should I use my parking brake?

Frenchy

Well-Known Member
First Name
Chris
Joined
Mar 15, 2020
Threads
98
Messages
6,144
Reaction score
8,294
Location
Elizabeth, Colorado
Vehicle(s)
2019 Ford Ranger, 2019 cargo van, soon to be 1993
Occupation
Crown Forklift Technician
And in the US you have emissions system warranties that I think are federally required to 8yr/80k miles.
Not sure what that has to do with the price of eggs in China, but ok
Sponsored

 

Motorpsychology

Well-Known Member
First Name
Chris
Joined
Nov 13, 2019
Threads
11
Messages
2,589
Reaction score
8,093
Location
Prescott, WI
Vehicle(s)
2021 Ranger STX SuperCab 4X4, '09 Mariner
Occupation
Vagabond

ControlNode

Well-Known Member
First Name
John
Joined
Nov 29, 2021
Threads
10
Messages
1,164
Reaction score
2,393
Location
Eastern NC
Vehicle(s)
84 Civic "2000S"/16 Focus RS/21 Ranger XLT
Occupation
Computers
The pawl holds the truck just fine on level to moderate grades ~2% estimated but payload increases the stress on the pawl, and more likelihood of torque lock. Everything is usually just fine, Stellantis had a problem a few years back with certain Rams not engaging Park, but IIRC that was more software related.

I appreciate all the dazzling mathematics, but my eye bones just don't trust this thing:
s-l1600.jpg
The math is not dazzling and does not support the idea of trusting that parking pawl on any incline. I always use my parking/emergency brake, but if that happens to start failing, I hope the parking pawl does its job to stop too much movement, or at least enough that with any remaining friction the brakes are providing when combined with the pawl are enough.


Looking more into those numbers though....
I found these numbers and hope they are right:
Sprag wheel radius: 87.35mm
rear axle to ground: ~380mm (387mm from tire spec and giving 7mm of deflection to get to round number)

I'd guess the load after the gearing on the parking pawl should be about ~791 lb assuming 697 lb number from @Dgc333 was right.

Bard says that 30-degree incline would require a 2200lb force to prevent the truck from rolling down the hill. (No friction in the drive-line and tires was not considered) Using those numbers, the force on that pawl tooth would be about 2,565 lb.

Bard says the formula is T = W * sin(θ)
T = tension (lb) needed on a rope holding from rolling down incline
W = weight (lb) of ojbect
θ = angle of incline
 
Last edited:

ControlNode

Well-Known Member
First Name
John
Joined
Nov 29, 2021
Threads
10
Messages
1,164
Reaction score
2,393
Location
Eastern NC
Vehicle(s)
84 Civic "2000S"/16 Focus RS/21 Ranger XLT
Occupation
Computers
Not sure what that has to do with the price of eggs in China, but ok
You stated the only coverage after bumper to bumper is powertrain, which for most members here is incorrect. If you are saying my mention of emissions warranty is irrelevant because OPs post was for brake parts the OP is having an issue with, so was any mention of the powertrain warranty by others.
 
Last edited:


Frenchy

Well-Known Member
First Name
Chris
Joined
Mar 15, 2020
Threads
98
Messages
6,144
Reaction score
8,294
Location
Elizabeth, Colorado
Vehicle(s)
2019 Ford Ranger, 2019 cargo van, soon to be 1993
Occupation
Crown Forklift Technician
You stated the only coverage after bumper to bumper is powertrain, which for most members here is incorrect. If you are saying my mention of emissions warranty is irrelevant because OPs post was for brake parts the OP is having an issue with, so was any mention of the powertrain warranty by others.
And how does that apply to the parking brake?
 

ControlNode

Well-Known Member
First Name
John
Joined
Nov 29, 2021
Threads
10
Messages
1,164
Reaction score
2,393
Location
Eastern NC
Vehicle(s)
84 Civic "2000S"/16 Focus RS/21 Ranger XLT
Occupation
Computers
And how does that apply to the parking brake?
It's not, but neither is the power train, but yet it was brought up as the only remaining warranty after the bumper to bumper, which was incorrect information, so I was adding additional (correcting for most users here) post in reply to that post, not the OPs post.

Just like all the debate about the parking pawl and such, really not related to the brake issue the OP is having or the really poor advice they got from that tech.
 

Motorpsychology

Well-Known Member
First Name
Chris
Joined
Nov 13, 2019
Threads
11
Messages
2,589
Reaction score
8,093
Location
Prescott, WI
Vehicle(s)
2021 Ranger STX SuperCab 4X4, '09 Mariner
Occupation
Vagabond
The math is not dazzling and does not support the idea of trusting that parking pawl on any incline. I always use my parking/emergency brake, but if that happens to start failing, I hope the parking pawl does its job to stop too much movement, or at least enough that with any remaining friction the brakes are providing when combined with the pawl are enough.


Looking more into those numbers though....
I found these numbers and hope they are right:
Sprag wheel radius: 87.35mm
rear axle to ground: ~380mm (387mm from tire spec and giving 7mm of deflection to get to round number)

I'd guess the load after the gearing on the parking pawl should be about ~791 lb assuming 697 lb number from @Dgc333 was right.

Bard says that 30-degree incline would require a 2200lb force to prevent the truck from rolling down the hill. (No friction in the drive-line and tires was not considered) Using those numbers, the force on that pawl tooth would be about 2,565 lb.

Bard says the formula is T = W * sin(θ)
T = tension (lb) needed on a rope holding from rolling down incline
W = weight (lb) of ojbect
θ = angle of incline
Somehow wouldn't the axle ratio, 3.73:1, figure into the equation? I visualize the truck on an incline and in Park, the force on the sprag wheel has to be multiplied by a factor of 3.73 somewhere, doesn't it?
 

Frenchy

Well-Known Member
First Name
Chris
Joined
Mar 15, 2020
Threads
98
Messages
6,144
Reaction score
8,294
Location
Elizabeth, Colorado
Vehicle(s)
2019 Ford Ranger, 2019 cargo van, soon to be 1993
Occupation
Crown Forklift Technician
Somehow wouldn't the axle ratio, 3.73:1, figure into the equation? I visualize the truck on an incline and in Park, the force on the sprag wheel has to be multiplied by a factor of 3.73 somewhere, doesn't it?
To an extent yes. That said a certain someone on here is going to think it won't be a problem and yet I have seen them break due to high load from the inclines.
 

ControlNode

Well-Known Member
First Name
John
Joined
Nov 29, 2021
Threads
10
Messages
1,164
Reaction score
2,393
Location
Eastern NC
Vehicle(s)
84 Civic "2000S"/16 Focus RS/21 Ranger XLT
Occupation
Computers
Somehow wouldn't the axle ratio, 3.73:1, figure into the equation? I visualize the truck on an incline and in Park, the force on the sprag wheel has to be multiplied by a factor of 3.73 somewhere, doesn't it?
Yes, and it was in my math. Load put on the wheel would be divided by the 3.73 to get that load on the prop shaft.

The full formula I used was more like this...
W = vehicle weight (lb)
θ = angle of incline (degrees)
G = rear axle gear (ratio)
T = estimated tire radius (mm)
S = estimated parking sprag radius (mm)
L = Load on sprag tooth (lb)

L=(W*sin(θ))/G*(T/S)

2566≈(4400*sin(30))/3.73*(380/87.35)
 

Motorpsychology

Well-Known Member
First Name
Chris
Joined
Nov 13, 2019
Threads
11
Messages
2,589
Reaction score
8,093
Location
Prescott, WI
Vehicle(s)
2021 Ranger STX SuperCab 4X4, '09 Mariner
Occupation
Vagabond
Yes, and it was in my math. Load put on the wheel would be divided by the 3.73 to get that load on the prop shaft.

The full formula I used was more like this...
W = vehicle weight (lb)
θ = angle of incline (degrees)
G = rear axle gear (ratio)
T = estimated tire radius (mm)
S = estimated parking sprag radius (mm)
L = Load on sprag tooth (lb)

L=(W*sin(θ))/G*(T/S)

2566≈(4400*sin(30))/3.73*(380/87.35)
Thanks for the explanation, John. It's good to know that my own anecdata are confirmed:
  • A: When the load (L) exceeds the friction between the surfaces of the pawl, the force upon the shifter mechanism (which is reduced by the number of moving parts and angles), is insufficient to disengage the pawl from the sprag wheel.
  • (see post #22) A call to a friend's dad to drive 4mi/6.80 km to push me 0.55 inches/1.39cm in order to decrease (L) sufficiently to move the pawl out of the sprag wheel resulted in a freed car, but increased exponentially the odds against asking my buddys sister out again.
  • While the math is dazzling, the whole park setup in any automatic transmission looks wimpy.
 

got3fords

Well-Known Member
First Name
James
Joined
Apr 12, 2021
Threads
78
Messages
2,738
Reaction score
6,353
Location
22973
Vehicle(s)
2021 XLT Sport
Thanks for the explanation, John. It's good to know that my own anecdata are confirmed:
  • A: When the load (L) exceeds the friction between the surfaces of the pawl, the force upon the shifter mechanism (which is reduced by the number of moving parts and angles), is insufficient to disengage the pawl from the sprag wheel.
  • (see post #22) A call to a friend's dad to drive 4mi/6.80 km to push me 0.55 inches/1.39cm in order to decrease (L) sufficiently to move the pawl out of the sprag wheel resulted in a freed car, but increased exponentially the odds against asking my buddys sister out again.
  • While the math is dazzling, the whole park setup in any automatic transmission looks wimpy.
Y'all need to stop with all this math.
<iframe src="https://giphy.com/embed/9JjnmOwXxOmLC" width="480" height="289" frameBorder="0" class="giphy-embed" allowFullScreen></iframe><p><a href="">via GIPHY</a></p>
 

Motorpsychology

Well-Known Member
First Name
Chris
Joined
Nov 13, 2019
Threads
11
Messages
2,589
Reaction score
8,093
Location
Prescott, WI
Vehicle(s)
2021 Ranger STX SuperCab 4X4, '09 Mariner
Occupation
Vagabond
 



Top