• Steel Soldiers now has a few new forums, read more about it at: New Munitions Forums!

  • Microsoft MSN, Live, Hotmail, Outlook email users may not be receiving emails. We are working to resolve this issue. Please add support@steelsoldiers.com to your trusted contacts.

Another Brake Modification

UpstateNYer

New member
83
0
0
Location
Upstate NY
Boy, I wonder what you guys think about hot rods and other vehicles where nothing is original?

The brake system on these trucks was designed before dual master cylinders and dual circuit brakes were used. In 1967 this was mandated across the board for civilian car applications. Even the "Airforce Brakes" is just a rehash of old technology.

Snarky posts about adapting something that is in use today on Kodiaks, Topkicks, F550's, F450's and every diesel pickup since the seventies and everyone gives him a hard time.

I understand there is liability, but believe me if you run some kid over with a bone stock Deuce you are still going to be in a world of hurt when the lawyers are done.
 
Last edited:

jesusgatos

Active member
2,689
28
38
Location
on the road - in CA right now
Think this is a great upgrade. Was only trying to say that it's more about SAFETY and PERFORMANCE than LIABILITY, and that if the liability was the OP's only/main concern, he'd have been better off leaving the vehicle stock.
 

UpstateNYer

New member
83
0
0
Location
Upstate NY
Think this is a great upgrade. Was only trying to say that it's more about SAFETY and PERFORMANCE than LIABILITY, and that if the liability was the OP's only/main concern, he'd have been better off leaving the vehicle stock.
My comment wasn't directed at your reply, and I agree about the liability.

But the system he is using is safe, and used on lots of trucks out there.

As for what ifs, what if one of the copper airlines on the truck breaks from vibration (common cause) and you have no air assist for the brakes. Do you think that is any better than no hydraulic assist on the hydroboost system?
 

mikew

Member
454
8
18
Location
edmond, ok
Hmmm....

Here's my opinion, and it's worth what I'm charging you for it!

Deuce brakes work well when all parts are functioning and adjusted correctly.

About the only braking "performance" to be gained by modifying the system would be less force on the pedal before the wheels lock up.

But increased safety can be gained by upgrading to dual circuit, and this is a big one! As we all know, a single failure in the stock deuce system will leave you with NO brakes.

There are two fairly straight forward ways to have dual circuit; the military's dual circuit master cylinder and dual air-packs or a dual circuit master cylinder with a hydraulic booster.

Either system has the benefit of providing brakes (although less effective) in the event of a line, hose, wheel cylinder or "boost power" failure (air or hydro pressure). And yes, both systems will still function with zero boost pressure.

For me, if I had a hydro pump from a 5 ton, I'd go with a hydro-boost or hydro-max system. Modern design, simpler and less plumbing. The hydro-max is the "larger" of the two and best suited for a truck the size of a deuce. Some hydro-max boosters even have a built in backup electric hydro pump that automatically turns on if the boost pressure is too low.

I've not yet converted my bobbed truck to dual circuit brakes, that's a project for this summer. Since leftover deuce parts are pretty easy to get, I'll most likely go the dual air-pack method, just because it will cost me less money.
 
Last edited:

phil2968

Active member
2,591
18
38
Location
Lakeland, Florida
Snarky, how did you split the system? Front and one middle axle tire, rear and the other middle axle tire? I wanted to do the same conversion to my m109.
 

mikew

Member
454
8
18
Location
edmond, ok
As to liability, here's a very long answer.

My business partner is an attorney with experience in product liability.

I wondered what liability we have driving 40 year old trucks in the first place so I gave him 4 scenarios representing a flawed replacement part, just plain accident, lack of maintenance and owner modifications.

Grab a cup of coffee and enjoy the read!

=============================================================

So my question is: in the following scenarios; how fast will you get sued and loose your house when your brakes fail, because of a failed hose, and you run over and kill a small child carrying a puppy!

1. You replace a brake hose with an OEM spec one that has a manufactures defect.

2. You run over debris in the road and it cuts the brake hose.

3. You never bothered to replace the 40 year old hoses on your truck "because they looked pretty good".

4. You put together some adapters to make a brake hose you had in your garage work instead of buying an OEM one.


His response:


As a general proposition, the owner of a vehicle may be liable for damage it causes. Liability depends on whether the cause of the injury was due to neglect or intentional act of the owner. If the cause of loss was due to a modification of the vehicle, then everyone involved in the modification is exposed to liability. Generally, fault depends on a legal concept of lack of due care. If the modification was done with "due care", then no liability attaches even though the modification was the cause of loss. In practical terms, it is almost impossible to convince a jury that an owner modification to a vehcile was done with due care. Unless the owner is a professional mechanic, it is highly unlikely the owner will escape liability, regardless of how well the modification was done.

Therefore, given the high probablility of liability for losses caused by an owner's modification of his vehicle, I see the potential for laiblity in all four instances you proposed. In evey case, however, the brake hose must be the "proximate cause" of the injury. "Proximate cause" is a legal term that usually means there must be an identifiable causal connection between the injury and its cause. For example, an owner modified brake system would not be the proximate cause of injury from an exploding tire.

In each of your examples, liability attaches if the injured party can show a lack of due care that was the proximate cause of the injury.

Example 1: The question there is whether the owner did the replacement properly and performed the tests and checks required for the job, regardless of the defect in the hose. His work has to be equivalent to that of a professional mechanic. Both the owner and the hose supplier are exposed to liability, but the owner may be able to show that the "proximate cause" of the injury was the defective hose and not his work.

Example 2. If you can show lack of due care when you drove over the debris, there may be a causal connection between that event and the injury. The injured party can examine whether the owner replaced the hose in the correct position. "Unavoidable" is a very elastic term in accident litigation. However unavoidable the situation may appear, the injured party can test the circumstances to see if the driver could have, in the exercise of due care, avoided the debris. The party who left the debris on the road would have the same opportunity. You still have the issue of whether the owner's modification/repair was done with due care.

Example 3. What is the standard for replacing brake hoses? 20 years? 40 yeasr? Never? If in the exercise of due care, the owner should replace them at some point, then the owner may be liable, assuming a causal connection between the failure to replace and the injury.

Example 4. Adapting a hose to work on the vehicle is subject to examination for due care in the design of the replacement and the work done. Keep in mind that most auto manufacturers employ legions of engineers to do thousands of tests on equipment they design and build. The owner is likely to be judged in that category when the jury evaluates his design and work.

Determination of liability is a fact-intensive matter. Change just one fact slightly and the result might be completely different (who wins, who loses). The answer, of course, is INSURANCE. Insurance companeis write policies expressly for modified vehicles such as sleeper cars, race cars, off-road cars, etc. I think it would be a serious mistake to attempt to insure a modified vehicle without disclosing to the insurance company that it has been modified and, if required, the details of the modification. Insurance companies can decline to cover your loss if they conclude that you did not fully explain to them what risk they were insuring.
 
Top
AdBlock Detected

We get it, advertisements are annoying!

Sure, ad-blocking software does a great job at blocking ads, but it also blocks useful features of our website like our supporting vendors. Their ads help keep Steel Soldiers going. Please consider disabling your ad blockers for the site. Thanks!

I've Disabled AdBlock
No Thanks