Hello and welcome to Packard Motor Car Information! If you're new here, please register for a free account.  
Login
Username:

Password:

Remember me



Lost Password?

Register now!
FAQ's
Main Menu
Recent Forum Topics
Who is Online
75 user(s) are online (50 user(s) are browsing Forums)

Members: 1
Guests: 74

BigKev, more...
Helping out...
PackardInfo is a free resource for Packard Owners that is completely supported by user donations. If you can help out, that would be great!

Donate via PayPal
Video Content
Visit PackardInfo.com YouTube Playlist

Donate via PayPal

Forum Index


Board index » All Posts (rzcoyote)




Re: 1953 Patrician: has anyone updated from Treadlevac to modern 2-chamber mstr cyl?
#1
Just popping in
Just popping in

rzcoyote
Howard, thanks for helping to make my options more clear. The test results you got on the TV unit are nothing short of amazing! Something is going on it that little unit that I don't understand. I now have a much better understanding of what I am facing, whatever option I choose.

Posted on: 2022/7/13 23:29
 Top 


Re: 1953 Patrician: has anyone updated from Treadlevac to modern 2-chamber mstr cyl?
#2
Just popping in
Just popping in

rzcoyote
Tim, thanks for your input. I started this project rather naively. I just thought that if I mounted a master cylinder, it would work. The effect of the pedal leverage had not occurred to me. Now, with no leverage, a 1" diameter master cylinder does not work. I am surprised to hear that the tiny Treadlevac actually produces as much boost, as you say. After all, it is only about 6" in diameter! Are the brakes in fact adequate with the original setup? And how effective are the brakes in an emergency, if the engine stalls and you lose vacuum?

Posted on: 2022/7/13 23:12
 Top 


Re: 1953 Patrician: has anyone updated from Treadlevac to modern 2-chamber mstr cyl?
#3
Just popping in
Just popping in

rzcoyote
Jerome, thank you for your very competent response. You're right, every option for changing the pedal configuration is problematic. The hydrovac, unfortunately, is beyond my competence. I considered an under-floor mounting to the frame, but the frame layout makes that impractical. For a firewall mount, there are cables, acclerator linkage and, as you pointed out, ventilation in the way.
Does the Treadlevac offer adequate braking? You mentioned its small bore and long stroke. Is that how the designers compensated for the 1:1 pedal ratio?

Posted on: 2022/7/13 23:03
 Top 


1953 Patrician: has anyone updated from Treadlevac to modern 2-chamber mstr cyl?
#4
Just popping in
Just popping in

rzcoyote
Has anyone updated the brake system from Treadlevac to a modern 2-chamber master cylinder? I did a complete brake job on my 53 Patrician, new wheel cylinders, shoes, hoses, plus a modern 2-chamber master cylinder, albeit, without a booster. Bled the brakes and, with great anticipation, took it for a spin. A very hard pedal, but No Brakes! Baffled, I have since learned a great deal about pedal ratio leverage and multiplication of force through hydraulics. Normal pedal ratio for a boosted brake system is 4:1. That is, 70 pounds force from your leg at the brake pedal is multiplied by leverage to 350 pounds at the master cylinder rod. The pedal ratio for the Patrician is an astounding 1:1! Thus, 70 pounds at the pedal is only 70 pounds at the mst cyl rod. It is no surprise that there is inadequate force to the brakes. Has anyone with a Patrician been through this exercise and come up with a configuration that works?

Posted on: 2022/7/13 22:15
 Top 



TopTop



Search
Recent Photos
Photo of the Day
Recent Registry
Website Comments or Questions?? Click Here Copyright 2006-2024, PackardInfo.com All Rights Reserved