Talk:Parking brake

The Reason why I'm adding what I added
The reason I added this new version of the definition to this technical term is because it gives it more depth. With this new definition you see how it works and what it does, but you also see how it came about and where it is really favored at. That is also why I added a link to the term for Drifting (automotive) as well. I hope that this contribution will be appreciated. Hopefully you all enjoy and look into Drifting as well because in my opinion those two work together hand in hand. Like surge and spice but when they come together everything is nice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dreamwork455 (talk • contribs) 04:08, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, your edit has been reverted. It is understood that your edit has been made in good faith, however, it removed the essential lede and replaced it with an unsourced opinion. The title of the article and lede sentence have been long established as the parking brake, and a change of that magnitude must be first discussed. Please also ensure that an encyclopedic tone of voice is used when editing Wikipedia. Additionally, the topic of drifting has already been covered under the "Other uses" subheading. Your new in-depth description of the history of the parking brake may be added further in the article, however it is best to keep the lede concise. Refer to WP:LEAD for more information about ledes. Please feel free to expand this article after taking into account the above considerations. Zacharycmango (talk) 04:00, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Relative strength of handbrake in manual and automatic cars
In my experience, handbrakes in automatic cars tend to be weaker than in manual cars. Occasionally I have driven an automatic with the handbrake "full on", without even noticing; after a mile or two, I might notice the engine straining a bit, or an unpleasant smell, or perhaps a red light on the dash. In a manual car, this tends to be impossible - even with the engine revving off the scale, the handbrake should be strong enough to stall it before the clutch is fully released.

Is this a general feature, or just a coincidence in the cars I have driven? Mtford 08:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

It is a coincidense. Go to a new car dealer and test drive an automatic and a manual version of the same car and test their brakes and you will find they have equal stopping power. What I am sure you notice is that many who use automatic transmissions do not maintain their parking brakes to the same level as those who drive manuals. This is because the manual driver has a greater need and more frequent use of the parking brake. I know of many who drive automatics and do not use the parking brake at all. I know of none who drive manuals who do not use the parking brake on every trip.Z07 14:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I have designed parking brakes for the leading global manufacturer of parking brake systems for the last decade. Functionally there is no difference in a automatic and manual transmission vehicle. The parking brake system is regulated in the United States by FMVSS-135 which states that hand brakes must be capable of holding a passenger car or truck under 10,000 lbs gross vehicle weight (GVW) with the vehicle loaded to GVW on a 20% grade with 90 lbs maximum input to the lever with the transmission in neutral. 207.89.251.10 19:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, automatic drivers, especially those who don't normally use it, are more prone to forget it is on and drive around wearing out the brake shoes - so maybe Mtford is on to something. And obviously a torque converter won't let an auto stall, which makes it much easier to drive around with it on. I know I've done it... 220.244.238.174 23:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * This is a common issue with automatics in the USA. The parking brake is identical with both types of transmission and works equally well. However those in automatics aren't well adjusted, so don't work when you need them.
 * Modern parking brakes are self-adjusting. They adjust themselves each time they're used. However if they're not used, they don't adjust and they lose effectiveness. US driving style is to use Park on the transmission, rather than the parking brake or "emergency" brake as it's incorrectly termed. Most of the rest of the world uses the parking brake, so their brakes keep working. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:15, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Difference between handbrake and footbrake
The article doesn't explain why a car can be stopped under control more easily with the footbrake than with the hand/emergency brake. It even states, near the bottom, that the two brake systems may use the "same mechanism". Why then, does a "handbrake turn" only occur with the handbrake? Surely readers should not be encouraged to try using the handbrake next time they need to slow down on a busy road in the rain at 70+ mph!


 * The handbrake or parking brake only operates the brakes on (typically) the rear wheels. The reason a handbrake turn works is because locking up the rear brakes causes a vehicle to oversteer, or swing its rear out, whereas with the normal brake pedal, the front brakes do most of the work.  Additionally, the regular brakes are tuned to be much smoother and longer lasting under motion, whereas the parking brake is meant to only be used to hold a stationary car stationary, and stop a car in an emergency.  Neither situation requires the smoothness customers expect from standard brakes.  So in conclusion, the mechanism is basically the same, in some cars, but the purpose, design, and refinement are all different, and they (typically) act only on the rear wheels.  Dachande 15:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Also perhaps worth mentioning that the handbrake does not normally operate the rear brake lights? Mtford 09:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Parking with brake on vs brake off
im just curious because ive heard different sides of this argument, but does anyone actually know if its bad to turn your car off without turning on the parking break. Some people say its bad for the transmission while others say its only really needed if you park on a hill. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.85.20.37 (talk) 21:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC).

Most auto manufacturers recommand that the parking brake be used at all times, and that the Park gear on the transmission is used as a backup only. If a vehicle is regularly parked using the Park gear only then premature wear to the transmission can occur. 81.178.235.56 14:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not a park gear. It is a small parking pin. The wear occurs to this pin not from the load it bares but rather from the shock it takes as the vehicle rolls when the brake is let off. Thus, securing the car with the parking brake before letting off of the foot brake with the car in park will save this pin from the shock of the car being stopped by the pin. ````

Parking a car with the handbrake disengaged is a bad idea. With a manual transmission and even with the lowest gear engaged, random disturbances - like wind - will make the vehicle roll slightly back and forth (maybe an inch or so): it's an obvious safety hazard; also, transmission components clatter against each other, engine parts are unneccesarily stressed, the stopping force is weak, and most importantly - wheel bearings can be seriously damaged by false brinelling due to the small oscillating motion. ******


 * The reason to engage the parking brake in an automatic equipped car is not to prevent wear to the transmission. When you place the vehicle in park, release the foot brake and it rolls an inch or so then stops, that play was provided by your engine mounts. Allowing the vehicle to bounce off its mounts increases the wear they receive. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.83.129.146 (talk • contribs).

If parking wore out the motor mounts then they would fail under acceleration from a stop too. There is much mor force put on the motor mounts from reving the engine than from parking. The wear on the parking prawl is indeed the reason to set the parkingbrake before letting off the main brake.Z07 13:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. That play is actually because the parking pawl is not yet in one of its notches. The car rolls forward, the transmission rotates a bit, a notch and the pawl line up, the pawl clicks in (its spring loaded) and the car stops. Remember that below a couple hundred rpm, the transmission wont even begin to turn the engine, so no force will be transmitted. If you need more convincing, the torque converter isn't engaged to the transmission anyway, so even if it were to transmit force... there would be none to transmit. Nereth 12:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

GM had front wheel drive cars in the 1960's
This is simply wrong: "GM's first attempt at front-wheel drive cars in the early 1980s" Read about a 60's era car from GM with front wheel drive right here in Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadillac_Eldorado —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Z07 (talk • contribs) 20:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC).

This entire paragraph is a red herring I'm taking it out
The fact is that millions of cars were and are built and operated safely with foot actuated parking brakes. The case refferenced in this article does not show a difference between foot and hand actuated brakes in general as the author claims. It shows that a single case of late design change resulted in a single brake lever that was not designed correctly. In no way does this show a "difference between pedal and lever [actuators]" A leg is in general much stronger than an arm. Therefore, more force can be generated by the leg than the arm.

"The difference between pedal and lever for activation of parking brakes was highlighted when NHTSA sued General Motors Corporation over the safety of their X-car family, GM's first attempt at front-wheel drive cars in the early 1980s (United States v. General Motors, 841 F.2d 400 (D.C. Cir. 1988)). The cars were initially designed to be five passenger models, with bucket seats and lever actuated parking brakes. However, a decision was made late in the design cycle to broaden the cars' possible purchasing appeal by offering them with bench seats, as six seaters; this necessitated a change from parking brake lever mounted between the seats to parking brake pedal. The pedal, however, did not have enough leverage to apply sufficient pressure to the rear brakes to hold the car on an incline, and without enough time to redesign the braking system the decision was made simply to use brake linings with a higher coefficient of friction instead, to hold the car with the pressure that could be applied through the parking brake pedal. However, this in turn had an undesirable effect; the increase in friction of the rear brakes, along with the (unusual for GM up to this time) excess forward weight distribution of a front wheel drive car and possibly GM's inexperience at the time with front wheel cars, led to a tendency for the rear wheels to lock up under braking, which led to the rear of the car slewing sideways and loss of directional control and/or spinning. The Court of Appeals eventually ruled against NHTSA and for GM, however, on the grounds that NHTSA's case for performance failure was based only on circumstantial evidence.[1] The Center for Auto Safety includes the case as one of its Safety Research Reports.[2]" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Z07 (talk • contribs) 21:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC).

Jacking
The article makes note of jacking only in this blurb:

"It is however, particularly dangerous when used in combination with a bumper jack at the rear of the vehicle if wheel block wedges are not used; jacking one rear wheel up will allow the differential to operate and the vehicle can roll off of the jack. This can be particularly dangerous if the wheel has been removed."

Bumper jacks are not common at all in modern cars. Can you please give one example of a car with a drive shaft brake and a bumper jack? There are none unless someone has built himself a one off custom car. In that case the builder will know more about it than you or I.

What if the car has a posi-traction rear end? What if the car has the pinion gear welded?

What if it is a SAAB 900 with front wheel drive and front mounted parking brakes? Then you can lift the rear of the car all day with the brake wheels still on the gournd.

This note only adds confusion about parking brakes. I will delete this blurb and add in a note on jacking safely. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Z07 (talk • contribs) 21:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC).

Please format your edits so they do not run together with others on the discussion page. This was inserted inside the above paragraph.Z07 13:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

"The article is not necessarily referring to cars. Any jack, not just a bumper jack would satisfy the conditions allowing the vehicle to roll. The trucks I work on need to be chocked before changing a rear tire because of the open-differental and driveshaft mounted parking brake."

Yes. My section on jacking mentions chocking the wheels.Z07 13:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Automatic Brake Release
This statement is simply wrong: "Historically, some cars with automatic transmissions were fitted with automatically releasing parking brakes. "

The word "historically" here indicates that cars are no longer fitted with automatic brake releases. They are and the brake releases work quite safely and well.

I will alter the main article to correct this.

The First EPB System in a Production Vehicle
The first instance of EPB was not the 2002 BMW, but the 2001 Lancia Thesis. 84.64.117.245 21:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Handbrake with Rear Discs?
"In cars with rear disc brakes, the emergency brake most often actuates the disc calipers (again, with much less force). However, there are examples of cars with rear disc brakes in which the emergency brake actuates a small drum brake housed within the hub assembly (e.g. the Mazda RX-5, its twin the Cosmo, and older Toyota Camrys and Celicas)."

In my experience, rear disc rotors are shaped like Panama Hats, the raised part covering the hub drum brake that is connected via a cable to the handbrake. I believe the Porsche 911, at least the early ones, had rear discs but separate inboard rear drums for the handbrake. Either way, having two completely separate braking systems make sense - i.e. in cases brake failure.


 * Risk of brake failure is not a good enough reason to have separate systems. Most brake failures are hydraulic related and therefore have no effect on the cable actuated parking brake. The other option is friction material failure, which takes thousands of miles of degraded performance and horrendous noises to become complete failure. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.83.129.146 (talk • contribs).

I have little experience of modern American cars, maybe they do use the discs (I doubt it), but I think the author of the quoted paragraph is misled or extrapolating from limited experience. 220.244.238.174 00:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I have two modern American cars with four wheel disk brakes. They both use the rotor and pads for the parking brake. They are both Corvettes. By reusing the braking componets from the main brakes unsprung weight is reduced.Z07 16:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Older Corvettes used the mini drum inside the rear disk. My old SAAB 900 did not. It used the front calipers and pads.

2002+ Subaru WRX does indeed have a small drum inside the rear disk. The parking brake lever actuates shoes that press outward onto the drum to apply braking force. The rear calipers do not have any function other than as service brakes. To do a "full" brake job requires 2 sets of pads and one set of shoes. Yes, it is a bit of a pain.

I had a 1985 Subaru Brat that had front disk parking brake integrated into the front calipers. I thought it was a brilliant design. If you actually need to stop, there's more stopping power in the front. Much simpler design than drums. But then I purchased a 2006 Subaru Impreza only to be disappointed in the rear Disc/Drum design. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.255.26.242 (talk) 20:58, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure all Japanese and Australian cars with 4-wheel discs have drum-actuated hand brakes. The only American cars sold in Australia are Chryslers, and they all seem to have drums as well. 60.240.161.226 10:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The preceeding paragraph is incorrect. GM also sells cars in Australia. I know of GM's brand Holden, and I'm pretty sure SAAB, Opel, and Vauxhall are sold there too. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.83.129.146 (talk • contribs).

GMH sell no American cars in Australia. No American-made SAABs are sold in Australia. Opel and Vauxhall models are badged as Holdens. Karldoh 12:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

More Detail Required
I would like to see a more detailed description (and ideally a diagram) of exactly how a hand-brake actuates the primary brake.

Marquetry28 09:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Consistency?
The article (titled 'hand brake') doesn't seem to use the two word form much, preferring 'handbrake' instead. However, it also it referred to as an e-brake, an emergency brake and a parking brake. Would it not make sense to use one term consistently throughout the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by O Cram (talk • contribs) 18:03, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

More Detail Required
I think as many people said, this page requires more detail. Such as the difference between a foot brake and a hand brake, and the mechanics of how a hand brake works. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.92.154.148 (talk) 23:10, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Circut Diagram of the Hand Brake
Can you please provide a standard circuit diagram of how the hand brake(park brake) actuates the brakes on the rear wheels? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.136.14.9 (talk) 09:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was move to Parking brake GrooveDog (talk) 00:20, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Hand brake → Parking brake &mdash; Not all cars have a "hand brake" per se: some have a foot-operated brake (i.e Mercedes-Benz models), others an electro-mechanical one (i.e. Audi A4). OSX (talk • contributions) 12:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. For cars the "hand brake" is normally used only for parking, but for trucks and trains, the hand brake is used for trucks when the air brakes fail (almost impossible, as a failure of air pressure would apply the brakes - the air pressure is used to hold the brakes off), and on older railroad cars that only have manual, hand used brakes - you had to go from car to car to apply the brakes. On newer railroad cars the hand brakes are used only for parking. The difference between using parking brake and hand brake, is what they are primarily used for, and how they are operated - even in the case of the Audi, pushing a button is done by hand. As to the foot operated brakes, they are "manual brakes", but the word manual comes from manu - hand, and means operated by hand (as opposed to automatically, and all brakes are applied manually, normally). In automobile terminology, the main brakes are called the service brakes, and there is no separate brake used for parking or as a hand brake - there is simply a cable or other mechanism to apply the front only or rear only brakes mechanically, i.e. without hydraulic assistance. 199.125.109.126 (talk) 14:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * No, in Mercedes-Benz cars, the Toyota Aurion, the Toyota Hilux and many others, you have an accelerator and brake pedal like in all cars, but there is a third (small) pedal (or fourth if it is a manual transmission car) to the very far left which is used to engage the "parking brake" (i.e. there is no hand-operated parking brake). To release the "parking brake" there is usually a lever nearby to release it. As for the Audis, there is a button on the centre console which once pressed, either engages or disengages the parking brake. The Audi setup is more of a "finger brake", and hence the "parking brake" title takes these alternative brake setups into consideration. OSX (talk • contributions) 03:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I would guess that all owners manuals instruct to set the parking brake when stopped, even though for most people that is simply a recipe for burning out the rear brakes. The only time I use the "hand brake" is if I want to skid the rear end of the car by locking up the rear brakes, or if I am parked on a very steep hill. Or if I want to slow down without revealing the fact that I had been speeding. Technically the subject of the article is "manual brake", but as noted above, all brakes are applied manually. Here is OSHA's definition of brake systems, for construction vehicles (service, emergency, and parking, for those who want the quick summary). 199.125.109.126 (talk) 17:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. Since the article is about these kinds of brakes generally, not just ones operated with the hand, it seems the relevant question is whether it is more common to call this general class of brakes parking brakes or hand brakes.  Sources that are referring only to hand-operated brakes, calling them hand brakes, are not relevant.  Encarta refers to them exclusively as parking brakes.  The page on "automobile" in Britannica isn't loading for me, but it would also be relevant to consult.  --Atemperman (talk) 17:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Support move this article to Parking brake and in addition move the text about railroad hand brakes to a different article. 96.243.59.151 (talk) 00:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Cromulency of lead image
Would it not be more appropriate to use an image of a parking brake lever in situ rather than a disembodied one? ~ Crazytales  (talk)  21:06, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

"Parking brake lamp"

This lamp, in american cars at least, can also indicate a brake system malfunction — Preceding unsigned comment added by J s martell1 (talk • contribs) 02:48, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Terminology: "emergency brake"
The lead has for some time read, "the parking brake, also called hand brake, erroneously called emergency brake". The qualifier "erroneously" has now been removed three times by Little Professor as "in common usage", "unsourced claim" and "No source there. don't break the WP:3RR rule". I thank him for bringing my ignorant attention to the radical novelty of 3RR.

As the (rather fascinating) linguistic first source indicates, "emergency brake" is indeed in common use (this isn't questioned) but only in North America (the home of the automatic transmission). In the rest of the English-speaking world, the term is almost universally "hand brake".

The question is though, is the hand brake useful as an emergency brake, or is it (as originally stated) a misnomer? The second paragraph goes into this in some detail, although could use more references.

Further opinions would be welcome. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:43, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Not an emergency device
The parking brake should be used whenever the vehicle is parked. It is not an emergency brake, or "instead intended for use in case of mechanical failure where the regular footbrake is inoperable or compromised". That false apprehension is the cause of many accidents in the USA, and the failure of many people to use brakes when parked. The article is dangerously misleading.Royalcourtier (talk) 00:18, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Side break
It would be good to add to the article.

1)Used as an informal alternative to parking break, mostly from non-native English speakers.

2)The side brake on early cars was a supplement to the foot-operated brake, and was operated by a lever outside the driving compartment and worked via a cable. It worked both as a supplement (the long lever allowed more force than a pedal), as well as a device for restraining the car when it was not being driven.

very early cars, 1900-1910 vintage, some had the secondary brake on the outside of the body

Early on in the use of hydraulic brakes (highly failure-prone in the early years) a simple mechanical brake, operated by a cable, was called the emergency brake, operated by a lever or a pedal, again via a cable.. Once hydraulic brakes were improved and reliable, "emergency" was deemed too scary for the car buyer, so it was renamed the parking brake which is what it is usually called today. In cars where it is operated by a lever, it may be called the hand brake.

3)There is a firm that offers a "passenger-side break" for driving schools. It's to enable the driving instructor to execute a panic stop if the situation requires 213.149.62.151 (talk) 01:37, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

contemporary alternatives

 * P position in an automatic transmission (does not lock the drive wheels. It locks the transmission by putting a pawl into its gears.; expression "put car in Park"; when engine is turned off this does the same job; frequently used alone)
 * no handbrake lever (in Vauxhall Insignia), instead there is a button-like switch - press it and the brakes are applied to the rear wheels electronically; click it off and the brake is off.
 * many parking/emergency brakes are entirely operated by foot 213.149.62.151 (talk) 01:47, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Article seems to assume…
…that the parking brake acts only on the rear wheels. Plenty of cars, such as the Saab mentioned up there ^^^^ somewhere and many FWD models from French manufacturers, have it acting on the front wheels. Mr Larrington (talk) 22:15, 7 June 2022 (UTC)