio was calculated using the acutal brake distribution
information found in Appendix C and the "ideal" level shown in the tables.
Actual distribution information from Appendix C requires knowledge of the
control line pressure used in each of the "best" stops; brake distribution can
vary with control line pressure. The average sustained control line pressure for
each of the "best" stops was determined from the detailed data sheets in
Appendix D.
The A/I ratio indicates two important factors about the brake system on the
vehicle: (l) how well the brake system is balanced front to rear for a straight
I ine stop, and (2) which axle should lockup first in such stops. A value of A/I
close to unity indicates that the brake system is well balanced front to rear. If
A/I is greater than one, the front axle should lockup first and if it is less than
one the rear axle should lockup first.
The column in the tables which shows which axle locks first uses an "P" for the
front steering axle, an "R" for the rear drive axle (or tandem axle) and a "T" for
the trailer axle (or tandem axle). In some cases it was difficult to determine
via either the on-board lockup instrumentation or the videotapes of the runs
which axle locked first and lockup of front and rear axles was assumed to have
occurred simultaneously. Such cases are noted in the tables.
4.5.2 Controllability Tests
4.5.2.1 School Buses (Vehicles 1 and 2)
Table 17 shows that the post-121 bus (Vehicle 2) outperforms the pre-121 bus
(Vehicle 1) in six of the eight test conditions. In the remaining two cases
157
(60 5 N loaded tests) differences in performance were insignificant. In the 60S N
lane change at GVWR, the best stopping distances were identical. In the 60SN
curve at G VW R, the difference in best stopping distance was only 5 feet (4 %).
The differences in average in-lane stopping distances (see Appendix D) was even
smaller - only 3 feet (2%).
It is interesting to note that in the curve and lane change maneuvers on Jennite
(205 N) where requirements for front axle braking are at their minimum, the
post-121 bus with its larger front brakes (40 percent of braking on front axle)
stops significantly shorter (8%) than the pre-l2l bus (20 percent of braking on
front axle). Under this test condition the front wheels did lock first but this
caused no handling problems. The test driver actually preferred front wheel
lockup before rear because he could sense it and correct by releasing the
brakes. When the front wheels locked first, the driver felt an immediate loss of
steering response; however, when the rear wheels locked first, the driver did not
realize what was happening until it was far too late to take corrective action
and the rear of the vehicle skidded out of the lane.
Table 17 shows that the A/I ratio does a reasonable job of predicting which
configuration will perform best and which axle will lockup first. The post-121
vehicle which always had the A/I value closest to 1.0 usuaUy performed best. In
those two cases in Table 17 where A/I is greater than one (1.11), front wheel
lockup occurred first. In the four cases where both axles appear to lockup
simultaneously, the A/I is approximately 0.90. This ratio indicates that the rear
axle should have locked first, but as pointed out earlier, there is some degree of
uncertainty in determining the A/I due to (1) experimental error in the braking
distribution measurement procedure which determines the value of A and (2)
the method of estimating tire road surface coefficient of friction level used in
calculating I. Also, the value of I assumes straight line braking, and for the
non-straight line case there may be differences in weight transfer among the
various wheel positions making ideal braking distribution somewhat different.
In summary, except for the two cases where performance was essentially equal,
the post-121 I H school bus outperfor med the pre-121 bus in the braking and
158
steering maneuvers. Even on a relatively low coefficient of friction surface
(SN = 20), the considerably larger front brakes on the post-12! bus did not
appear to cause controllability problems. In the two cases en this surface
where front wheels locked before the rear, the post-l2! vehicle stopped in
shorter distances.
4-.5.2.2 Pre-121 I./.x2 Truck (Vehicle 5)
Table 18 gives directional controllability performance data for the pre-12l 4x2
truck (Vehicle 5) with its manual front axle limiting valve in the "slippery road"
(limiting) position and the "dry road" (non-limiting) position. Only seven test
conditions were evaluated on Vehicle 5. The 60SN curve at G VWR was not run
due to fear of rollover; high levels of vehicle roll angle were experienced in
preliminary runs. This particular maneuver/load condition was deleted for most
of the other test vehicles for similar reasons. It is clear from the data in Table
18 that the vehicle consistently performed better with front axle limiting valve
in the "dry road", position even on the wet Jennite (20SN) surface. Values of
the A/I ratio in Table 18 are consistent with performance measured; i.e., the
ratio was always less than one when rear axle lockup occurred first; and the
truck always performed best when the A/I was closest to 1.0. Since the A/l is
closer to 1.0 when the limiting valve is in the "dry road" position 9 use of a
limiting valve on this vehicle appears unwise; it degrades performance.
4.5.2.3 Post-12l 4-x2 Truck (Vehicle 6)
Table 19 gives performance data for the post-l2l Ford 4x2 truck (Vehicle 6),
with three different size front brake chambers~ types 9, 16 and 24. Type 9
chambers were the original equipment. This vehicle does not utilize any type of
front axle limiting valve. Tests were run under ten different load/maneuver
conditions including a very "adverse" load condition on ice * and wet Jennite.
On ice with "adverse loading", the original equipment type 9 chambers provided
the best performance. Under all other conditions, however, the higher levels of
front axle braking provided better performance. The A/I ratio was very
*A value of 0.05 was used for the coefficient of friction of ice in calculating ideal
percent of braking on the front axle.
159
TABLE 18
Performance of Pre 121 IH 4x2 Truck (Vehicle 5)
in Controllability Tests with Various Front Brake Configurations
Front Brake Configuration

with Limiting: wlo Limiting:
ll
Test Conditions II Sl i 2~ery Road II IIO Road
Ideal % i rst Best rf irst Best
Speed Front A Axle to SO A Axle to SO
Maneuver l!!!E!!.l. Loadins: Braking T Lock (ft) T Lock eft)
20SN Lane Change 35 GVWR 42 .62 R 247 .85 R 214
20SN Curve 35 GVWR 42 .62 R 266 .85 R 217
20SN lane Change 35 Empty 52 .50 R 279 .98 R 200
20SN Curve 35 Empty 52 .48 R 277 .77 R 200
I
0"- 60SN lane Change 45 GVWR 60 .33 R 185 .50 R 177

a
-
I
60SN lane Change 45 Empty 62 .42 R 185 .56 R 149
60SN Curve 45 Empty 62 .37 R 179 .55 R 147

3. Stops are best effort by driver to stay in lane (no lock up restrictions); 5
or 6 runs were made for each configuration
5. Vehicle has 2800 # load Frame when Empty
TABLE 19
Performance of Post 121 Ford 4x2 Truck (Vehicle 6)
Front Brake Configuration

Type 9 Chambers Type 16 Chambers Type 24 Chambers
Test Conditions (OE)
raeaT""Y Fl rst Best FIrst Best First Best
Speed Front A Axl e to SO A Axle to SO A Axle to SO
Maneuver l!!!E!!l. Loading Brakin~ T Lock (ft) T Lock (ft) T Lock (m.
Ice Curve 18 F-EW, R-GAWR 25 .92 R 96 1.48 F 135 Not Run
20SN Lane Change 35 F-EW, R-GAWR 30 .70 R 212 1.07 F 180 1.43 F 183
20SN Curve 35 F-EW, R-GAWR 30 .70 R 189 1.03 F 172 1. 37 F 190
20SN Lane Change 35 GVWR 42 .50 R 202 .69 R 184 .93 F 207
20SN Curve 35 GVWR 42 .60 R 212 .71 R 198 1.14 F 204
20SN Lane Change 35 Empty 49 .51 R 257 .86 R 180 .82 R 194
20SN Curve 35 Empty 49 .51 R 240 .82 R 201 .86 R 168
60SN Lane Change 45 Empty 59 .37 R 169 .56 R 132 .64 R 141
60SH Curve 45 Empty 59 .32 R 172 .56 R 139 .68 R 132
0-
60SN Lane Change 45 GVWR 60 .35 R 159 Not Tested .70 R 140

3. Stops are best effort by driver to stay in lane (no lock up restrictions); 5 or 6 runs were made for
each configuration
5. Empty truck has 2800# Load Frame
reliable in predicting which axle locked first; the only exception was a case
where the A/I was 0.93 and the front axle locked first. The ratio was less
reliable in forecasting which front brake configuration would provide the best
performance. For three of the ten test conditions, the configuration with the
value of A/I closest to unity was not the best performer. The reasons for these
deviations from the expected are not known but it is suspected that the driver
simply did not utilize the ful1 capability of the vehicle in these cases.
Table 19 indicates that type 24 front chambers would result in too much brake
torque and premature front wheel lockup on low coefficient surfaces. Type 16
chambers, however, provide a significant improvement over the original
equipment type 9 chambers under aU conditions except when the vehicle is on
ice with an "adverse'l load.
It should be noted that without antHock or some means of changing brake

proportioning with axle load, the sizing of the front and rear brakes is a
compromise. In this country, standard practice on trucks has been to distribute
braking for optimum performance in a loaded condition on low coefficient
surfaces and this appears to be the case for Vehicle 6. Unfortunately this
practice results in less than optimum performance on higher coefficient of
friction surfaces particularly when the vehicle is empty. Not only are stopping
distances longer under these conditions, but the rear wheels lockup at
considerably lower control line pressures than the fronts. Wiih only rear wheels
locked, the vehicle is unstable and tends to spin out (as opposed to traveling
straight ahead without steerabillty when only the front wheels only are locked).
Use of type 16 front chambers on vehicle 6 would provide a brake distribution

closer to the vehicle weight distribution based on front and rear GA WRs (33
percent of the vehicle weight is on the front axle), With the O.E. type 9
chambers, only 20 to 25 percent of the braking is on the front axle; with type 16
chambers, 30 to 35 percent of the braking is on the front axle.
162
4.5.2.4 Post-121 6x4 Truck (Vehicle 8)
Table 20 gives performance data for the post-121 GMC 6x4 truck (Vehicle 8)
with four different front brake configurations: 1) Type 24 chambers with an
ALV - the original equipment (O.E.) configuration, 2) Type 24 chambers with
the AL V by-passed, 3) Type 30 chambers with the AL V by-passed, and 4) no
front brakes. Ten maneuver/load conditions similar to those run on the
post-121 4x2 Ford truck (Vehicle 6) were run on this vehicle including the
"adverse loading", ice condition. Table 20 indicates that the highest level of
front braking (i.e., type 30 chambers without AL V) produced the best
performance in aU but the ice test.
Type 30 chambers were not evaluated in the ice curve tests, but they
undoubtedly would have produced too much front braking. On the ice, the O.E.
configuration appeared best; its stopping distances was 4 % less than the type 24
chamber configuration with the AL V by-passed. If the average in-lane
distances are compared, however, the ALV by-passed configuration improved
stopping distance by 6%. This indicates that the difference in performance
between the two configurations is reaUy insignificant and that removal of the
ALV does not degrade controllability on ice even with an "adverse loading".
Removal of the AL V significantly improves performance under other conditions.
The A/I ratio is accurate in predicting which axle will lockup first in all cases in
Table 20. It also predicted in 8 out of 10 tests which configuration would
perform best. With "adverse loading" on the 20 S N curve and the 20 S N lane
change maneuver, the type 30 configuration (A/I ;; 1.29) had a shorter "best
stop" than the type 24 without AL V configuration (A/I = 0.92) but only by about
2%. If the average in-lane stopping distance data is compared for the lane
change, the type 30 chambers performed better by about 3%. For the curve,
however, the average in-lane data indicates a 4% improvement with the type 24
chambers which is consistent with the A/I values. Practically speaking,
differences in A/I values and performance data in these two cases are probably
of the same order of magnitude as the experimental error.
163
TABLE 20
Performance of Post 121 GMC 6x4 Truck (Vehicle 8)
front Brake Configuration

No Front Brakes Type 24 Chambers --Type~ Chambers T,Ipe 30 Chambers
Test Conditions W/AlV (OEI W/O AlV WID AlV
lOean Ffrst Best Flrst Best Flrst Best Flrst Best
Speed front A Axle to SO A Axle to SO A Axle to SO A Axle to SO
Maneuver (mph) Loading Braki~g T lock (ft) T lock (ft) T ~ (!.!1. T lock (ft)
Ice Curve 18 f-EW, R-GAWR 19 0 R 131 .79 R 108 1.37 f 113 Not Run
20SN lane Change 35 f -EW, R-GAWR 24 0 R 331 .58 R 279 .92 R 250 1.29 f 244
20SN Curve 35 f-EW, R-GAWR 24 0 R 331 .58 R 296 .92 R 252 1.29 f 249
I 20SN lane Change 35 GVWR 31 Not Run .45 R 285 .77 R 256 .97 R 241
....
0'- 20SN Curve 35 GVWR 31 Not Run .45 R 295 .77 R 262 1.03 f 261
~ -
I 60SN lane Change 50 GVWR 45 Not Run .44 R 264 .44 R 247 .51 R 220
20SN Lane Change 35 Empty 48 Not Run .33 R 282 .54 R 249 .71 R 216
20SN Curve 35 Empty 48 Not Run .31 R 328 .54 R 276 .71 R 256
60SN lane Change 50 Empty 58 Not Run .26 R 306 .40 R 272 .52 R 247
60SN Curve 50 Empty 58 Not Run .26 R 268 .40 R 233 .52 R 228
EW = Empty (unloaded) Weight
Notes: 1.Shortest SO for each test condition Is underlined

2.% Braking on front axle ideal is based on straight line stop case
3.Stops are best effort by driver to stay in lane (no lock up restrictions); 5 or 6 runs were made for
each configuration
A = % Braking on Front Axle, Actual/Ideal
4. T
5. Empty truck has 2800# Load frame
It would appear from Table 20 that removal of the ALV and use of type 30
chambers would provide a viabJe system. Unfortunately, because no lI adverse
loading" tests were run on ice with this configuration, the performance penalty
in this condition is unknown. In alJ other cases, however, performance appears
to be superior. In any event, removal of the ALV only, without changing
chamber sizes, would unquestionably result in better performance. WIthout the
ALV, braking distribution at low brake application pressures is much closer to
the distribution of the GA WR's where 24 percent of vehicle weight is on the
front axle. With the valve, the percentage of braking on the front axle is only
12 to 20 percent; without it the percentage is 18 to 25 percent. if type 30
chambers replace the type 24 chambers, braking on the front axle increases
further (22 to 33 percent).
Removal of the front brakes entirely on the GMC 6x4 truck appears to offer no
advantages in terms of stopping performance even on ice. Thi.s particular
configuration was run in order to investigate the claims made by many of the
truck users to the effect that such a configuration was more control1able on
slippery surfaces, Table 20 clearly indicates that this is not the case,
4.5.2.5 Post-121 4x2 Tractor (Vehicle 11)
Table 21 presents the performance data for the post-12l PeterbHt 4-x2 tractor
(Vehicle 11) with three different front brake configurations: m type 20
chambers with an ALV - the O.E. configuration, (2) type 20 chambers with the
ALV by-passed, and (3) type 30 chambers also with the AL V by-passed. Twelve
maneuver/load conditions were run including the curve on ice with a loaded
trailer. This tractor had its fifth wheel fixed six inches ahead of the rear axle
center line, so that with a loaded trailer attached the front axle only increased
in load by 600 pounds (7%). This vehicle was tested with a loaded trailer, an
empty trailer and as a bobtail tractor. The "ideal" percentage of braking on the
front axle varies from 35 percent in the fully loaded mode on ice to 80 percent
in the bobtail mode on the 60SN wet asphalt surface. The idea.l level would be
even higher ( 85 percent) on a dry high coefficient surface. This range is
typical for short wheelbase two axle tractors and indicates the difficulty in
optimizing braking performance with a fixed brake distribution.
165
TABLE 21
Performance of Post 121 Peterbilt 4x2 Tractor (Vehicle 11) & Great Dane Single Axle Trailer
Front Brake confi~uration

Type 20 Chambers Iype 20 Cambers Type 30 Chambers
Test Conditions W/ALV (OE) W/O ALV W/O ALV
Ideal '.t First Best Flrst Best Flrst Best
Speed Front A Axle to SO A Axle to SO A Axle to SO
Maneuver Loading Brakin!! T Lock (ft) T Lock (ft) T Lock (ft)
~
Ice Curve 18 GVWR* 35 .40 R 213 1.17 F 179 Hot Run
20SH Lane Change 35 GVWR 40 .82 R 248 1.05 F 213 1.20 F 230
20SH Curve 35 GVWR 40 .90 R 201 1.08 F 188 1.25 F 268
60SH Lane Change 50 GVWR 52 .71 R 179 .71 R 170 .85 F 175
20SH Lane Change 35 Empty Rig 58 .50 T,R 277 .78 T,R 250 .84 T.R 193
20SH Curve 35 Empty Rig 58 .48 T.R 318 .79 T.R 250 .88 T.R 209
20SN Lane Change 3!i Bobtafl 67 .42 R 334 .69 R 242 .78 R 210
20SH Curve 35 Bobtail 67 .39 R 313 .67 R 258 .76 R 183
60SH Lane Change 50 Empty Rig 72 .42 T,R 289 .60 T.R 248 .69 T.R 248
60SN Curve 50 Empty Rig 72 .42 T.R 260 .58 T.R 224 .68 T.R 195
......I 60SN Lane Change 50 Bobtail 80 .36 R 297 .52 R 235 .62 R 205
0-. -
0-. 60SN Curve 50 Bobtail 80 .36 R 308 .56 R 249 .61 R 227
I
Notes: 1. Shortest SD for each test condition is underlined

2. '.t Braking on front axle ideal 1s based on straght line stop case
each configuration
4. 4= '.t Braking on Front Axle, Actual/Ideal
5. GVWR loading is actually somewhat less than GVWR due to fact that fixed fifth wheel prohibits front
axle from reaching rated load (GAWR) when rear axle 1s at GAWR. Trailer axle 1s at 18.000 pounds at
this loading
6. With empty rig, lockup is trailer axle first then tractor rear axle (T,R)
As was the case with the GMC 6x4 truck, Table 21 indicates that removal of the
ALV clearly results in a performance improvement in all cases. Even when
loaded and on the ice curve, the improvement is significant: 213 feet with the
valve versus 179 feet without it. The type 30 chambers without ALV apparently
provide too much braking for the loaded condition on low coefficient surfaces -
premature front wheel lockup results in longer stopping distances. Type 30
chambers without ALV do, however, provide significant performance gains when
the vehicle is coupled to an empty trailer or is bobtail.
The A/I ratio * for this vehicle, again does a good job predicting which axle will
lockup first. In only one case out of 35 (empty 20SN lane change with type 30
chambers where A/I = 0.85) does the ratio fail to pick the proper axle. It also
does a reasonable job predicting which front brake configuration should perform
best. The only exception is the 50 mph, 60SN loaded lane change where the
type 20 chamber with the ALV bypassed (A/I = .71) stopped slightly shorter (3%)
than the type 30 configuration (All = .85); the average in-lane stopping distance
was only I % shorter. It appears that the driver simply did not feel comfortable
utilizing the full deceleration capability of the type 30 configuration when the
vehicle was fully loaded and on the high coefficient surface at a relatively high
speed.
It is again interesting to note that by removal of the AL V, the braking

distribution is closer to the GA WR distribution where 40 percent of the vehicle
weight is on the front axle. With the valve, only 12 to 30 percent of the braking
is on the front axle at low control line pressures (40 psi or less). If the valve is
removed, this percentage increases to 39 to 44 percent and if the type 24
chambers are replaced with type )0 chambers it increases to 45 to 50 percent.
"Percentages of braking on the front axle refer to percentages of tractor

braking and not total combination vehicle braking. In calculating the value I it
is assumed that the trailer braking is "ideal". When this not be the case, some
additional error is introduced into I.
167
4.5.2.6 Post-121 6x4 Tractor (Vehicle 15)
Tab!e 22 shows performance for the post-!21 rH 6x4 tractor (Vehicle 15) with
three front brake configuratons: (!) type 20 chambers - the O.E. configuration,
(2) type 24 chambers~ and (3) no front brakes, This vehicle does not use an
AL V. Performance was only evaluated in the loaded condition in five
maneuvers, These five test conditions were selected on the basis of requiring
the least amount of front axle braking. AdditionaHy, this tractor had its fifth
wheel set only three inches forward of the tandem drive axle center Hne so that
only 800 pounds of the 29,000 pound kingpin load was carried by the front axle
keeping the front axle weight relatively dose to empty weight (9600 pounds
empty versus 10,400 pounds loaded).
Table 22 shows that braking performance without front wheel brakes was the
poorest in the four conditions under which it was tested and would undoubtedly
have been the poorest in the other maneuver (20 SN-Iane change) had it been
conducted. The type 24 configuration was the best pe:former in the four
conditions under which it was tested but probably would nct have performed
best on ice since it would have had an A/I of 1.30 compared to 0.91 for the type
20 configuraton.
The A/I ratio again predicted lockup sequence except in the 20 S N lane change
maneuver when A/I was close to one (0.96). It also consistently predicted which
vehicle configuration would perform best.
Type 20 front brake chambers result in 20 to 22 percent of the braking being on

the front axl~, close to the 22 percent static weight on the front axle when all
axles are all loaded to GA WR. With type 24 chambers, 24 to 30 percent of the
braking is on the front axle,
4.5.2.7 Post 121 6x4 Tractor (Vehicle 16)
Table' 23 shows the performance of the post-121 Western Star 6x4 tractor
(Vehicle 16). Four front brake configurations were evaluated: (l) type 9
chambers with ALV - the Q,E. configuration, (2) type 9 chambers with the ALV
168
TABLE 22
Performance of Post 121 IH 6x4 Tractor (Vehicle 15) &Fontaine 2 Axle Trailer
Test Conditions
Ideal 't First Best . -Tlrst - Best Flrst Best
Speed Front A Axle to SO A Axle to SO A Ax1 e to SO
Maneuver (mph) Loadin!! Braki n!! T Lock (ft) T Lock (ft) T Lock (ft)
Ice Curve 18 GVWR 22 0 R 148 .91 R 133 Not Run
20SN Lane Chane 35 GVWR 26 Not Run .77 R 224 .96 F 207
20SN Curve 35 GVWR 26 0 R 296 .77 R 232 .96 R 222
60SN Lane Change 45 GVWR 38 0 R 242 .55 R 220 .66 R 206
0- 60SN Curve 45 GVWR 38 0 R 230 .53 R 201 .66
-0
R 179
Notes: 1. Shortest SO for each test condftion is underlined

2. % Brakfng on front axle ideal fs based on straight line stop case
3. Stops are best effort by driver to stay in lane (no lock up restrictfons); 5 or 6 runs were made for
each configuration
4. ?= ~ Brakfng on Front Axle, Actual/Ideal
TABLE 23
Performance of Western Star 6x4 Tractor (Vehicle 16) and Two Axle Trailer
Front Brake Confi!!uration

No Front Brakes Type 9 ChaiDbers Type 9 ChaiHbers Type 16 ChaiDbers
Test Conditions W/ALV (OE) W/O ALV W/O ALV
Ideal 't First Best Flrst Best Flrst Best First Best
Speed Front A Axle to SO A Axle to SO A Axle to SO A Axle to SO
Maneuver (mph) Loadin!! Braki !19 T Lock (ft) T Lock (ft) T Lock (.!!l T ~ (ft)
Ice Curve 18 F-EW, R-GAWR 20 0 R 278 .10 R 273 .40 R 253 Not Run
20SN Lane Change 35 F-EW, R-GAWR 24 0 R 261 .21 R 247 .71 R 233 1.04 R 237
20SN Curve 35 F-EW, R-GAWR 24 0 R 270 .21 R 268 .71 R 243 1.08 R 249"
c
"

2. ~ Braking on front axle ideal is based on straight line stop case
each configuration
4. * = ~ Braking on Front Axle, Actual/Ideal
5. Trailer tandem loaded to 34,000 1bs
by-passed, (3) type 16 chambers with the AL V by-passed, and (lj.) no front
brakes. These four configurations were evaluated in three maneuvers with
"adverse loading". The fifth wheel was set directly above the center of the
tandem drive axle.
Table 23 again clearly indicates that removal of the AL V improves performance

under all conditions including ice. Increasing front brak~ng even further by
installing type 16 chambers appears to degrade performance slightly (2%) on the
20 SN surface; however, this difference is withIn test measurement accuracy.
On higher coefficient surfaces or with an empty vehicle, the type 16 chambers
should provide significant improvements in performance. On ice 1 performance
with the type 16 chambers is expected to be as good as the performance with
type 9 chambers due to the relay valve on the front axle. At very low control
line pressures « 10 psj) such as those used on ice, this valve, due to its
"cracking" pressure, allowed very little pressure to the front brakes. It can be
seen in Table 23 that with type 9 chambers on ice, only lj.0 percent of ideal
front braking occurs. With type 16 chambers this would increase to
approximately 70 percent (All = 0.7) which is too low to cause premature lockup
on the front axle. Actually this value of A/I indicates better performance on
ice with type 16 chambers. As with the GMC 6x4 truck and the IH 6xlj. tractor,
removal of front brakes on this vehicle degrades performance. The A/I ratios
shown for this vehicle in Table 23 are somewhat "fuzzy" due to the fact that
the front axle relay valve cracking pressure produces very drastic changes in
actual braking distribution with only small changes in control line pressure.
Thus, brake distribution measurements made at very low (10 - 20 psi) control
line pressures have an abnormally large amount of experimental error.
With this vehicle loaded so that all axles are at GA WR, 26 percent of its weight
would be on the front axle. With type 9 chambers and no ALV, only 15 to 18
percent of braking is on the front axle (discounting pressures below 20 psi where
front braking is even lower) due to the relay valve cracking pressure. With type
16 chambers and no AL V, 23 to 27 percent of braking (at pressures above 20 psi)
would be on the front axle, a level much closer to the weight ratio based on
GAWRs.
17 !
4.5.2.8 Post-121 Stinger Auto Hauler (Vehicle 19)
Table 24 presents performance data for the post-l2l Stuart Stinger Auto Hauler
(Vehicle 19). This vehicle, which has type 16 front chambers, was tested with
and without its ALV operational under seven maneuver/load conditions. Braking
distribution information is not available for this vehicle and thus the table is
somewhat abbreviated. This vehicle, in both the loaded and empty
configurations, always locked up its trailer axles well before any other axles
and thus the driver was constantly modulating the brakes to avoid trailer "swing
out". It was virtually impossible to tell which tractor axle would fully lockup
first because the control pressure never was high enough to fully lock any of the
tractor axles. Because of the extreme sensitivity of the trailer brakes on this
vehicle and the swing out problem, scatter in performance data for this vehicle
was large. In many cases, only one or two of the six run set were within the 12
foot lane boundaries.
Table 24 indicates that removal of the ALV either improved performance

significantly or essentially made no difference; there was no indication that
removal degraded performance. A review of the detailed data in Appendix D
indicates that with the ALV removed a significantly greater number of stops in
the six run sets were within the lane boundaries.
The stinger auto hauler was of special interest because of its handling
characteristics. The rig is a unique combination vehicle in that the fifth wheel
is mounted behind the rear most axle, close to ground level. There was
speculation that such positioning of the fifth wheel would cause this type of
vehicle to be less stable in braking and steering maneuvers than a conventional
tractor semi-trailer (where the fifth wheel is usually several inches ahead of
the rear axle or tandem axle center line). There was no indication in any of the
tests that the fifth wheel location caused any particular problems. The vehicle
exhibited no tendency to jackknife while braking and steering. The only
problem experienced was the trailer "swing out" described above. This was a
braking distribution problem (too much braking on the trailed, however, and not
related to fifth wheel location.
172
TABLE 24
Performance of Stinger Auto Hauler Rig (Vehicle 19)
Front Brake Confi~uration
w/ALv (OE) wlO ALV
Test Conditions
First Best First Best
Speed Axle to SO Axle to SO
Maneuver (mph) Loading Lock (ft) Lock (ft)
20SN Lane Change 35 Loaded T 322 T 220
20SN Curve 35 Loaded T 237 T 249
60SN Lane Change 45 Loaded T 185 T 166
20SN Lane Change 35 Empty T 401 T 324
20SN Curve 35 Empty T 313 T 317
60SN Lane Change 45 Empty T 130 T 126
60SN Curve 50 Empty T 215 T 181
Notes: 1- Shortest SD for each test condition is underlined

2. % Braking on front axle ideal is based on straight line
stop case
3. Stops are best effort by driver to stay in 1ane (no lock
up restrictions); 5 or 6 runs were made for each
configuration
4. Braking distribution data not available
-173-
/i.,5.3 Steering Wheel Pull Tests
Table 25 shows the test results of steering wheel pull tests conducted on the
three vehicles. These vehicles were braked in straight line stops on a split
coefficient surface with the steering effort required to stay in line recorded
over the length of the stop. The post-l2l Peterbi!t 4x2 tractor (Vehicle 11) was
run with and without its ALV operational; the post-121 IH 6x4 tractor (Vehicle
15) was run with and without front brakes; and the post-l2l White 6x2 tractor
(Vehicle 17) was run with and without its ALV operational and without front
brakes. All three tractors were coupled to loaded trailers during these tests
and seven runs were made for each configuration. Detailed data from these
tests is included in Appendix D.
-=-able 25 presents steering wheel torque information as well as "best" and

lIaverage in-lane" stopping distances. The steering wheel torque information
given for each configuration represents the average (over seven runs) value of
the area under the steering wheel torque versus time curve during the stop.
The peak values of steering torque are not meaningful due to scatter caused by
large variations in driver reaction to the pull. The integral values shown are
effectively measures of average steering IIwork" for stops with each
configura tion.
Table 25 also gives information about steering systems on each of the vehicles.
The kingpin offset shown (sometimes called scrub radius) is defined in Figure
35. It is the distance from the center of the tire/road contact patch to the
pOint on the ground where the kingpin centerline intersects it. The values
shown in Table 25 are actual measurements (not manufacturers data) and may
be slightly (~ 1/8 inch) off due to imprecision in the measurement process. The
amount of kingpin offset affects the level of steering pull generated when there
is an imbalance in forces from left to right at the tire/road interface. The
larger the kingpin offset~ the greater the moment is about the kingpin axis due
to force developed at the tire/road interface. The differece in moments left to
right is transmitted through the steering linkage to the steering wheel.
174
TABLE 25
Results from 35 mph Straight Line Stops on Split Coefficient Surface
To Evaluate Steering Pull
Sto~~ins Distance
Integral of Steering Best in Avg. in
Vehicle King Pin Front Brake Torque vs. Time Lane Lane
Number Vehicle Steer; ni Offset (f n) Confi gUration (in-lb-sec) (ft) (ft)
11 Post 121 Peterbilt 4x2 Tractor Manual 4 WID ALV 658 127 136
W/ALV 419 123 135
15 Post 121 IH 6x4 Tractor Power 7/8 W/Frt. Brks. 181 121 129
"<.n
I WID Frt. Brks. 161 138 143
17 Post 121 White 6x2 Tractor Manual 3 1/4 WID ALV 725 125 131
W/ALV 621 128 134
WID Frt. Brks. 377 150 152
Notes: 1) 7 stops run for each configuration

2) All vehicles tested with loaded trailers
King Pin Offset
FIGURE 35
Typical Front Tire and Steering King Pin Orientation

Showing Definition of King Pin Offset
-176-
According to Reference 9, kingpin offset is designed into vehicles primarily to
reduce static steering efforts. If there is no kingpin offset, the tires must scrub
around the center of the tire patch when turned in a static condition. However,
if kingpin offset is added to the front axle geometry, the tire will tend to roll
around the kingpin axis even though the vehicle is not moving. With power
assisted steering, kingpin offset could be reduced; however, it is not normal
practice in the trucking industry to use different axles with manual and power
steering systems.
Table 25 indicates that the post-121 Peterbilt 4x2 tractor, which has manual
steering and a relatively large (4 inch) kingpin offset, stopped in about the same
distance with and without its front axle limiting valve operational. Steering
effort, however, was about 35 percent lower with the value operational (i.e.,
limiting the braking).
The post-12l IH 6x4 tractor which has power steering and a relatively small
(7/8 inch) kingpin offset stopped significantly shorter with front brakes than
without. The change in steering effort that resulted when the front brakes
were turned off was imperceptible to the driver. Steering effort, measured by
the torque transducer, indicated a 20 in-Ib-sec (I I %) reduction in effort; a smaH
amount considering the large difference in forces left to right that are present
with front brakes. even with front brakes (and no ALV) the driver was able to
make full treadle applications and stay within the lane boundaries. Table 25
indicates the absolute level of steering work on the power steered 6x4 tractor
to be about 1/4 of that of the manual steered 4x2 and 6x2 tractors without
ALVs and 1/3 with ALVs.
The post-121 White 6x2 tractor which has manual steering and a relatively large
(3 1/4 inch) kingpin offset performed similar to the post-I21 Peterbilt 4x2
tractor when the front brakes were operational. Stopping distance was about
the same with or without the ALV but steering effort decreased (14 %) when the
ALV was operational. When front brakes were turned off, the stopping distance
increased by 15 to 20 percent while steering effort decreased by 48 percent over
unlimited brakes (w/o ALV) and 39 percent over limited brakes (w/ALV).
177
Table 25 indicates that for vehicles having power steering and smaU kingpin
offsets, significant imbalance in braking forces left to right on the front axle
does not cause a control problem for the driver. On vehicles with manual
steering and large kingpin offsets, however, the driver must provide
significantly greater steering effort as the front axle braking force imbalance
increases in magnitude. For a given differential in coefficient of surface
friction left to right, larger front axle brakes require greater steering efforts.
4.6 Tests with "Typical" Truck Drivers
In order to determine if results obtained with professional test drivers were

meaningful, limited directional controllability tests were conducted using more
typical truck drivers. There was concern that the performance differences
determined in emergency maneuvers with test drivers might not exist in the
real world where the vehicles are driven by drivers who seldom have to make
such emergency stops. The International Brotherhood of Teamsters (IB T)
provided several experienced truck drivers who volunteered to participate in
tests on the same facilities and with the same vehicles utilized in the test
program. The American Trucking Associations (AT A) also provided drivers who,
although not employed as professional drivers, were involved in the
management of trucking operations and skiUed in driving heavy trucks. These
drivers evaluated vehicles with and without AL Vs and with and without front
brakes. They also evaluated three different brake proportioning systems,
several different trailer brake timing levels and an antilock system. Detailed
data from all of the tests with the AT A and Teamsters drivers is given in
Appendix E.
All testing was conducted on the 500 foot radius wet Jennite curve. Drivers
were first briefed on the scope of the tests and then allowed to drive the
vehicle they would be testing for several miles on the track to become famHiar
with it before starting the formal test series.
-178-
Drivers were asked to make three test runs with each configuration before the
configuration was changed. The order of changing the configurations was
varied from driver to driver to minimize "learning curve" bias in the data.
Table 26 summarizes the results of the tests related to different levels of front
braking and gives corrected stopping distance for the best stop made with each
configuration. Table 26 also gives the distance any vehicle left the lane and the
number of boundary cones hit. In the case where there were no in-lane stops,
the best stop is defined as that stop which was closest to staying in the lane.
Two of the vehicles (Vehicles 11 and 14) were run at 30 mph instead of the usual
35 mph for this maneuver primarily for safety reasons. Since both of these
vehicles were unloaded, it was easy to lockup wheels and lose control of the
vehicle. There was concern that these vehicles might skid off the Jennite pad
onto the surrounding higher coefficient surface.
As Table 26 indicates, the post-121 Peterbilt 4x2 tractor (Vehicle 11) coupled to
an empty single axle trailer was tested by four drivers; each one evaluated the
vehicle with and without its ALV operational. The stopping distance data
indicates that with all four drivers, the "best" stop was (3 to 23%) shorter with
the AL V by-passed. It was not clear from talking to the drivers after these
tests or reveiwing their written comments (drivers' written comments are
included in Appendix E also) whether or not they could detect the difference
with and without the ALV.
The pre-12l IH 6x4 tractor (Vehicle 14) was tested in a bobtail configuration
with and without front axle brakes. With front brakes, the manual limiting
valve was in the "dry road" position. This vehicle was only tested by one driver
who had specifically requested to drive a bobtail 6x4. It is clear that without
front brakes this vehicle takes considerably longer to stop (344 feet versus 206
feet).
The post-12l IH 6x4 tractor (Vehicle 15), coupled to a loaded tandem axle
trailer, was also tested with and without front brakes. This vehicle does not use
-179-
TABLE 26
Results of Dfrectfonal Controllability Tests with Drivers
Furnished Through ATA and the Teamsters - 500 Foot Radius Wet Jennite Curve
Best Sto~ Made

Vehicle Speed Front Brake S.D. Ft. Out Cones
Number Vehicle ~ Driver Configuration (ft) of Lane Hit
11 Post 121 Peterbilt 4x2 Tractor 30 WR W/O ALV 181 0 0

W/Empty Single Axle Trailer W/ALV 236 0 0
FB W/O ALV 246 0 0
W/ALV 254 0 0
DP W/O ALV 168 2 3
W/ALV 174 5 4
OF W/O ALV 196 0 0
W/ALV 227 1 3
I
. 0<>
-
C>
I Pre 121 IH 6x4 Tractor 30 OF W/Frt. Brks. 206 0 0
14
Bobtan W/O Frt. Brks. 344 0 0
15 Post 121 IH 6x4 Tractor 35 OF W/Frt. Brks. 265 5 7

W/Loaded 2 Axle Trailer W/O Frt. Brks. 325 0 2 nips
DP W/Frt. Brks. 288 0 0
W/O Frt. Brks. 289 2 8
FJ W/Frt. Brks. 262 0 0
16 Post 121 Western Star 6x4 Tractor 35 PT W/O AlV 285 0 0

W/Loaded 2 Axle Trailer W/ALV 305 0 0
BR W/O AlV 247 0 0
W/ALV 280 0 0
an AL V. Three drl vers ran the vehicle and aJJ three generaUy achieved better
performance with the front brakes operational. The first driver (DF) stopped
shorter with front brakes but was unable to keep the vehicle in the lane in his
three tries. He also had problems without front brakes but did come closer to
staying in the lane. This driver ran the configuration with front brakes as his
very first set of runs in the program and this may explain the difficulty keeping
the vehicle in the lane. The detaiJed data in Appendix E shows he improved
with successive runs. The second driver of this vehicle (OP) achieved
essentiaJJy the same stopping distance with and without front brakes, but
without front brakes he was not able to keep the vehicle in the lane. His stops
without front wheel brakes were made first in the test sequence. The third
driver (FJ) made in-lane stops with both configurations but clearly stopped
shorter with front brakes.
As Table 26 indicates, the post-J21 Western Star 6x4 tractor (Vehicle 16)
coupled to a loaded tandem axle trailer was tested by two drivers with three
different front brake configurations: (l) front brakes with ALV, (2) front brakes
with automatic limiting and (3) no front brakes. The "best" performing
configuration with both drivers was the fuU front brake (w /0 ALV) configuration
and the worst was the no front brake configuration. This vehicle was relatively
easy to control due to the fact that it was loaded and has a relatively long
wheelbase. Both drivers were able to make in-lane stops with aU configurations.
The results from these limited tests with the ATA and Teamsters drivers were
in agreement with the findings of the more extensive tests with the VR TC test
drivers. The three vehicles tested with and without front brakes performed
better with front brakes. The two vehicles tested with and without AL Vs
performed better without AL Vs. It is interesting to note that several of the
drivers who were initially negative about having any front brakes changed their
mind after having the opportunity to drive vehicles with and without front
brakes in a back-to-back fashion.
At the end of the testing program, aU drivers generally agreed that some level
of front braking was desirable. Although the test data for all of the drivers
-181-
showed better performance without the ALVs, drivers comments on the ALVs
were mixed. Two said they preferred the ALVs and the others either preferred
having the ALVs removed or said they could not te11 any difference in
performance without the valves.
4-.7 Summary and Conclusions - Directional Controllability as a Function of Front

Axle Braking Level
Tests were run to evaluate the effect of various front steering axle braking
levels on directional controllability. Ten of the original 19 test vehicles used in
the straight line stopping performance tests were subjected to maneuvers that
required both braking and steering simultaneously. Three basic types of braking
maneuvers were utilized: (J) braking-in-a-turn, (2) lane change, and (3) straight
stops on a differential (left/right) coefficient of friction surface. The curve
and lane change maneuvers were run on various surfaces ranging from wet
asphalt (60SN) to ice (5SN). The straight line stops were run with the left
wheels of the vehicle on wet Jennite (20SN) and the right wheels on wet asphalt
(60S N). For the curve and lane change maneuvers, vehicles were tested at
GVWR as well as empty. In addition, some vehicles were tested with "adverse
loading". For the straight stops, only loaded vehicles were evaluated.
"Best ll stop stopping distance was used as the primary parameter for evaluating
controllabili ty. It was reasoned that if a vehicle has directional controllability
problems during braking and is less controllable in one configuration than in
another, it wiU take longer to stop while maintaining the desired path. If, for
example, a vehicle has too much front axle braking, it would be necessary for a
driver to reduce braking effort in order to maintain steering control and stay in
the lane; this would increase stopping distance. In the differential coefficient
of friction straight lane tests, steering wheel torque was also an important
controllability parameter.
Although the bulk of the directional controllability testing was performed by

VR Te test drivers, 1lmited tests were also conducted utilizing more "typical"
truck drivers. Drivers provided by the American Trucking Association and the
International Brotherhood of Teamsters evaluated several vehicles in a
-182-
braking-in-a-turn maneuver on wet Jennite. These drivers essentially
confirmed the findings developed with VR TC test drivers.
Front axle braking on the test vehicles was altered in a number of different
ways to achieve different brake torque levels for evaluation purposes. Vehicles
with ALVs were tested with the valves operational as well as by-passed, those
with manual limiting valves were tested with the valves run in the "Slippery
road" (limiting) and "dry road" (non-limiting) positions. Front brake chambers
were changed on a number of the vehicles, and some three axle vehicles were
run with and without the front brakes. For school buses, differential levels of
front wheel braking were accomplished by using two identical buses with
different brake systems.
The actual percentage of braking on the front axle was determined from the
brake distribution measurements made in Section 3.0. The ideal percentage for
front axle braking for each test condition was determined using equations 3.5
and 3.10. Dividing actual percentage of braking on the front axle by the ideal
percentage produced a ratio A/I, which is indicative of how well the brake
system was balanced for specific straight line stops.
Results of the controllability tests indicated that generally those configurations

that had A/I ratios closest to one provided optimum performance. This means
that brake systems that are well balanced for straight line stops on a given
surface are also well balanced for other braking maneuvers on the same
surface. The significance of this finding is that non-locked wheel performance
in straight line stops is also a measure of stopping performance in the
non-straight line stops. Reference 10 reached similar conclusions based on a
series of tests on 1976 - 77 model year passenger cars. These findings justify
the use of straight line stops with no-lockup or "limited lockup" criteria as a
satisfactory means of evaluating vehicle braking performance in general. It
must be recognized, however, that straight line stops on a single coefficient of
friction test surface would not be sufficient to insure adequate braking
performance under all conditions; a range of surfaces must be used.
-183-
Without the aid of antilock systems or brake proportioning valves, braking
distribution is a compromise. It is essentially fixed at a level based on front
and rear brake sizing and, as such, cannot be expected to provide optimum
performance under all conditions. Generally, truck brakes are selected so that
front wheels do not lockup before the rears under any conditions of road surface
and vehicle loading. This, in effect, means that at best, the system would be
optimized for the ice/fully loaded vehicle situation (i.e., conditions requmng
the minimum percentage of braking on the front axle). It was found in the
controllability tests, however, that many of the vehicles evaluated were so
lIunder braked" on the front axle that their performance was not optimized for
any operating conditions, including those that require minimum braking on the
front axle. AL Vs were the primary cause of less than optimum performance.
For aU five post-121 vehicles with ALVs that were tested, a significant
performance improvement resulted, even on ice with "adverse loading", when
the valves were by-passed. Also, the performance of the pre-121 4-x2 truck
equipped with a manually controlled limiting valve was improved when the
valve was placed in the "dry road" (non-limiting) position, even on wet low
coefficient of friction surfaces. The National Safety Council in their "1968
Winter Driving Test Report" (Reference 2) reached the same conclusions from
tests of a vehicle equipped with a manual limiting valve.
When the AL Vs were operational, the percent of braking on the front axle at
low control line pressures was significantly below static percent of weight on
the front axle under aU conditions of loading. With limiting valves by-passed,
braking distribution usually came closer to the GA WR distribution indicating
that the foundation brakes were sized approximately according to GA WR's. On
all of the vehicles tested, the front brake configura !ion that resulted in the
braking distribution being closest to GA WR distribution seemed to be the best
compromise for loaded vehicle braking performance on low coefficient of
friction surfaces. With vehicles empty on any surface, or at any loading on high
coefficient surfaces, a higher percentage of braking on the front axle improved
performance.
-184--
At no time during the curve and lane change maneuvers did a configuration
without front brakes appear to offer any advantage in controllability. In all
cases, in-lane stopping distance was significantly longer without front brakes.
Test drivers preferred brake configurations where the front axle was the first
axle to lockup. In this situation, it was easy to detect via the immediate lack
of steering response that too much braking was being applied and corrective
action (i.e., modulation of the brakes to allow wheels to roll again) could be
taken before total loss of control occurred. If the rear axle(s) locked first,
drivers in many cases were not able to correct fast enough before a spin out or
jackknife occurred. It is a well known principal of vehicle dynamics that a
vehicle with its front wheels locked and rears rolling is stable, although not
steerable, and tends to travel in a straight line without yawing. When brakes
are released, steering control is regained. On the other hand, a vehicle with its
front wheels rolling and rears locked is unstable and tends to yaw. The driver
has no control over the rear axle which effectively wants to lead the front
axle. In this condition, the vehicle cannot be steered even though the front
wheels are rolling because lateral traction is needed at the rear wheels as well
as the front in order to steer. Any attempt to steer only aggravates the yaw
tendency. With short wheelbase vehicles such as truck tractors, yawing
progresses very rapidJy due to a low yaw moment of inertia. With longer
wheelbase vehicles that have high yaw moments of inertia, such as buses or
semi-trailers, the yaw motion progresses slower and more time is available for
recovery action by the driver. Due to angular momentum that is built up during
a yaw motion, releasing the brakes may not be sufficient to stop the rotation
before spin out or jackknife (in the case of a tractor) occurs.
In the steering wheel pull tests run on differential coefficient of friction

straight lanes, it was found that for vehicles with conventional manual steering,
steering pull is strongly influenced by front brake torque. With no front brakes,
steering pull is low; as front brake torque increases steering wheel pull
increases. It is theorized that this is the real reason behind
-185-
the dislike of front brakes common among many drivers. A similar situation
would occur if the brakes themselves were unbalanced due to factors such as
misadjustment or oil soaked brake linings. With power steering and low steering
kingpin offsets, the sensitivity of the steering system to unbalance at the front
wheels is dramatically reduced. Power steering and low offsets would also
minimize the hazard associated with a front tire blow-out.
Since power steering is uncommon in many truck fleets, the benefits of

increasing front brake torque for better stopping performance are offset by
steering pull problems associated with unbalance at the front wheels. During
the early stages of standard FM YSS 121 when requirements for high levels of
front axle braking existed, there were complaints related to steering wheel
puB. These complaints diminished when the stopping distance requirements of
the standard were relaxed and manufacturers started using lower torque front
brakes.
Power steering is uncommon in high mileage trucks apparently because very

Httle low speed steering is done with these vehicles and, therefore, owners feel
that power steering is an unwarrented expense. The device represents
additional maintenance costs as well as initial costs. There are also drivers who
do not like power steering because they claim it causes them to lose the feel of
the road.
It would appear that a braking distribution based on GA WR distribution is a

reasonable compromise until changes are made in steering systems. Such a
distribution would provide near optimum performance on low coefficient
surfaces with a fully loaded vehicle and, although performance would be less
than optimum at less than full load and/or on high coefficient surfaces, limit
steering wheel pull due to unbalance at the front wheels to acceptable levels
even with manual steering.
-186-
5.0 EVALUATION OF SEVERAL BRAKE PROPORTIONING SYSTEMS
In previous sections, the need for proportioning braking between front and rear
axles in accordance with dynamic axle loading was demonstrated. With brake
proportioning at or close to this ideal level, braking performance was optimized
for stops in turns as well as straight stops. Unfortunately, heavy duty vehicles
inherently experience large changes in distribution of their axle loads due to
their load carrying mission and the surfaces upon which they operate. If
braking performance is to be optimal, braking distribution must vary over a
very broad range. Truck tractors are an extreme case. Although front axle
loading changes very little going from the bobtail mode to the fully loaded
situation with a trailer attached, it is not unusual for the load on the rear axle
to change by a factor of three or more. For example, with one of the 4x2
tractors (Vehicle 13), ideal percent of braking on the front axle varied from
approximately 35 percent for the loaded vehicle on ice to 96 percent for the
bobtail configuration on dry pavement. With such order of magnitude changes,
it is easy to see why a single fixed braking distribution restricts braking
performance capabilities under some operating conditions.
Recognizing the shortcomings of a fixed distribution, White Motor Corporation

developed a pneumatic system for tractors that changes the ratio of front to
rear braking automatically when the trailer is disconnected from the tractor.
White offered this system as standard equipment on 1980 model year 4x2
tractors and as an option on 6x4 tractors. The White 4x2 tractor (Vehicle 13)
was equipped with such a system and performed well when bobtail even though
it had an extremely short wheelbase (98 inches) and a very light rear axle load
(3800 pounds). The favorable performance of the White system generated
interest in investigating this generic type of system on other vehicles under a
broader range of conditions, including low coefficient of friction surface
curves. In addition to the production White system, prototype systems
developed by Wagner and Bendix were tested. These proportioning systems
were evaluated by both VR TC test drivers and "typical" truck drivers furnished
through the Teamsters Union and the American Trucking Associations.
-187-
'.1 Description of Proportioning System Evaluated
Table 27 is a summary description of the proportioning systems evaluated. It

should be emphasized that all of these systems are "on/off" systems and not
"
load sensing, variable proportioning systems such as those used in Europe. In
the "on" mode, the systems cause brake pressures on one or more axles to be
different from the treadle valve pressure thereby changing the brake
distribution by greatly increasing the percentage of braking on the front axle.
AU of the systems have a blend-back feature so that fuB contol line pressure
can be applied to aU brakes in "hard" brake applications. The start of the
blend-back mode varies from system to system and is also a function of
available pressure in the reservoirs. With 100 psi in the reservoirs, the start of
blend-back varied between '0 and 70 psi for the systems tested. This pressure
is usuaUy above the application pressure used in most bobtail stops; however, in
the high coefficient of friction (81SN) straight stops made with these systems,
test drivers used control line pressures in this range.
The Bendix A system shown in Table 27 consists of a valve in the tractor rear
axle control line that is automaticaUy activated in the bobtail mode. When
activated, this valve reduces control line pressure to the rear axle relay valve
as shown in Figure 36. In its deactivated mode, this valve passes full control
line pressure. The Bendix system also consists of a tractor front axle limiting
valve that when the system is "off", functions like an ALV as shown in Figure
37. In the system "on" mode <bobtail mode), this valve passes full pressure to
the front axle brakes. Both the front and rear proportioning valves are
automatically activated via an inverting relay valve plumbed into the supply
line downstream of the TPV. This relay valve provides pressure to control ports
on each of the proportioning valves when the trailer supply line is vented.
The Bendix B system is identical to the Bendix A system except that it includes
an additional valve in the trailer control line on the tractor. This additional
valve is similar to the valve used in the rear tractor axle control line and when
the system is "on" reduces trailer control line pressure as shown in Figure 36.
-188-
TABLE 27
Brake Proportioning Systems Evaluated
Ssys t em Sta t us How Act i vate d How 0lperates
Bendix A prototype automatic - when Reduces control pressure

trailer disconnected to tractor rear axle
relay valve and bypasses
" front axle limiting valve
Bendix B prototype manual - driver Same as Bendix A but, in

controlled* addition reduces pressure
to trailer control line.
Wagner prototype automatic when Reduces pressure to rear

trailer disconnected axle brakes.
White/ASS production automatic when Amplifies pressure to

trailer disconnected front axle brakes and
reduces pressure to
rear axle brake.
* The system can be set up to function automatically the same as Bendix A in

the bobtail mode. Manual control is still required, however, in the
tractor trailer mode.
-189-
IOO------~------~----~------~----~
../
80
I.ii
Front Brake If."
-
Chamber
1·:7
I:"!/
en
-
~
Q)
\-
60
Trailer Control
I: :/
/.:.i'
~/i.f
::J Line
~
40
"" . .
Q)
\- ; "/
a..
; '" ..""~-:I
~ .." .~
";,~
;,,:-'.~1
20
,,~ ".;",~ ...
~
.'" Rear Brake
Ch am ber
~ .0..:,;,""
" 0 o• •
fII! .. )tt- -,-
20 40 60 80 100
Control Line Pressure (PSI)
FIGURE 36
Front and Rear Brake Chamber Pressures and Trailer

Control Line Pressure wi th Bendix Proportioning System
Activated If' Vehicle 11
-190-
100~----~------~-------r------II------Z
80
........
en 60
-
a.
Q)
'-
::l
tRQ)
40
Front aroke
a..'- Chamber
20
20 40 60 80 100
Control Line Pressure (PS~)
FIGURE 37
Front Brake Chamber Pressure wi th Bendix Proportioning System

in "Off" Mode in Vehicle 11
-191-
The Bendix B system was the only system tested which changed brake
proportioning when the tractor was coupled to a trailer. To activate the system
when the tractor is connected to a trailer, the driver must operate a manual
control valve which pressurizes control ports on each of the proportioning
valves. When activated by the driver, the tractor front axle receives full
control line pressure but the tractor rear axle and trailer brake pressures are
reduced as shown in Figure 36. The concept is for the driver to activate the
system when running empty or with a lightly loaded trailer to avoid premature
tractor rear axle and trailer axle lockup.
Both the Bendix A system and the B system were installed on the post-l21
Peterbilt 4x2 tractor (Vehicle 11). The "8" system was not installed to operate
automatically when the tractor was bobtail to simplify the temporary test
installation. For purposes of the testing, the driver simply activated the
manual control valve to initiate proportioning in the bobtail mode.
The Wagner system consists of only one valve which is installed in the tractor's
rear axle brake system. This valve takes the place of the standard rear axle
relay valve and incorporates a pressure reduction function which activates
automatically. A control port on the valve is plumbed directly to the trailer
supply line circuit downstream of the TPV. The venting of this line when the
tractor is in a bobtail mode activates the proportioning system. The Wagner
system was installed on the post-121 Ford 4x2 tractor (Vehicle 12) fo"r
evaluation. Figure 38 is a plot of front and rear brake chamber pressures with
the system activated. Since this vehicle does not use an AL V, either as
standard equipment or with the Wagner system, front chamber pressure is
always equal to control line pressure. Figure 38 shows how rear' brake chamber
pressure is reduced to approximately one third of control line pressure (up to a
control pressure of 50 psi) when· the syste m is activated.
The White ABS system consists of two dual mode relay valves that are
activated automatically in the bobtail mode. These valves, one on the front
axle and one on the rear, receive their control signal from the trailer control
-192-
100~----~------~-------r-------r----~
80
-
( J)
a. 60
Q)
\..
::s
~
Q)
~
a.
40 I~Rear Brake
J Chamber
I
20 A Frant Brake I
Chamber J
".~
.,,~
-- 20 40 60 80 100
Control Line Pressure ( PSI)
FIGURE 38
Front and Rear Brake Chamber Pressures for Wagner Proportioning System
Activated in Vehicle 12
-193-
circuit (downstream of the TPV) instead of the trailer supply circuit as was the
case with the Bendix and Wagner systems. With the White system, a signal in
the control line to the trailer, which occurs only when a trailer is attached,
causes the front and rear axle relay valves to function in a one to one or
non-ratio mode. In the bobtail mode, however, the lack of a trailer control
signal causes the front axle relay valve to go into an amplifying mode and the
rear valve to go into a pressure reduction mode. The net result is increased
braking on the front axle and reduced braking on the rear axle. Because of
these dual effects, overall braking level as a function of control line pressure is
not significantly changed.
As was mentioned earlier, the White system was installed on the post-121 White
4x.2 tractor (Vehicle 13) as standard equipment and was evaluated in the straight
line performance portion of the program. In order to further evaluate the
system (Vehicle 13 was only available for testing for a limited period), the
system was installed on the post-l 2 1 White 6x2 tractor (Vehicle 17). Figure 39
shows how the front and rear brake chamber pressures vary with control line
pressure on Vehicle 17 when bobtail. Up to the "blend-back" pressure (about 50
psi), the front chambers receive approximately 1 1/2 to 2 times control line
pressure and the rear chambers 1/3 to 1/2 of control line pressure.
The effect that each of the proportioning systems had on braking distribution
can be seen in the braking distribution curves included in Appendix C. No
attempt has been made to compare the performance characteristics of the
Bendix, Wagner and White systems since they were installed on three
significantly different vehicles. The primary purpose of the tests with these
various systems was to determine nominal performance gains possible through
use of these types of brake proportioning systems.
5.2 Test Procedure
Each of the brake proportioning systems was evaluated by a VR TC test driver in

two different types of tests. A 60 mph straight line stopping distance test
series (six stops) was run on the 8lSN surface using the standard stopping
-194-
100r-----~------_r--~._. .------~--~~
I I
I I
80
Front Brake
Chamber I"
-
en
a.. 60
II
I I
I I
-
!/
Q)
~
::::J
cJ)
cJ)
Q) 40
I I
~
a..
"
if
20 ~
A
, ", .J Rear Brake
""--..... ..,,,-- Chamber
~~---
".<tI-
,
20 40 60 80 100
Control Line Pressure (PSI)
FIGURE 39
Front and Rear Brake Chamber Pressures for White ABS Proportioning System
Activated in Vehicle 17 (Similar System in Vehicle 13)
-195-
distance test procedure described in Section 2.0 with "limited lockup". Tests
were also run on a 500 foot radius turn on wet Jennite from an initial speed of
35 mph as described in Section ~.O. The best stop was simply the one in which
the vehicle stayed in its lane and had the shortest stopping distance. For these
tests, the systems were run both in activated and deactivated in back to back
fashion. Because experienced test drivers were used, the order of running the
various configurations was not critical.
Tests were also run with the White 6x2 tractor (Vehicle 17) on a 500 foot radius
ice curve from a speed of 18 mph. For these tests, the proportioning system
was alternated on and off on a run to run basis to minimize bias due to ice
coefficient of friction variability.
Drivers provided by the American Trucking Associations and the Teamsters

Union were given the opportunity to evaluate these systems on the 500 foot
radius wet Jennite curve. For these tests, speed was reduced to 30 mph for
safety reasons. Each driver made three stops with the system activated and
three with it de-activated. The order of activating and de-activating the
systems was varied from driver to driver to minimize "learning curve" bias in
the test results.
Detailed data from tests conducted on the Bendix, Wagner and White ABS
proportioning systems by VR IC drivers is given in Appendix F. Data from tests
conducted with AT A and Teamsters drivers is given in Appendix E along with all
other data gathered with those drivers. The type of data presented in both of
these appendices is similar in for mat to that explained previously.
Table 28 summarizes the results of the 60 mph straight line stops on an 81SN
surface with VR TC drivers. This table includes information on the ideal brake
distribution for each vehicle for the test condition as well as the A/I ratio for
each vehicle configuration. Table 28 also shows which axle locks first and gives
the corrected stopping distance for the "best" stop. Vehicle 13 was actually
-196-
TABLE 28
Results of 60 mph Straight Line 81SN Stopping Distance Tests
on Brake Proportioning Systems
Ideal % Best
Vehicle Front System A First Axle SD
Number Vehicle Braking Configuration T to Lock (ft)
11 Post 121 Peterbi1t 4x2 Tractor 85 Bendi x System A .65 R 298

Bobtail Reg. System .35 R 340
11 Post 121 Peterbilt 4x2 Tractor 77 Bendi x System B .71 R 285

I
\D
- WIEmpty Single Axle Trailer Reg. System .39 R 327
I
"
12 Post 121 Ford 4x2 Tractor 78 Wagner System .55 R 284
13 Post 121 White 4x2 Tractor 96 ABS System .72 R 273

Bobtai 1 Reg. System .34 R 508
17 Post 121 White 6x2 Tractor 75 ABS System .93 R 228

WIO Front Brakes 0 R 376
tested at an earlier date during the straight line performance portion of the
program (discussed in Section 2.0) but the data is given here for comparative
purposes.
Table 28 indicates significant performance improvements in aU cases with the

proportioning systems operational. The greatest improvement occurred on
Vehicle 13 when bobtail; stopping distance decreased from 508 feet to 273 feet.
This large improvement with proportioning is not surprising since this vehicle
has the greatest demand for braking on the front axle; ideally 96 percent of
braking should be on the front axle under these conditions. AU of the vehicles,
even in the proportioning modes, lock their rear wheels first. Vehicle 17 with
the White system operational had the highest All ratio (.93) and the shortest
stopping distance, 228 feet.
Table 29 presents the results from the braking-in-a-turn tests on wet Jennite
with the VRTC test drivers. Vehicle 13 was not run in these tests. Table 29
again indicates a significant improvement in performance with the
proportioning systems operational, particularly for Vehicle 11 when bobtail
(stopping distance decreased from ~28 feet to 215 feet). Even in those two
cases where front axle lockup occurred before rear, performance was good.
The shortest stopping distance in Table 29 was recorded when front wheel
lockup occurred first, 192 feet for Vehicle 1 I with empty trailer. This vehicle,
in the proportioning mode, also had the A/I ratio closest to unity (0.98) which
means the vehicle should have had the shortest stopping distance.
Table 30 presents the data for the tests on the ice curve with the post-l 2 I
White 6x2 tractor (Vehicle 17). With the White ABS proportioning system
operational, brake balance was near ideal (All = 0.96) optimizing stopping
distance. The stopping distance decreased 33% (157 to 104- ft) with the system
operational; front wheel lockup occurred before rear but this caused no
particular problems in controlJabiJity. The All ratio predicts rear wheel lock
first but the ratio is so close to one that an accurate prediction is difficult due
-198-
TABLE 29
Results of 35 mph. 500 Foot Radius Wet Jennite Curve Tests
on Brake Proportioning Systems
Ideal % Best
Vehicle Front System A First Axle SO
Number Vehicle Braking Configuration T to Lock eft)
11 Post 121 Peterbilt 4x2 Tractor 67 Bendix System A .88 R 215

I
11 Post 121 Peterbi1t 4x2 Tractor 58 Bendi x System B .98 F 192
~
- W/Empty Single Axle Trailer Reg. System .34 R 309
~
I
12 Post 121 Ford 4x2 Tractor 62 Wagner System .69 R 205

17 Post 121 White 6x2 Tractor 58 ASS System 1.12 F 210

WIO Front Brakes 0 R 319
TABLE 30
Results of 18 mph, 500 Foot Radius Ice Curve Tests
on White 6x2 Bobtail Tractor (Vehicle 17)
Ideal ~ Best
Front A First Axle S.D.
Configuration Braking T to Lock (ft)
ABS System 54 .96 F 104

Reg. System .41 R 157
WID Front Brakes 0 R 191
-200-
to the inaccuracies in the A/I determination. Also note that stopping distance
for this vehicle essentially doubles if the front brakes are turned off. The
driver found it extremely difficult to avoid spin-out without front brakes.
Table 31 gives the results of the braking-in-a-turn tests on wet Jennite with the
A T A and Teamsters drivers. For these tests, Vehicle 11 was only tested with an
empty trailer; it was not run in the bobtail mode. For all of the vehicles with
all of the drivers, stopping distances were shorter when the proportioning
systems were operational confirming results with the VR TC drivers. None of
the four drivers were able to stop the White 6x2 tractor (Vehice 17) without
spinning it out at least once when the proportioning system was not
operational. On the other hand, none of the drivers spun it out even once with
the system operational.
As the comments in Appendix E indicate, drivers clearly liked the performance

of the vehicles with the proportioning systems operational. There were no
negative comments from the drivers with regard to the fact that front wheel
lockup occurred first on Vehicles 11 and 17 with proportioning systems
operational. In fact, it appears from the movies of the test runs of Vehicles 11
and 17 that drivers easily handled front wheel lockup. As soon as the front
wheels locked, the drivers quickly modulated the brakes to maintain steering
and stay in the Jane. Without proportioning, premature rear wheel lockup
appeared much more difficult to detect and control.
5.4 Summary and Conclusions - Evaluation of Several Brake Proportioning Systems
Four different "on/off" or discrete change type brake proportioning systems

were evaluated. They were designed for use on truck tractors and automatically
activate to decrease the percentage of braking on the rear drive axle(s) when
the tractor is bobtail. One of the systems could also be manually activated to
change the brake distribution on the tractor and reduce pressure in the trailer
control line so that the system could be used with an empty tractor-trailer
-201-
TABLE 31
Results of Tests on Brake Proportioning Systems with Drivers Furnished Through
ATA and the Teamsters - 500 Foot Radius Wet Jennite Curve
Best Sto~ Made

Vehicle Speed System S.D. Ft. Out Cones
Number Vehicle (m~h) Driver Configuration (ft) of Lane Hit
11 Post 121 Peterbi1t 4x2 Tractor 30 OF Bendix System B 241 0 0

W/Empty Single Axle Trailer Reg. System 251 0 0
DP Bendix System B 196 0 0
Reg. System 230 0 0
I
12 Post 121 Ford 4x2 Tractor 30 OF Wagner System 174 0 0
IV Bobtail Reg. System 202 0 0
0
IV
I
DP Wagner System 171 0 0
Reg. System 266 0 0
17 Post 121 White 6x2 Tractor 30 DP ABS System 179 0 0

Bobtai 1 W/O Front Brakes 322 6 3
OF ABS System 223 0 0
W/O Front Brakes 332 0 0
BR ASS System 143 0 0
Reg. System 233 0 0
HS ASS System 171 0 0
Reg. System 331 0 0
combination to avoid premature tractor rear and trailer axle wheel lockup. The
concept of a manually controlled system could also be applied to straight trucks
where drivers could activate it when the truck was empty.
AU four systems were evaluated by VRTC test drivers in 60 mph straight line
stops on dry pavement and 35 mph braking-in-a-turn maneuvers on wet Jennite.
One of the systems was also evaluated on an ice curve. In addition to the tests
with VRTC drivers, experienced over-the-road drivers evaluated three of the
systems on the wet Jennite curve. Results of the tests with both VRTC drivers
and road drivers clearly indicate that the proportioning systems provide for
improved braking performance. The systems provided brake distributions much
closer to ideaJ. With two of the systems, front wheel lockup occurred before
rear on the low coefficient surface but this did not cause any control problem.
In fact, it appeared that recovery from wheel lockup was more easily
accomplished by all of the drivers when the front axle was the first to Jock.
Although performance of the manua11y controlled system was good on the

empty tractor trailer combination and such a system would also be expected to
perform well on empty trucks, the practicality of requiring the driver to
activate the system is questionable. If the driver forgets, for example, to
disengage the system when the vehicle is fuUy loaded, premature front wheel
lockup could occur on low coefficient of friction surfaces, and, if the vehicle is
descending a mountain grade, front brakes could overheat.
Data obtained during the tests of the proportioning systems reemphasizes the
major finding of the previous section: significant performance gains can be
achieved in both straight line and curved stops if braking distribution is
modified so that it is close to the "ideal" level. Without antilock systems to
prevent wheels on an axle from locking prematurely, braking distribution
between axles is critical. On most heavy duty vehicles, particulary truck
tractors, a single fixed brake distribution that is optimal for one set of
conditons causes poor performance under other conditions.
203
6.0 THE EFFECT OF INITIAL BRAKE TEMPERATURE ON STOPPING
P~RFORMANCE
In the 1978 court decision which invalidated the stopping distance requirements
in FM VSS 121, the Court stated that the Standard did not specify a ''time
between tests" to be used in conducting stopping distance tests. In interpreting
this portion of the ruling, the N HTSA felt that the court was referring to the
fact that there was no initial brake temperature specified in the Standard for
vehic1e* stopping distance tests. In FMVSS 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems, an
ini tial brake lining temperature of 150-200°F (average temperature of the brake
linings on the hottest axle) is specified. This requirement effectively controls
the time between test stops; if stops are run too close together in time, brakes
will heat up and exceed this level. Conversely, if stops are too far apart in
time, brakes will cool below this level. Since brake lining performance is
influenced by temperature, it is desirable to control temperatures in some
fashion in order to standardize test conditions.
Although literally specifying a ''time between tests" is theoretically a good idea

because it controls brake temperature according to vehicle design, is not
practical from a testing standpoint for several reasons. First, this would cause
the brake temperature at any given stop in a series to be influenced by ambient
temperature and could produce different test results if tests are run at
different ambient temperatures. With an initial brake temperature
speCification, brakes are forced to start at the same level regardless of ambient
temperature. Second, a specified time interval would aJlow for no interruptions
in a test series and would mean that a test would have to be rerun (new linings
and possibly other new components would have to be installed) if any
interruptions did occur. This is very impractical since interruptions due to
various factors such as instrumentation break downs, other traffic on the test
track, personnel breaks, etc. are a fact of life in actual testing operations.
Finally, a fixed specified time between tests may be impossible to meet on a
particular test track due to its physical layout. Consider an oval track' where
*The Standard does specify an initial brake temperature for stops run in the brake
dynamometer portions of the Standard, however.
204
stops can only be made on the straightaways. Depending upon the length of the
curves, it may not be possible to reach the stopping area for the next stop in
the series in the specified time interval.
On the other hand, specification of a fixed initial brake temperature (or

temperature range) could be design restrictive to a certain degree. Consider
two different brake designs: one that runs "hot" and the other that runs
relatively "cooi ll • With a -specified initial brake temperature for stopping
distance tests, both brakes are forced into being evaluated at the same
temperature even though they may run at significantly different temperatures
in service.
This design restriction could be minimized, however, if a temperature level is

chosen such that it:
a) Is a reaonsable level that all designs would be expected to experience in

IInormalll service, and
b) would not unjustly favor one design over another.
In order to determine if such a level could be selected, a testing effort was

initiated and the sections which follow describe this effort and the results
obtained. In the course of this effort, the F MVSS 121 500 stop burnish
procedure (which also specifies a fixed temperature of operation regardless of
brake designs) was also evaluated to determine its degree of design restriction.
6.1 Brake Designs Evaluated and Test Vehicles Utilized
Four significantly different foundation brake system designs were selected for
test purposes: a wedge type dru'm brake system, a double anchor pin cam drum
system and two different disc brake systems. Both drum brake systems were
equipped with organic type linings and cast drums. One of the disc brake
systems utilized ventilated rotors and was equipped with a combination of
organic (front axle) and semi metallic (rear axle) linings and the other disc
brake system used solid rotors and was equipped with alJ full metallic linings.
The systems were installed on four' similar vehicles. The wedge and disc
205
systems were installed on three essentially identical 1977 IHC F4270
cOlT1verdoh1al Transtar 6x4 Tractors that were leased from the Ruan
Corporat~cn. Figure 40 shows one of the Ruan Tractors; the other two appeared
ident:calo The cam brake system was installed on the 1975 IHC 4270B COE
Transtar 6x4 tractor (Vehicle 16). On each of the vehicles, the brake systems
were identically rated for a 12,000 Ib front axle load and a 38,000 Ib rear
tandem load. In each case, new linings (or pads) and drums (or rotors) were
installed before starting the testing. Table 32 lists the test vehicles and gives
parameters for the various brake systems.
6.2 Brake Burnishing
Each test vehicle was subjected to a 500 snub burnish before starting
performance testing. In order to subject aU the brake systems to identical
burnish energy (duty) cycles, they were run in accordance with the FMVSS 121
burnish procedure except that all 500 snubs were made from 40 to 20 mph
(initial snub speed was not varied as FMVSS 121 specifies). FMVSS 121 states
that during the burnish, the first 175 snubs are run from 40-20 mph. After snub
175, the initial speed is increased by 5 mph for each succeeding series of 25
snubs to a maximum speed of 60 mph (at snub 251) or until the hottest brake
lining reaches 500°F. If this occurs, the initial speed at which 500°F occurs is
used for the remainder of the 500 snubs (adjustments in initial speed up or down
by 5 mph are permitted to keep the hottest brake lining in the 450°-550°F
temperature range).
It was known in advance from information provided by the brake manufacturers

that the disc brakes with metallic or semi-metallic linings would exceed 500°F
when running 40-20 mph snubs (they actually exceeded 1000°F in one system).
FMVSS 121 does not specify what to do when the temperature exceeds 500°F at
the lowest initial speed specified (40 mph). If initial speeds were reduced to
keep the hottest brake at 500°F it might have been necessary to go to as low as
25 mph on disc brakes with metallic linings. The drum brakes with organic
linings on the other hand would have had to be run at 50-20 mph to reach 500°F.
206
TABLE 32
Test Vehicles and Brake Systems Utilized for Initial Brake Temperature Studies
fRONl RIlAKJ.''' REAR BRAKES
Vehicle WB Brake System Type SlZe Slack Chamber Llmng SlZe Slack Chamber Llnlng
IH F-4270 178 Wedge 15x4 (Wedge) 9 ABEX 15x7 (Wedge) 12 (2) ABEX
(Ruan) 5510 5510
Organic Organi c
IH F-4270 178 Disc A 15-3/8x 2-1/4 16 Organic 15-3/8x 2-1/4 30 Semi-

I
(Ruan) 1-1/2 1-3/4 Metallic
N
o
.......
I
IH F-4270 178 Disc B 15-1/2x 5.0 12 Full 15-1/2x 5.0 24 Full
(Ruan) 1-1/8 Metall ic 1-1/8 Metall ic
IH C04070B 150 F1 at Cam Front 15x4 5.5 20 ABEX 16-1/2x 5.5 30 ABEX
(NHTSA Vehicle 16) S-Cam Rear 551C 7 551C
Organic Organic I
NOTES: 1) All brake systems rated for 12,000 lb. front/38,OOO lb. rear loadings (50,000 lbs. total).
2) All vehicles are 6x4 tractors.
· ,,;-
"'-
FIGURE 40. One of threeessentiaUy identical 6x4 Tractors leased
from Ruan for initial brake temperature studies.
-208-
A 25-20 mph snub subjects the brakes to approximately 1/9 the energy of a
50-20 mph snub. (Energy per snub is a function of the difference of the squares
of the initial and final velocities.) It did not appear reasonable to subject two
different brake designs to such different burnish duty cycles when they could be
used in service in identical applications. A much more reasonable approach for
a burnish was to "treat" all brake designs the same in terms of energy input
with out regard to operating temperature as long as the energy input level (and
temperature) is reasonable and not beyond that which would be experienced in
service. As will be shown later, the 40-20 mph snub condition along with the
other FM VSS 121 burnish parameters produces a reasonable duty cycle.
6.3 Test Procedure
After burnish, each of the test vehicles was subjected to a series of 60 mph
stopping distance tests at initial brake lining temperatures (IBn of 150, 200,
300 and 400°F. Five stops were made at each temperature with the stops
sequenced (150, 200, 300, 400, 150, 200, 300, 4-00, 150, etc.) so as to avoid bias
in the data. This minimized the effect of brake conditioning that would have
occurred if all 5 tests at a given temperature had been run before proceeding to
the next temperature.
For these tests, the vehicles were coupled to an unbraked two axle trailer with
all trailer ballast weight placed over the kingpin (i.e. none above the trailer
axles). This was done to remove the trailer brake performance as a variable
and keep the trailer brakes from masking the performance differences of the
various truck brake systems.
To eliminate driver performance and wheel lockup as possible contaminating

factors from the tests, tractors were loaded slightly above their G VWR (to
60,000 lbs except for the cam braked tractor where the load was limited to
55,000 lbs by the lack of ballast) and the service reservoir pressures were
limited to 80 psi. With such a condition the comparative stopping distance tests
could be run via repeatable full treadle applications and lockup would not limit
brake output.
209
The rear axle over loading produced a condition worse than rated from the
standpoint of brake sensitivity to IB T in stopping distance tests. With the
overload, the brakes would reach significantly higher temperatures than normal
during stops and thus IBT at which significant fade (loss of effectiveness) might
start (during the stop) would be lower.
To achieve essentially the same IB T on both front and rear axles during the
stopping distance tests, a solenoid valve was instalJed in the rear brake
sub-system to allow the rear brakes to be turned off. The test driver operated
this solenoid valve as necessary in snubs to build the brake temperature to
essentially the same level on all brakes. Normally, the front brakes would run
cooler than the rears due to their greater cooling and/or thermal capacity per
unit of energy input. Forcing all brakes to run at the same specified IBT
prevented the front to rear balance of the brake system from contaminating the
test data. The sensitivity of the overall system performance to IBT would be
greater with hotter front brakes since they would start fading at a lower
corresponding rear brake temperature.
Since brake temperatures were controlJed axle by axle instead of wheel by

wheel, there were some side to side temperature differences due to left to right
brake imbalance. Typically, the lBTs were controlled to within + 50°F of the
target temperature.
After the straight line stopping distance tests to determine the effect of IB Ts
on stopping distance, a six stop test series was run on each truck using the 60
mph stopping distance test procedure specified in section 2.0. The purpose of
these tests was to evaluate the relative stopping capabilities of the four
systems. The tractors were attached to FM VSS 121 control trailers having
operational brakes and antilock systems. For these test series, a 150-200°F IB T
was used. Tractors were loaded to approximately 11,000 lbs. on the front axle
and 38,000 Ibs. on the drive axle tandem. The control trailer's tandem axle was
loaded to 32,000 Ibs as per FMVSS 121.
The third series of tests were braking distribution tests using the procedure
described in Section 3.0.
210
Finally, each of the four vehicles were subjected to a series of three repeat
trips on a test route that originated at TRC in East Liberty, Ohio. Vehicles
traveled south east via U.S. Route 33 to the Columbus, Ohio, Beltway (1-270),
followed the Beltway to the east side of Columbus, entered and traveled city
streets of Columbus, picked up the 1-71 expressway south, re-entered the
Beltway on the south side of Columbus and returned to East Liberty via the
Beltway and U.S. Route 33. The same driver and test trailer (with operational
brakes) was used on all 12 test runs. The runs were made at the same time of
day, so that vehicles would experience the same nominal traffic conditions.
Vehicles were loaded to approximately 10,000 Ibs. on the front axle, 34,000 Ibs.
on the rear tandem axle and 32,000 Ibs. on the trailer axle (76,000 Ibs. total). In
Ohio, the maximum allowable tandem axle loading is 34,000 Ibs.
6.4 Instrumentation
Each of the test vehicles was instrumented with a fifth wheel for measuring
speed and stopping distance, a two channel recorder, two power supplies, two
pressure transducers for measuring brake pressures and 'an eight channel
mUltiplexing temperature recorder with thermocouples for measuring brake
lining temperatures. A digital temperature readout and additional
thermocouples were installed for observing trailer brake temperatures when
necessary.
6.5.1 Brake Temperature During Burnishing
Table 33 shows the temperatures recorded during the 500 snub burnish on each
tractor. The values given are the averages for the front axle (2 brakes) and
rear tandem axle (4 brakes) during the steady state portion of the burnish (i.e.,
after temperature patterns had stabilized). It can be seen from this table that
there is a wide variation in burnish temperatures. Basically, the drum brakes
with organic linings and the front disc brakes in system A with organiC linings
211
TABLE 33
Temperatures During Steady State Portion* of Burni~h
(40-20 mph Snubs on 1.0 Mile Interval at 10 ft/sec )
Lining Te~erature (OF)

__Avera9~ of Front . ~eraEe of Rear.
Lining T~Ee Before~eak During Before ~eak Durlng
System Front
--. Rear Snub Snub Snub Snub
Wedge Organic Organic 225 260 425 465
I
"-l
"-l Disc A Organic Semi-Metallic 250 300 690 900
I
Oi sc B Full Metall i c Full Metallic 480 780 650 1050

Cam Organic Organic 200 230 410 440
*After temperature patterns had stabilized.

ran relatively "cool". The semi-metallic lining used on the rear disc brakes of
system A and the full metallic linings used on system B disc brake ran relatively
hot. Although there is not enough data to conclusively determine if the brake
type (i.e., disc versus drum) or the lining type (i.e., full- or semi-metallic versus
organic) is the primary cause of the difference, a comparison of the front brake
data for the various brakes indicates that most of the difference is due to the
lining type. The system A disc front brakes with organic linings did not run
significantly hotter than the wedge and cam front drum brakes with organic
linings. The wedge and cam brakes (front and rear) ran at about the same
temperatures. The System B disc front brakes with full metallic linings,
however, ran significantly hotter than the other front brakes. Unfortunately,
there were no rear disc brakes with organic linings in the program with which to
make lining comparisons on rear brakes. Temperature rise during the snubs
with the semi-metallic and full metallic linings were very large; the rise was
greatest on the rear disc brake with full metallic material (400°F versus 210°F
for the semi-metallic materia}). With organic linings the average temperature
rise for an axle did not exceed 50°F.
Table 33 clearly indicates that different brake systems rated for the same load
may run at significantly different temperatures when subjected to identical
burnish cycles. As will be shown in Section 6.5.4, the brakes in Table 33 also
ran at significantly different temperatures in service. If these brakes were
forced to run at the same temperature in the burnish (i.e., 500°F as FMVSS 121
requires), the initial snub speed for the vehicle with disc brakes would be
considerably lower than the initial snub speeds for vehicles with drum brakes.
This would result in significantly different lining conditioning for the disc and
drum brakes even though they could be used in identical duty cycles in actual
service.
6.5.2 Effect of IB T on Stopping Distance
Table 34 shows the results of the stopping distance tests conducted at various
initial brake temperatures. The high loading of the vehicles and the 80 psi limit
on control line pressure used in these tests resulted in relatively long stopping
distances.
213
TABLE 34
60 mph Stopping Distances (ft.) Versus Initial Brake Temperatures
Combination Initial Brake Temperature (oF)

Vehicle Weight
System (Jbs.) 150 200 300 400
Wedge 59,150 403 419 415 407

386 394 380 418
392 404 411 410
395 396 403 408
377 390 428 398
AVG: 391 401 407 408
% Increase from 150°F S D: +2.6% +4.1 % +4.3%
Disc A 60,150 323 327 337 352

324 329 338 353
356 343 359 374
376 372 394 381
368 354 365 420
AVG. 349 345 359 376
% Increase from 150°F S D: -1.1 % +2.9% +7.7%
Disc B 59,980 468 463 466 463

474 481 448 460
467 440 451 470
425 433 44-1 462
44-6 454 456 470
AVG. 456 454 452 465
% Increase from 150°F S D: -0.4% -0.9% +2.0%
CAM 55,280 336 348 335 364

336 340 345 381
340 333 375 419
341 364 380 383
357 370 396 416
AVG: 342 351 366 393
% Increase from 150°F S D: +2.6% +7.0% +14.9%
NOTES: 1. Tractor-trailers with trailer brakes disconnected.

2. Control pressure limited to 80 psi -- fuJJ treadle application with
regulated reservoirs.
3. All brakes fuJJy adjusted when cold.
214
Table 34 shows that stopping distance of the vehicles is not significantly
affected by IBTs that vary between 150° and 200°F. Between 150°F and 300°F
the IBTs had a greater effect but the stopping distance still did not vary by
more than 7%. Between 150°F and 400°F the effect of IBT on the stopping
distances of vehicles with cam brakes became very significant.
The increase in stopping distance for the vehicle with cam brakes was caused by
the loss of brake chamber force that occurred when chamber stroke increased
to accommodate the greater drum expansion associated with higher
temperatures. This phenomenon will be explained in more detail in the second
report of this series entitled, "The Effect of Brake Adjustment on Performance."
It is doubtful that brake lining fade caused any substantial increase in stopping
distance with the various systems since in all cases, the brakes were
conditioned with the 500 stop burnish up to temperatures above 400°F (except
the front brakes with organic linings).
It would appear from Table 34 that initial brake temperatures between 150°F
and 300°F do not greatly influence brake performance for the four systems
tested. It also would appear that selecting a temperature somewhere in this
range for an IBT specification for stopping distance tests would not unjustly
favor one system over another. As wilJ be shown later, brake temperatures
between 150°F and 300°F are very typical in actual service for the four systems
tested. In a specification for IB T, it would be desirable to restrict the range to
50°F (for example 200-250°F) to minimize variability in testing.
Table 35 gives the 60 mph stopping performance for the four tractors/systems
tested with a FMVSS 121 control trailer (with antilock). Differences were
relatively small and performance in general was quite good; aU stopped in less
than 260 ft, very close to the original FM VSS 121 stopping distance of 245 ft.
6.5.3 Braking Distribution
Data obtained in the braking distribution tests are shown in Table 37, brake
forces developed by the front axle and rear tandem axle are tabulated versus
215
TABLE 35
60 mph Stopping Distance for Tractors Utilized in Initial

Brake Temperature Studies when Attached to FMVSS 121 Control Trailer
Stopping Distance for

Tractor Brake System Best of Six Stops (ft.)
Wedge 239
Disc A 245
Disc B 258
Cam 246
(loading: 11,000 Ibs. front, 38,000 1bs. rear, 32,000 1bs. trailer)
TABLE 36
Brake Force (Jbs.) Versus Control Line Pressure For the Four
Tractor Brake Systems and Trailer Used in Initial Brake Temperature Studies
Brake Control Pressure

S~stem Axle 10 20 40 60 80
Wedge Front 509 1131 2496 2999 4502

Rear 1666 5209 12281 17435 Lockup
Total 2175 6340 14777 20434
Disc A Front 239 911 3015 4690 6120

Rear 2022 5569 10202 14250 17634
Total 2261 6480 13217 18940 23754
Disc B Front 133 854 1993 3063 4126

Rear 565 3261 7647 9896 12920
Total 698 4155 9640 12959 17046
Cam Front 447 907 2224 3210 4232

Rear 1674 3614 7782 12420 16724
Total 2121 4521 10006 15600 20956
Trailmobile
Trailer Tandem 1102 2340 5349 8930 13837
216
control line pressure for for each of the four test tractors. Total tractor brake
force is also given. Table 36 also includes brake force for the tandem axle
assembly of the 40 ft. flatbed Trailmobile trailer used in the East
Liberty IColumbus temperature determination runs. This trailer was actually a
pre-121 vehicle but used brakes that are representative of post-121 trailers.
The trailer brakes were very similar to those used on the rear axle of the cam
brake test tractor. Both utiJized the same brake linings (same formulation) and
both used type 30 chambers; the trailer had 1/2 inch longer slack adjusters,
however (6 inch versus 5.5 inch on the tractor).
Although the trailer brakes should have produced slightly higher brake forces
than the rear tractor brakes because of their longer slack adjusters, they did
not. Table 37 shjows they produced less brake force. This is attributed to the
fact that the trailer brakes were not burnished or conditioned the same way as
the brakes on the test tractors. The trailer had been used in a number of
previous tests but the brakes were not burnished as per the F M VSS 121
procedure and most of its "brake history" was at relatively low temperatures.
Figure 4-1 is a plot of the total vehicle brake force for the four tractors and the
TraiJmobile trailer versus control1ine pressure. Distribution data for the wedge
braked vehicle was only available up to 60 psi on the rear brakes as they would
lockup at 80 psi. When the brake distribution tests were run, this vehicle was
not loaded as heavily on the rear as it had been in the IB T stopping distance
tests (where no lockup occurred at 80 psi on any Wheels). For the braking
distribution tests, the rear axle was off-loaded to keep total combination
weight (an unbraked trailer was used for ballast) at the tractor G VWR of 50,000
Ibs. Lockup at 80 psi was not a problem with the other three test tractors.
If the total tractor brake forces for each system are ranked at the high control
pressure levels in Figure 41 and compared to the ranking of the 60 mph stopping
distances in Table 35 the rankings agree. However, differences between system
performance are small in Table 35 which is not the case in Figure 41.
Apparently the brake performance of the control trailer somewhat masked the
performance
217
25
Disc A Tractor
.0Cam Tractor
Wedge Tractor 0
-u;
20
/
/
..
.0 /
/
..
.. IJDisc 8 Tractor
~
0
/ ""
/
0
0 15
P
/
..0
- I
.... ,P/ / S-Cam Troller
Cl)
U I
I
....
""
~
I 00
tf I .0"
C' 10 ~
o°&-
c: .0/
.::t:; 0·/
0
~
CD
5
o~------~------~------~------~--------~~
o 20 40 60 80 100
Control Pressure (psi)
FIGURE 41
Braking Force versus Control Pressure for Tractors and Trailer

Used on East Liberty/Columbus Runs
-218-
differences of the various tractor brake systems. Also, the test driver's ability
to modulate the tractor brakes to obtain peak traction without wheel lockup
was a factor.
Table 37 shows the percent of total tractor braking provided by the front axle
brakes with each system. Table 37 indicates that the front/rear distribution of
each system is similar and that nominally, each provides a 20/80 front to rear
split on the tractor.
TABLE 37
Percent of Braking on the Front Axle ~ for the Four Brake Systems
Used in the Initial Brake Temperature Studies
Control Pressure (Esi)

Brake System 10 20 40 60 80
Wedge 23 18 17 15 Lockup
Disc A 11 14- 22 25 26
Disc B 19 21 21 24 24
Cam 21 20 22 21 20
~Percentage of total tractor braking.
Table 38 shows the percent of total combination vehicle braking provided by

each test tractor when coupled to the Trailmobile trailer used in the East
Liberty/Columbus runs. Nominally, the wedge and disc A systems provide a
70/30 tractor to trailer braking distribution and the disc B and cam systems
provide a 65/35 distribution.
TABLE 38
Percent of Braking Provided by Tractor in
Vehicle Combinations Used in East Liberty/Columbus Runs
Control Pressure (psi)

Tractor Brake System 10 20 40 60 80
Wedge 66 73 73 70 NR
Disc A 67 73 71 68 63
Disc B 39 64 64 59 55
Cam 66 66 65 64 60
NOTE: Same trailer (with S-cam brakes) used with each tractor.
219
6.5.4 In-Service Brake Temperatures
When the operating temperatures of the four brake systems were evaluated on
the in-service East Liberty/Columbus test route, speed and control line pressure
were recorded to provide an indication of the braking duty cycle. A round trip
typically took about 3 hours. Table 39 shows the parameters that were taken
from the strip chart recordings segregated by the type of roadways
encountered. Brake applications per mile, averages of the peak control
pressure measured during each snub or stop, and the average initial speed at
which the brakes were applied are given. They are listed by roadway, i.e., U.S.
Route 33, Interstate Routes 1-270 and 1-71, and Columbus streets/roads. On
Route 33 and the Interstates, the brake applications per mile were essentially
the same, one application was typicaHy made every five miles. Average vehicle
speeds at which the applications were initiated were considerably higher (50-54
mph) on the Interstates than on Route 33 (31-43 mph), however. On the
Columbus streets and roads, the brake applications per mile were considerably
higher than on the highways; nominally 2-3 applications were made per mile.
Average initial application speeds were in the 23-35 mph range.
The average of the peak control line pressure reached in the brake applications
was similar regardless of the type of roads encountered and ranged between 21
2
to 36 psi. These pressures cause a peak vehicle deceleration of 4- to 8 ft/sec
on the average.
Temperature versus time histories for each of the twelve East

Liberty /CoJu mbus test runs are included in Appendix G. Four typical plots (one
for each system) are shown on Figures 42-45. These plots show average tractor
front, rear tandem and trailer tandem brake temperatures versus time for each
section of roadway. In generating these plots only IB Ts were taken from the
original strip chart recordings. The purpose of these tests was to determine a
reasonable IB T for stopping distance tests. Figures 42 through 45 (and those in
Appendix G) also show burnish initial snub temperatures of the respective
vehicles for reference. They also give the type of roadways encountered versus
time across the top of the graph.
220
TABLE 39
Du~ Cycle Parameters Recorded During East Liberty/Columbus Runs Segregated by Type of Roadways Encountered
u.~.
Kt. j j J-UU/J -II He I tway /t.xpressway 1,;0lUmDUS ~treets
Avg. peak Avg. Avg. peak Avg. Avg. peak Avg.
Brake Control Initial Brake Control Initial Brake Control Initial
Brake Applications Pressure Speed Applications Pressure Speed Applications Pressure Speed
System Run If Per M;le (psi) (mph) Per Mile (psi) (mph) Per Mile (psi) (mph)
Wedge 1 .33 29 31 .39 23 53 2.45 26 26
2 NR 30 37 NR 22 53 NR 27 35
3 .19 33 41 .30 29 50 3.15 24 24
Disc A 1 .16 35 37 .20 29 Sl 2.10 29 26
2 .30 28 33 .17 22 54 2.29 29 29
I
I';) 3 .23 33 34 .13 26 53 2.S7 28 26
I';)
Disc B 1 .22 24 34 .24 21 Sl 2.86 30 26

2 .19 31 43 .17 36 S3 2.38 28 26
3 .13 34 36 .22 26 53 3.33 27 23
Cam 1 .19 33 34 .30 21 53 3.25 29 27
2 .31 27 32 .17 22 50 . 2.40 31 30
3 .16 28 35 .13 20 51 2.40 27 29
Parameters shown are for round trip

Figures 42 through 45 and those in Appendix G indicate that the specification of
an IB T for stopping distance tests somewhere between 150°F and 300°F on the
hottest axle as suggested earlier would not be unreasonable with respect to
actual conditions experienced in service. The hotter running rear axles on all
four vehicles operated in this range on aU of the test runs and in many cases
exceeded 300°F by a significant amount.
Table 40 shows the maximum initial temperatures reached on the four systems
and on the trailer for each of the test runs. Note that repeatability is
reasonably good for the three runs made with each type of system. Ambient
temperature is also given for reference. The three individual runs were
averaged and a simple additive (or subtractive) correction was made for
ambient temperature to correct aU data to 80°F for easier comparisons. Table
41 shows the results of this manipulation and also includes the burnish
temperatures for comparative purposes. No burnish data is a.vailable for the
trailer as its brakes were not used in the burnish.
It can be seen from Table 41 that the maximum initial temperatures reached on
the Columbus runs were of the same order of magnitude as those in the 40-20
mph burnish. Although the rankings of the system temperatures "flip flopped"
somewhat between burnish and in-service runs, this occurred only where the
brake temperatures were relatively close together.
Table 41 indicates that the 40-20 mph burnish snubs made on a I-mile interval
at 10 ft/sec 2 produce brake lining temperatures that are representative of
those experienced by brakes on loaded vehicles in city traffic. Thus, even
though disc brakes with semi- or full metallic linings may exceed 550°F in a
fixed 40-20 mph burnish (the level that the variable initial speed FMVSS 121
burnish procedure specifies as a maximum) it does not appear that it is an
unreasonable energy or duty cycle for conditioning the brakes. Such a burnish
would, in fact, treat aJl brakes the same during their conditioning phase and
would not be design restrictive as is the case with the 500 .:!:. 50°F limit type of
222
STATE RT. 1-270 COLUMBUS STREETS 1-7' 1-270 STATE RT.
33 BElTWAY AND ROADS EXPRESSWAY BELTWAY 33
- -~ -
f"
BOOr
RUN MAXIMUMS
Trac tor Fron t 325'F
0 Tractor Rear 410'F
u.
- Trailer 240'F
600 i
~
..•..
0..
II)
Do
I
tv Rear /"-.....
N II)
\.oJ ...E - -- / --"---"
I 400 Initial Brake Tempe~ature for 40-20 mph
~
0
.• Burnish snubs. (Tractor only)
10
0 Front
C
--
\
200
0 50 100 150 200
TIME (minutes)
FIGURE 42 - Inilial Brake Temperature for East Liberty / Columbus Run
Vehicle: 77 IH Ruan· Brake System:
Wedge 2
Run No.:
STATE RT. 1-270 COLUMBUS STREETS 1-71 1-270 STATE RT.
JJ BELTWAY AND ROADS EXPRESSWAY BELTWAY 33
_ _ _ _L j L L __
800 ..
RUN MAXIMUMS
Rear Tractor Front 220"F
• Tractor Rear 650' F

u.
- -/ Trailer 260"F
600
~ Initial Brake Temperature
:t
..•
D
~
for 40-20 mph Burnish
I
N a.
• snubs" (Tractor only)
N' E
.",.
I
~• 400
~ •
u ..
co
Front
-,.:: --
-, ... ..; ........
./" ~ ,, __ Trailer
...-uc:
200 _J r.r-...,.-J- '"71 , . - I£'
r..... ~/- '_r.
.......-.-....... ___ '" .__ __ .<~:;;:..:.. Tractor Frt. "\..'" -
~ ,/------ - . .
~ .-- .
----.-----. ---.-_1
0 50 100 150 200

TIME (minutes)
FIGURE 43 - Initial Brake Temperature for East Liberty / Columbus. Run
Vehicle: 77 IH Ruan Brake System: Disc A 1
Run No.:
STATE RT. 1-270 COLUMBUS STREETS 1-71 1-270 STATE RT.
33 BELTWAY AND ROADS EXPREC;SWAY BELTWAY JJ
~_ L ___ _
800 ,.
RUN MAXIMUMS
Tractor Front J60'F
Rear__ __ p __ .__ Tractor Rear 610'F
•
u.
Initial Brake Temperature for 40-20 mph Trailer 290' F
600
--
•..
~
Burnish snubs. (Tractor only)
0 Front Tractor R~ar
...
I
IV •
a. \_--
IV
VI
I II
...E 400
Tractor Frt)
.JII.
•
0
.
10
~F\J\",
,.I,t\r -..1\ r-.":~
.."
c .r ~( "\ /
200
(v/'I'. Trailer) V",_~~ .
r-- ___.. __ " ____
--- .. J,J
~r;·
' ."-
-.......
.//-'- ". -- .. ... . .......
0 50 100 150 200
TIME {minutes}
FIGURE 44 - Initial Broke Temperature for East Liberty / Columbus Run

Vehicle: 77 IH Ruan ---- Brake System: Disc R Run No.: 2
STATE RT. 1-270 COLUMBUS STREETS 1-7 r 1-270 STATE RT.
33 BELTWAY AND ROADS EXPRE'iSWAY BELTWAY 33
L. J I
800 ..
RUN MAXIMUMS
Tractor Front 210· F
0 Tractor Rear 350· F
u.
- Trailer 260'F
600
•.
:»
D
-...
u
I Q.
N E
N Rear
C1\ U
I l-
400 t
.JJt
• Initial Brake Temperature
D
..
10
for 40-20 mph Burnish
snubs. (Tractor only)
0
,- J.
Front
C
200
a 50 100 150 200

TIME (minutes)
FIGURE 45 - Initial Brake Temperature for East Liberty / Columbus flun
VehIcle: 75 IH RUAN Brake System: Cam Run No.: 2
TABLE 40
Maximum Initial Brake Temperatures, OF for Various Brake Systems
on East Liberty/Columbus Run
Brake System Run II Ambient (OF) Tractor Front Tractor Rear Trailer
Wedge 1 82 320 380 220

2 85 325 410 240
3 84 270 330 230
KH Disc 1 85 220 650 260

2 88 225 670 250
3 85 . 270 720 270
~,
\
BFG Disc 1 63 360 590 300
2 63 360 610 290
3 65 410 610 250
S-Cam 1 35 250 380 260

2 35 210 350 260
3 35 190 295 230
Notes: 1) Trailer is equipped with S-cam brakes and is same vehicle in all cases
above.
2) Vehicle combinations loaded to approximately 76,000 lbs. gross.
3) Initial temperature refers to the fact that temperature readings were
taken prior to brake applications. Peaks or spikes on semi- and full
matellic linings during brake applications are somewhat meaningless and
for comparative purposes, initial temperatures were used.
227
TABLE 41
Average of the Maximum Initial Brake Temperatures (OF) Recorded
on the East Liberty/Columbus Runs Corrected for Ambient Temperature and
Compared to Steady State Burnish Initial Snub Temperatures
TRACTOR FRONT TRACTOR REAR TRAILER
Brake East Liberty! East liberty! East liberty!
S~tem Columbus Run Burni sh Columbus Run Burnish Columbus Run Burnish
Wedge 301 225 370 425 226 NA
Disc A 232 250 674 690 254 NA
I
I\.} Disc B 393 480 620 650 296 NA
I\.}
00
I
Cam 262 200 387 410 295 NA
NOTES: 1) All data corrected to 80°F ambient.

2) Initial temperature refers to the fact that temperature readings were
taken prior to brake appl icati ons. Peaks or spi kes on semi - and full
metallic linings during brake applications are somewhat meaningless and
for comparative purposes, initial temperatures were used.
burnish. The fixed 40-20 mph burnish would produce temperatures in the
braking system that would be influenced by ambient temperature during the
burnish; however, both theory and experience has shown that the brake
temperature difference would only be equal to the ambient temperature
difference (i.e., the brake temperature in a burnish run at 100°F ambient woutd
be 70°F higher than the brake temperature in a burnish run at 30°F). This
temperature difference is not expected to cause a significantly different
conditioning of the brake linings to occur during the burnish.
Another observation that can be made from Table 41 is that the brake
temperatures on the Trallmobile trailer (which has the same S-cam system with
aU four tractor systems) are in agreement with the braking distribution data
given earlier in Table 38. Table 38 indicates that the wedge and disc A systems
result in the tractor doing a greater percentage of the braking (approximately
70%) than the cam and disc B systems (approximately 65%). This would
indicate that the trailer should run "cooler" with the wedge and disc A systems
on the tractor and it is clear from Table 41 that this is the case. 1t is not dear
why the trailer brake temperature with the wedge tractor is significantly lower
than the disc A tractor, however.
6.6 Summary and Conclusions Effect of Initial Brake Temperature on Stopping

Performance
Four different brake configurations, a wedge drum, two discs and a cam drum
type, were evaluated to determine the effect of IB T on their stopping
performance. It was shown that in the IBT range between 150°F and 300°F
performance did not significantly change with any of the systems (provided
brakes are fully adjusted). An IB T specification for stopping distance tests
somewhere in that range would not appear to substantially favor one design
over another. It was also shown that such temperatures can be expected to be
encountered by any of the systems in typical service. One advantage of
229
specifying an IBT closer to 300°F would be that it would reduce cooling time
between stops and would allow vehicle testing to proceed faster. Based on this
information, the following specification is suggested:
The average brake lining temperature of the hottest axle

on the vehicle shall be between 250°F and 300°F before
initiating a stopping distance test.
A 50°F range for IB T is suggested to minimize variability in testing but still

provide a practical "window" or tolerance.
Another possibility for specifying IB T in a stopping distance test would be to

first conduct a series of snubs on a specified energy (duty) cycle and to measure
the steady state initial brake temperature in the snubs. IB T for the stopping
test could then be based on the temperature level in the snubs (or some
percentage of this level). Such an approach would in effect measure the
relative operating temperature of the brakes and then use this level for the IBT
in the stopping test.
With regard to the burnish procedure, it was shown that snubs between fixed
2
speeds of 40 to 20 mph on a I-mile interval at 10 ft/sec deceleration "treat"
all brakes with an equal energy (duty) cycle and produce temperatures that are
representative of city driving with fully loaded vehicles. A fixed temperature
burnish such as that specified in FM V5S 121 (and F MVSS 105 for vehicles over
10,000 Ibs.) forces all systems to be conditioned at the same temperature when
in fact they may operate in service at very different temperatures under
similar conditions.
230
7.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Sections 2.0 through 6.0 each contain a summary and conclusions sub-section
that deals in detail with the subject matter addressed in that section. The
purpose of this section is to provide a brief overalJ summary and closing set of
conclusions.
A large sample of air braked vehicles including buses, straight trucks, truck
tractors and trailers were tested to evaluate their stopping capability without
antilock in both straight line and turning maneuvers. In addition, the
distribution of braking force among the various axles on these vehicles was
experimentally determined, several types of brake proportioning systems were
evaluated and the effect of initial brake lining temperature on stopping
distance was investigated.
The results of this test effort indicate that stable stopping capability of a
vehicle is primarily a function of the braking force distribution on its axles.
The following table ranks the relative stopping capability of the various types
of vehicles that were tested:
Stopping Capability Ranking Vehicle Type

I (best) Buses (empty & loaded)
2 Loaded Tractor Trailers
3 Loaded Trucks
lj. Empty Trucks and Tractor Trailers
5 (worst) Bobtail Truck Tractors
This ranking is independent of road surface coefficient of friction and vehicle

speed and appJies to "typical" configuration vehicles in these categories in
either straight line or turning maneuvers. Figure 46 shows the range of
stopping distances that might be expected from 60 mph on a dry road for these
types of vehicles, assuming the brake systems are in good condition, burnished
and fully adjusted.
231
I
~Cars
I
~ "Buses ~~"'''''''''''''''''''~"
I Range for
IITypical"
0'1
1 WId ~~gc~~~Trailers ~""~~""~~ Vehicles
I
...c::tf""-, Loaded
~ Trucks t----.;...-:...;..-----,.....-...-.;.......;...;.L.-~
~} Empty Trucks
~ rt1 Tractor a Trailers 1--'-_______..................___.--...._ _.....
10 U""'d
a 100 200 300 400 500

Stopping Distance, ft
FIGURE 4-6 -- Relative Stopping Capability of Heavy Duty Vehicles -

From 60 mph on Dry Road
-232-
Buses performed best, primarily because under most conditions their braking
force distribution was close to the normal force distribution on their axles
a1Jowing them to achieve maximum utilization of the tire/road friction force
available at both axles before wheel lockup occurred. In effect, the buses had
close to "ideal" braking distribution under most conditions. In general, the front
to rear weight distribution in a bus does not change substantia11y in going from
the empty condition to the fu11y loaded condition due to the uniform nature of
the loading. In addition, dynamic weight transfer in a bus is low due to a
relatively low center of gravity height/wheelbase ratio.
Loaded tractor trailers also performed relatively we11 due to the fact that their
braking distributions and axle normal force distributions were similar. They did
not perform quite as we11 as buses, however, due to the fact that the
percentage of braking on their front (steering) axles was found to be somewhat
less than ideal. Loaded trucks did not perform as weB as loaded tractor
trailers. They experienced more weight transfer onto their front axles than the
loaded tractor trailers and the percentage of braking available at the front
axles of the loaded trucks was even further below ideal.
The stable stopping capability of empty trucks, tractor/trailers and, in

particular, bobtail tractors was found to be relatively poor. This is due to the
fact that their braking systems, which are sized for the loaded condition and
have fixed braking force distributions, produce too much braking at the rear (or
trailer) axles; these axles decrease in weight by a much greater percentage than
the front steering axles when the load is removed. This results in premature
wheel lockup and a corresponding loss of lateral (side) force capability at the
tires on the "light" axle(s) causing the vehicles to become unstable at relatively
low deceleration levels. The problem is exagerated if the vehicle has a short
wheelbase and very lightly loaded rear axle which is why bobtail tractors
exhibited the worst performance.
233
In general, most of the trucks and truck tractors tested were found to be "under
braked" on their front axles in that they would not lockup their front wheels
before their rear wheels at any load level on any of the test surfaces including
ice. In addition, several of the vehicles were equipped with front axle
automatic limiting valves (ALVis) which reduced front braking substantially
when control line pressures were low. Since low control line pressures are
utilized when vehicles are empty, these valves further upset or degrade braking
distribution in a situation where it is already considerably less than ideal.
Complete removal or deactivation of the front brakes, a practice which is
common among some truck users, obviously degrades the situation even
further. The use of ALVis or the removal of front brakes results in a greater
chance of rear wheel lockup which can lead to spin-out or jackknife.
Modification of test vehicles to increase the front brake output by removal of

AL ViS, increasing the size of brake chambers or installing variable brake
proportioning systems so that braking distribution was closer to ideal for the
straight line stop case also improved performance in the braking and turning
case. Much shorter and more stable stops resulted in both cases. One draw
back that was found in increasing front brake torque was that steering wheel
pull increased when the vehicle was braked on an uneven coefficient of friction
surface (difference in slipperiness left to right). This increase was insignificant
if the vehicle was equipped with power steering and the steering axle had a low
kingpin offset {scrub radius} but was quite significant when the vehicle had
manual steering and a high kingpin offset. This indicates that steering system
design should be taken into account if consideration is given to increasing front.
brake torque levels substantially above that which now exist. It may be
necessary that all vehicles have power steering and/or better steering geometry
if better stopping capability and thus greater levels of front brake torque are
required in future regulations.
One point that should be made about the above discussion of stopping capability
is that it is based on the premise that brakes are in good working order and fully
adjusted. If this is not the case, total brake capacity on a vehicle may not be
234
sufficient to produce a very high deceleration when the vehicle is loaded even if
the brakes are fully applied. With degraded capacity brakes, higher loads result
in poorer performance, just the opposite of the situation shown in the table
above where the fully loaded vehicles out performed the empty vehicles.
Also, the table on page 230 ranks vehicles on the basis of their stable stopping
capabHity (i.e., only a limited amount of wheel lockup is permitted). If
unlimited wheel lockup is alJowed, ranking becomes a function of tire properties
and would show empty vehicles doing better than loaded vehicles due to the
increase in coefficient of friction that typicalJy occurs when truck tires are
unloaded. It does not appear meaningful, however, to rank vehicles on the basis
of their all-wheels-locked (and unstable) stopping performance as it is an
incomplete measure of stopping capability and does not reflect how welJ a
vehicle can stop while under full control of the driver.
The effect of brake temperature on stopping capability appears to be small if

the initial lining temperature (IBT) is kept at 300°F or less. An IBT range of
250 -- 300°F on the hottest axle is suggested as a "standardized" initial
condition for stopping distance tests as it is high enough to allow testing to
proceed in an efficient manner (i.e., with a minimum amount of cooling time)
but not so high as to cause changes in performance. Since brake temperatures
in the 250 -- 300°F range are quite common in normal "every day" use, such an
initial condition would represent a typical in-use situation.
8.0 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The completion of this program involved significant contributions from a

number of people at VR TC who deserve recognition for their outstanding
efforts. Reeves Testerman and Richard Woodruff prepared all of the test
vehicles. This included the instalJation of new brake system components,
instrumentation systems, load frames and balJast. They also performed aU of
the test driving and repaired the test vehicles when necessary. Michael Holland
and William Meddles provided instrumentation calibration and maintenance
support. Marta Cline performed most of the data reduction and Mark Flick and
Riley Garrott assisted in the analysis of the data. Finally,
235
the authors would particularly like to acknowledge Reva Blaker and Susan
Weiser for their efforts in preparing this report. Their patience and
perseverance in the lengthy process is greatly appreciated.
9.0 REFERENCES
1. "Resume of Tests on Commercial Vehicles on Winter Surfaces - 1939 -

1966," National Safety Council Committee on Winter Driving Hazards,
1968.
2. "1968 Winter Test Report," National Safety Council Committee on Winter

Driving Hazards.
3. "1969 - 1970 Winter Test Report," National Safety Council Committee on

Winter Driving Hazards.

Driving Hazards.

Driving Hazards.

Driving Hazards.

Driving Hazards.

Driving Hazards.
9. J. W. Durstine, "The Truck Steering System from Hand Wheel to Road

Wheel," SP-374, Society of Automotive Engineers, January 1973.
10. R.D. Ervin, J.D. CampbeU, M.Sayers and H. Bunch, "Improved Passenger
Car Braking Performance," DOT HS-803-457, National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, March 1973.
'"U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1 9 85 4 6 1 B 1 6 2 0 0 e 9
236

PB86108628

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

PB86108628

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

PB861 08628

\11 ml 1\ 1111\\\1 11111\1111\ 11\

DOT HS 806 738 APRIL 1985

NHTSA HEAVY DUTY VEHICLE BRAKE RESEARCH PROGRAM

Volume I -- Technical Report NRD-22

Richard W. Radlinski, Sidney F. Williams

Vehicle Research and Test Center

East Liberty, Ohio 43319

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Interim

15. Supplementary NOles

17. Key Words 18. Di stribution Statement

Document is available to the public

Unclassi fied Unclass if ied

REPORT TITLE REPORT DATE

Stopping Capabili ty Ranking Vehicle Type

(Continue on additional pages)

Technical Documentation Page i

1.1 Air Brake Rulemaking History

1.2 N HTSA's Heavy Duty Vehicle Brake Research Program 3

1.3 Report Structure 5

2.0 STRAIGHT LINE STOPPING PERFORMANCE 7

2.1 Test Procedure 8

2.1.1 Limitations on Wheel Lockup 8

2.2 Test Vehicles 16

2.2.1 Brake System Configurations 23

2.4 Test Site Utilized 40

2.5 T est Results 44-

2.6 Discussion of Results 47

2.6.1 Service Brake Performance @ 47

2.6.3 Service Brake Performance @ 72

2.6.8 Effect of Speed on Straight Line Stopping 80

2.7 Additional Straight Line Stopping Distance 85

2.8 Summary and Conclusions - Straight Line 93

3.0 BRAKING DISTRIBUTION 97

3.1 Ideal Brake Distribution 97

3.2 Technique for Measurement of Actual 106

3.3 Braking Distribution Data 114

3.4 Effect of Braking Distribution on Straight 121

3.5 Summary and Conclusions - Braking Distribution 129

4.0 DIRECTIONAL CONTROLLABILITY AS A FUNCTION OF 132

4.1 Test Maneuvers 134

4.2 Test Procedure

4.3 Instrumentation 148

4.4 Test Vehicles 150

4.5 Test Data and Discussion of Results 15~

4.5.1 General Discussion 15~

4-.6 Tests with "Typical" Truck Drivers 178

~.7 Summary and Conclusions - Directional 182

5.0 EVALUATION OF SEVERAL BRAKE PROPORTIONING SYSTEMS 187

5.1 Description of Proportioning System Evaluated 188

5.2 Test Procedure 194-

5.3 Test Data and Discussion of Results 196

5.4 Summary and Conclusions - Evaluation of 201

6.0 THE EFFECT OF IN ITIAL BRAKE TEMPERATU~E 204

6.1 Brake Designs Evaluated and test Vehicles Utilized 205

6.2 Brake Burnishing 206

6.3 Test Procedure 209

6.4 Instrumentation 211

6.5 Test Data and Discussion of Results 211

6.5.1 Brake Temperature During Burnishing 211

6.5.2 Effect of IBT on Stopping Distance 213

6.6 Summary and Conclusions Effect of Initial Brake 229

7.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 231