Thread: Brake shoe orientation

As far as I can see they should work either way - but as far as I know all drum braked Landrovers have the shoes like ( ). I think the one diagram in that link that is different is incorrectly oriented. The main reason I can think of for the shoes to be upright is that it puts the hoses the furthest possible out of reach of damage.

John

Thank you John.

I thought of that, too - along with the fact that if I rotated them 90º then the flexible hose wouldn't have as much 'travel' in it.

One other thing to think of, is that if you orientate the shoes like ( ) it means that the bleed nipple will be on top of the wheel cylinder, allowing for all the air to be bled out easily (with slightly less frustration).

The 11" brakes are one of those things that is not explained very well in any of the Rover manuals.

Firstly there are two types of rear brakes.

The late S1 109's had 11" brakes with a bottom adjuster this continues onto the Series II but not onto the Series IIa. In many respects these are superior because the wear the shoe evenly along the entire length of the friction material.

With the later 11" brakes you will find that the shoes are handed so you need to check the position of the adjuster post in relation to the snail cam.

I have always seen/had the springs behind the shoe - but am open to being corrected on this one.

Originally Posted by Lotz-A-Landies

............

I have always seen/had the springs behind the shoe - but am open to being corrected on this one.

Springs need to be behind the shoes to pull the shoes against the support posts.

John

Originally Posted by Mudpiggy

One other thing to think of, is that if you orientate the shoes like ( ) it means that the bleed nipple will be on top of the wheel cylinder, allowing for all the air to be bled out easily (with slightly less frustration).

Originally Posted by Lotz-A-Landies

The 11" brakes are one of those things that is not explained very well in any of the Rover manuals.

Firstly there are two types of rear brakes.

The late S1 109's had 11" brakes with a bottom adjuster this continues onto the Series II but not onto the Series IIa. In many respects these are superior because the wear the shoe evenly along the entire length of the friction material.

With the later 11" brakes you will find that the shoes are handed so you need to check the position of the adjuster post in relation to the snail cam.

I have always seen/had the springs behind the shoe - but am open to being corrected on this one.

On the older cars I worked on with my father it was always the go - springs behind the shoes - for exactly the reason John has indicated below.

Thanks for the info on the rear shoes - I haven't got that far yet (nothing aft of the cabin at the moment) but will reabsorb that info when I get there.

Originally Posted by JDNSW

Springs need to be behind the shoes to pull the shoes against the support posts.

John

Thanks John (I hope you are still enjoying your American vacation and offer extra thanks for taking the time to assist)

Originally Posted by drifter

...........

Thanks John (I hope you are still enjoying your American vacation and offer extra thanks for taking the time to assist)

Back in Australia on Wednesday, but not home yet - and getting home is a bit problematic right at the moment - the river I need to cross to get home is probably about 3m above the bridge. There are ways round, but I need information on them before I try it. Hope to head for home on Sunday.

John

Originally Posted by drifter

I've had a look through The Good Oil and I haven't found anything definitive.

When I pulled the brake shoes off the 2a, (109") I noticed the shoes were set up like:

( )

When I look in the manual and at this link, it would appear that they should be one over the other, i.e. one on top and one underneath.

Which way works?

And here you were supervising Toad's brake rebuild and you don't even know how to do your own . No wonder Toad's brakes didn't work first off .

You got it all sorted now and in for rego next week?

Garry