Thank you all for your support.

I won't close this thread quite yet as, for the sake of good manners, I would still like John F to apologise for suggesting that I favour any member over any others. I have never been accused of that before, and hope I won't be again. But I won't worry or lose any sleep over it - it tells us more about the accuser than the accused.

Best ignored. Your moderation has seemed fair over the past weeks, months, years, decades ... doesn’t time fly ...

......I would still like John F to apologise for suggesting that I favour any member over any others. I have never been accused of that before, and hope I won't be again. But I won't worry or lose any sleep over it - it tells us more about the accuser than the accused.

Avant, it has long been apparent that skidpan is permitted to post invective with impunity. Far from 'trading' an insult in return I have always remained polite. I am sorry that you are offended or embarrassed by my speculations as to the reason for your tolerance but I see no reason to apologise for them. It should not be left to other posters to reprimand bad behaviour.

I am disappointed that you felt the need to delete the thread. I think it would have been better to have deleted any personally insulting post with warning and left the rest of the debate alone (standard practice elsewhere).

As for the pad-free backing plate on my d-in-law's Acura, I am pleased to say she came to no harm, and indeed had noticed no difference in the braking - apart from the noise!

"In my opinion if someone gives stupid advice it perfectly OK to call them stupid."

I can't let that pass. It's the advice that's stupid (maybe) and you can say so; to call the person stupid, however, is insulting.

So it is not stupid to replace a brake pad when 50% worn just because the dealer suggests it, particularly when the perfectly reasonable proposition aired was that actually no pad material remaining would not lead to a catastrophic brake failure?

Edited by Brit_in_Germany on 19/09/2018 at 19:50

There is an issue when fitting new pads to already worn discs, in that initially and for possbly several hundred miles, only a percentage of the new pad will be in contact with the disc until the pads wear to the shape of the disc.

In John's original posting, he was simply stating that in theory one could fit just on new pad, and again in theory, you would have better braking because the older pad would still be in full contact with the disc, as alluded to in an above post.

Before anyone starts calling me names, i'm not suggesting this is necessarily the way to go for anyone else but for a home mechanic who didn't mind doing the job again a few weeks later, it would mean that during the bedding in time that the individual brake would probably perform better than if all new pads had been fitted, neither of which would be providing much effort until the pads had worn to the disc in question.

In the other brake thread i made mention of the need for brake pads (and brake drums, where what is going on inside cannot be seen through that silly little inspection hole) to be removed at least every other year...the reason for this is that you simply cannot tell what condition those pads are in when in situ, and whilst they're out its time to clean inspect and lube things up before reassembly.

I've removed pads and the pads have literally fallen apart once out, it was only the support in their groove holding them together, i've found pad facings to be breaking up and whole catalogue of other nasties, right down to the memorable time i serviced a chaps Renault 10 and found all 4 front pads down to the metal and the solid discs to be arounf 1/32" thick, washer thickness, how they hadn't shattered in situ causing total brake failure i shall never know and it's a pity that cameras weren't so freely available back then because the pic really should have gone to Car Mechanics magazine.

I found a pad to be completely missing on a Citroen Ami Dolly, the friction material being the piston itself which due to the heat resembled General De Gaulle's cap as it wore away to nothing, again disaster yards not miles away.

Quite how the owners of those two vehicles had been driving along for so long and not heard or could feel the horrid graunching sound is a mystery, the noise from the Renault would have woken the dead.

Thing with John his idea of servicing is the complete opposite of mine which again is entirely different to many others here, as far as i can see isn't advocating those who don't get their hands dirty to take up his methods, no more than i'd expect anyone else to follow my examples and be changing their engine oils twice a year let alone all the brake obsessions i have, but those who don't get their hands dirty won't have the foggiest idea what we've been waffling about anyway.

It would be a shame if the differing views and anecdotes were not heard, i really can't see any new reader who hasn't a clue about vehicles who happened upon one of our threads being tempted to buy a pack of el cheapo cardboard brake pads, and share them with his mate who has the same model to save what? £7.50? so they fit 2 pads per axle instead of 4.

Its a discussion forum.

Edited by gordonbennet on 19/09/2018 at 20:08

You may have good sense on your side some of the time, but it is simply tactless.

OK, I may be tactless but I don't post dangerous advice that could cause owners problems with their cars or in the case of brakes possible injury.

In my opinion if someone gives stupid advice it perfectly OK to call them stupid.

I don't think it is ever OK to call someone stupid.

In any case, being stupid would be unfortunate. But being thoroughly unpleasant is a choice one can make.

Edited by Manatee on 20/09/2018 at 13:56