Originally posted by Joules5:
there is a growing population that now does not advocate the removal of the proportioning valve.
Growing population sounds like a nice way to give more weight to the opinion of a few people.
It appears this "growing population" advocates retention of the proportioning valve based on a theory. A "real" problem caused by its removal was not mentioned, the theory is leaving it in results in better balance. I'd like to rephrase that theory if I may. "The rear brakes are inadequate, so we should reduce the effectiveness of the front brakes so they are more balanced with the rears". But guys ... making the front brakes less powerful means less braking performance! Which is better, two inadequate brakes, or four inadequate brakes?
Removing the proportioning valve measurably shortens the braking distances. That's why owners have been doing it for 40 years. Control while braking is not compromised either. It does not create a two wheel braking situation, the pressure to the rear circuit doesn't change, and the weight on the rear wheels remains the same. The rears are braking just as hard either way. If balanced braking means longer braking distances, then I choose more powerful braking over better balanced braking.
Reducing the power of the front circuit to "balance" the braking front to rear is going about it the wrong way! Wouldn't it be better to increase the power of the rear circuit? I may well agree with Chris that a rear brake upgrade will improve the Pantera's braking performance, but I am not in agreement that removal of the proportioning valve without a rear brake upgrade is a bad idea. I can't go that far Chris.