Talk:Drum brake

message: This article repeats itself a lot. The decription of the self-adjustment capability and the use of drums for parking brakes is mentioned in the article twice. 81.178.235.56 16:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: FTA: "The Federal government began to regulate asbestos production" - which federal government does this refer to?  The U.S. government?  87.194.198.122 (talk) 12:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Asbestos regulation by who?

message: or possibly an animation. --Rajah (talk) 23:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: needs better illustrations

message: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://auto.howstuffworks.com/auto-parts/brakes/brake-types/drum-brake1.htm 
this is a web link to a good site with an animation  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.117.37 (talk) 05:26, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Animation

message: They are two different things. GEEZ. User:Deathgleaner 23:27, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brake drum versus Drum brake. 

message: Bicycles use drum brakes, too -- usually as an auxilary on tandems, in my experience. Should include other uses too (aircraft??), if applicable.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.225.231.50 (talk) 16:54, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bicycle Drum Brakes! 

message: I am unsure about the statement that the "vast majority" of cars use screw-style disc brake parking brakes.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.5.209.206 (talk) 20:52, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I dialed it back to "many". If someone has stats, they can assert something more specific. — ¾-10 01:28, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Drums on Parking Brakes 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Drum brake. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150409074407/http://www.crashforensics.com:80/brakefailure.cfm to http://www.crashforensics.com/brakefailure.cfm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:41, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The illustration 800px-Tipologia_tamburo.svg.png is erroneous. 
The three drawings in the bottom row are incorrect. Consider the link at the bottom of the uni-servo example. That link can transmit a force in compression only longitudinally between its pivots. At the left-hand pivot, the force can be described as two vectors, one pointing circumferentially clockwise and the other radially outward. Therefore, there must be an outward force on the bottom end of the leading shoe. The forces at the right-hand pivot must mirror those at the left-hand end -- equal and opposite action and reaction. The drag at the bottom of the right-hand shoe will be greater than at the bottom of the left-hand shoe, as the right-hand shoe has become a second leading shoe. 
The drag depends on the location of the pivots in the floating link. I'd suppose that with a carefully chosen geometry, both shoes could have the same drag. That might require that the pivots be at different positions on the two shoes. This brake will work poorly in reverse.
The duo-servo example is effectively identical to the servo example for forward braking because the trailing brake shoe will butt up against the pin at the top. This is mirrored for braking in reverse. 
The duo-duplex example is incorrect because no stop is shown for either brake shoe. 
I have a revised version of the drawing at https://sheldonbrown.com/drum-brakes.html also showing cam actuation, which is usual with bicycle brakes, older motorcycle brakes and air brakes on large trucks, but leaving off the three servo examples, which are irrelevant to my topic and which I don't want to take the trouble to revise. Someone else might do that.  Jsallen1 (talk) 13:55, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Errors in illustration. 

message: (In the Safety section) I found it odd that the CDC claims 1,1,1-trichloroethane increases reaction time, despite all the other adverse effects on the central nervous system. This is likely a typo and they meant to write "decreases reaction time." This study, https://www.jstor.org/stable/44376353?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents, claims reaction time was impaired after exposure, further suggesting it was simply a typo.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.38.27.10 (talk) 19:10, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Methyl Chloroform increases reaction time?