M151 brake shoe kits

[SURPDLR]

From the M151 tech board:

Fellas, this is not the first time Louie has steered me to the differences between the originals and cheaper-made repros. We also covered the brake pads recently in another thread too. This board is a great place for this kind of info.

I must have missed the above thread. If I had seen it I would have piped up that I (FRONT LINE MILITARY VEHICLES) sell a M151 brake shoe "deal".
You get 2 axels's worth of NOS Government Surplus bonded brake shoes with Brake adjusters, and a NOS Government Surplus parking brake band, all for $50.00 plus shipping.



These are not the slightly thinner rivited brake shoes that are floating around. I do have some NOS Government Surplus rivited brake shoes (These are of course slightly thinner than the bonded type) if anybody would prefer them to the bonded type.

All of my brake shoes, like 99.9% of my inventory are NOS Government Surplus. Where other dealers get their parts I can't say, allthough I do know that S&S (New Star Products) had some made somewhere in the world a while back.

jeff

FRONT LINE MILITARY VEHICLES
(717) 252-4489

[Glen the Rotorhead]

Hey Jeff I think I may have bought a full set from you. But I found that the blue springs in your picture are way bigger than the springs in my A1. Doesn't even look like they will fit. Are the springs for A2s only?

[SURPDLR]

Hey Jeff I think I may have bought a full set from you. But I found that the blue springs in your picture are way bigger than the springs in my A1. Doesn't even look like they will fit. Are the springs for A2s only?

The Bonded kits include "new upgraded springs and adjusters". They are bigger/heavier than the originals, but work just fine. They are meant to fit all of the M151 family.



jeff

[Glen the Rotorhead]

Thanks, looks can be deceiving I guess because visually they look like they won't fit. I'll be finding out this weekend as I have two leaking cylinders.

[Airborne Bob]

Hello Jeff,

I've purchased stuff from you before and liked what I received, so I know you're a reputable guy to deal with. And I certainly don't want any problems with you or hard feelings, so I hope there's a reasonable explanation for what I'm about to say. If you feel like you don't owe me or anyone else an explanation, that will have to be okay too. This is your thread, not mine.

But having said that, the reason I posted the above was that in your above picture, the contract number shown on the box is a contract number apparently deemed unacceptable by the DOD in a quoted memo posted by someone within a recent thread. I hate to announce this without being able to reference the exact thread, but I just spent about 20 minutes doing a "Search" and plugged in everything I could think of to come up with my original post on the brake shoes, but to no avail. Can't find it. It's a post in which I even posted the above picture too, after this Contract Number was specifically mentioned. Perhaps someone else will remember which post this was in, but I just tried everything I could think of to bring it up. What complicates a "Search" on this board is, if you've searched one particular thread and then go to "return," you hit a blank screen and have to go back to "Search" again and start all over. I do remember that the thread was fairly recent (within two weeks).

Anyway, this supposedly quoted memo, posted by one of the members here, states that brake shoes manufactured under the contract number shown and clearly printed right on the above box are not to be considered safe. I know you're probably reading this and getting pissed by the minute, but this is what happened. Please bear in mind, I'm not the originator of this, just the messenger, and the guy who posted it may not even be the originator of it either (in fact, if all he was doing was quoting this memo, the DOD is the originator), but are you even aware that such a memo is in existence and indicates this? My guess is you don't know about it. My guess is also that your bonded brake shoes probably still work fine for normal, everyday driving.

In any event, let's try to get beyond this. I'd still like to buy one of these "sets" but I'm not sure I want anything other than the riveted ones, unless you can provide assurances to the contrary on the above. I'm assuming you opened this thread with the idea in mind that you have complete confidence in your bonded shoes and are totally comfortable with safe operation providing they're installed properly.

I'd still like to remain a good customer of yours and certainly don't want to cause trouble for anyone, but at the same time I felt compelled to bring this up in lieu of the fact that you have.

[Glen the Rotorhead]

Call me foolish or naive, but I have a full set of the "evil" brake shoes and I will be installing them this weekend. After 30+ years in military acquisition, that's a risk I'm willing to take. I figure that they test a couple sets and they don't meet the unreasonable specs, so they shi tcan the whole lot. If they were absolutely unsafe they would have required that the lot be destroyed, not released for surplus.

Stayed tuned: if you see the back end of a MUTT sticking out of the side of building on the evening news, it may be me

[Airborne Bob]

"Unreasonable specs" is the keyword and I think you're right. There are plenty of automobiles riding around with worse-constructed, foreign-made brake shoes and still stopping. And like I said, we're not going to be towing around 1,000 pounds worth of 155 rounds in our M-416s.

Hey Glen, any chance of me being named as an additional beneficiary on your life insurance policy?

[SURPDLR]

Bob,

In answer to your question:

The info you were looking for is this:

“Safety of Use Message” in reference to the M151 series Jeeps. It covers all models. It is dated Jul 1990. Problem: Brakes supplied under contracts DAAE07-87-C-0839 and DAAE07-86-C-0755 are not in conformance with technical and quality requirements. All brake shoes made on those contracts according to TACOM should be turned in to the DRMO.

What this doesn’t tell you is that the problem relates to a big mess with the contract and quality testing there in. Below is more info on it:

In February 1986, Midwest entered into contract DAAE07-86-C-0755 to sell 31,516 jeep brake-shoe kits to the United States Army. The contract required that the brake shoes be welded together with long strips of weld material known as fillet welds. In late March 1986, Midwest requested permission from the Army to "plug weld" the brake shoes instead of fillet welding them. Midwest prepared and submitted to the Army a document marked "Request for Deviation/Waiver MID-0755-1." Among other things, the deviation request added to the contract a quality-assurance testing requirement, presumably (though it is immaterial) to ensure that the plug welds would be as durable as the originally specified fillet welds. The quality testing requirement in Midwest's deviation request reads as follows: "Add: Test per Method I or II (attached)." Midwest then attached pages from a deviation request submitted in connection with a different contract several years earlier, as well as schematic diagrams depicting the two required testing methods. The attached pages described both the testing specifications and the frequency of the required testing:

1. Slot Welded assembly to be tested to verify that it shall withstand, without failure or cracking, a shear force of 5,000 pounds applied at both ends of the assembly in the tangential direction of the table at points of application. Test sample size shall be three out of the first ten; and thereafter, one out of every 250.

2. Each Slot Welded assembly to be checked to verify that the surfaces of table and web shall conform within 0.005 inches from the ideal. The frequency of inspection will be changed when a level of confidence is established that Midwest Specialties, Inc., has met the required design condition on a repeated basis. The Quality Assurance Representative [a Defense Department contracting employee] can then establish a random sampling check.

The Army approved Midwest's deviation request and issued a contract modification incorporating the terms of deviation request MID0755-1. The Army's approval document states that the "purpose of this modification is to incorporate deviation #0755-1 (DD Form 1694 attached)," referring to Midwest's form request for deviation. However, this document did not actually attach Midwest's deviation request. In January 1987, Midwest entered into another contract (# DAAE07-87-C-0839) to sell 2,552 additional jeep brake shoes to the Army. The Army then approved Midwest's request to plug weld and test these brake shoes under the same terms as the first jeep brake-shoe contract.

The problem is that Midwest then skipped the testing for the most part, and in late 1989, the brakes on an M151 jeep apparently failed when the welds on one of its Midwest brake shoes failed. This started an investigation, and later a Law suite against Midwest that they seem to have lost from what I have seen.

For what it’s worth the plug weld assembly technique is the same as used on about 95% of all brake shoes made today. With the lining installed it gives the appearance of only a tack weld holding the shoe web and flange together. Below are some photo examples of what has been referred to.



Above is the fillet welded type of Mutt shoe


Above is a view of a plug welded Mutt shoe


Above is another view of a plug welded Mutt shoe


Above is a 5 Ton plug welded shoe

The long and the short of it is that I WOULDN’T SELL THESE IF I THOUGHT THEY WERE UNSAFE!!

jeff

[Glen the Rotorhead]

Thanks for the clarification. Mine are definitely plug welded and so far they are working just fine. Of course I just put them in today. But no doubt way better than what I took out!

[Airborne Bob]

Hello Jeff,

I know you wouldn't knowingly sell something you thought was unsafe. And thank you for clearing up the differences between fillet welds and plug welds. Doing so enables all of us to make a more informed choice for ourselves when it's time to buy brake shoes. It looks like you've initiated two posts here on this same subject on the brake shoes, so I'll provide one answer and then I guess I'll have to post it to your other thread on the same exact subject as well, although two posts seem redundant and probably all we ever needed was one single post on this to begin with. But since my name seems to now be again linked to this (again, I only responded to another's post showing the "Safety Of Use Message"), I guess it's only right that I respond.

You are right about the outcome of Midwest Specialties, Incorporated's lawsuit, part of which you posted above. They did lose the lawsuit. After losing they filed and appeal to the case to the Sixth Circuit Court Of Appeals and they lost there also. The entire court findings, dated January 22, 1998, can be found at this link:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/g ... no=980121p

I never had any intention of "trashing" you, as your PM to me over the weekend states, and I still don't. In fact, I still think you're a nice guy and a reputable supplier of MUTT parts and again, I'm sure you wouldn't knowingly sell something that you thought was unsafe as you state above.

But apparently Midwest did supply the Army with the non-fillet welded brake shoes and the circumstances brought about by the jeep mishap brought to light some disturbing details about the shoes:

"In late 1989, the brakes on an Army jeep apparently failed when the welds on one of its Midwest brake shoes failed. The Army therefore commenced an investigation of the brake shoes delivered by Midwest. The Army subjected a sample of 18 brake-shoe kits to the Method I test and a sample of 54 kits to the Method II test; the results (as described in an Armymemorandum issued on January 22, 1990) indicated that roughly 78 percent of the brake shoes failed to pass muster under the Method I test, and more than 60 percent of the brakes failed the Method II test. The Army investigators concluded that "a rework is needed to upgrade the strength of the [brake] assembly. . . ." See J.A. at 389. As a result, on March 15, 1990, the Army sent out an "inspection emergency" message to all military bases and embassies around the world ordering that jeeps equipped with brake shoes manufactured by Midwest be "deadlined" until replacement brake shoes could be installed. See id. at 322. Since the transmission of that message, all Midwest brake shoes have been removed from Army jeeps, and those brake shoes are now sitting in warehouses at various United States military installations around the world."

Granted, as Glen and I have joked about, none of us truly knows how stringent the Army's "Method 1" and "Method 2" tests are, and I'll be the first one to agree that these tests are probably unrealistically strict. But it's still interesting that the appelate court cites that:

"Midwest's only response to the government's data showing that 60 percent of the brake shoes failed the Method I test and that more than 77 percent of the brake shoes failed the Method II test is to say that the government's test results were not properly supported by an affidavit or otherwise properly authenticated. The government first proffered its testing data in its June 21, 1995, brief. Midwest subsequently filed six briefs in the district court proceedings, none of which ever challenged the authenticity of the government's testing evidence."

The court also determined that:

"Midwest's president testified in his deposition that he knew the plug-welded brake shoes were subject to the testing requirement. Despite knowledge of this requirement, Midwest did not test the brake shoes as required by the contracts. Midwest then submitted claims for payment to the government attesting that the brake-shoe kits conformed to contract requirements. This is sufficient to constitute "reckless disregard" of the truth of its representations as to contract compliance. The district court therefore did not err in finding that Midwest violated the False Claims Act."

As a result of violating the False Claims Act, it looks like Midwest was not only forced to return the $1,369,042.40 the Army paid them for the brakes, they were also fined triple that sum, a whopping $4,107,127.20!. The lawsuit also states that the brakes were supposedly removed from all Army jeeps and the inventory was cleared from all the shelves. The big question is, if these brakes were considered defective, why weren't they destroyed instead of being sold as surplus? Interesting.

[Ed Funchess]

No matter what anybody's position on this string is, I think it is important, and a clear example of why we need the Gee Forum. This brake thing is interesting, and I am compelled to post to it. It ought to be in the Tech section.
I have bought a couple of these very brake sets from Jeff because they are an excellent buy. They are good looking, thick shoes. Like most, I was not aware that there was a problem with the contract QC for these brakes. Apparently it was serious enough to initiate a total recall of this product from government service, and how they got into the commercial supply chain is a mystery, if indeed, these shoes Jeff is selling is from those contract batches. Analylitically, the test requirements for PF of these shoes were stringent. I can imagine 5000 lbs of pressure evenly applied to the backing of these things to see if it would tear away from the reinforcing rib at the welds. That seems to be a lot, and I imagine the government set the standards high enough that no batch of shoes would enter service having failed these tests. According to the data, 6 to 8 out of 10 failed either one, or both tests, and that is not good.
Not having any details on the incident that brought these faults to light, I would imagine that had one of the shoes, being encased within the drum and held in place only by springs, come apart in a braking situation, the shoe base probably continued around the perimeter of the drum, wrenching everything else inside loose, causing displacement of the base tabs holding against the wheel cylinder pistons, which popped out thereby causing loss of fluid pressure to the whole system, resulting in immediate and complete hydraulic brake failure on the vehicle. It certainly would be a rare occurrance in the annals of the motor pool crowd, and probably raised some eyebrows, amplified by the possibility that this happened on the Gen's jeep, rolling into the rear echelon of the band during a review, tuba players being hard to recruit anyhow didnt help. This type of failure is probably not the specific cause related to the institution of dual reservoir braking systems on all vehicles today, but could certainly be one of them. I have often thought of trying to locate a dual master cylinder system that I could adapt to one of my jeeps for reasons like this, and old rusted lines blowing out just as you are slowing to stop behind a lincoln continental full of old ladies on their way to a bridge game.
I have bought a fair amount of stuff from Jeff, and intend to keep doing it. I find them A+ as a dealer in all respects. I would asess that this has put him between a rock and a hard place with these things, particularly since they were supposedly "quarantined" within the government system, and none, no, not one, should have been in the surplus marketplace for dealers to buy under any circumstances.
So, no matter what anyones stake in this is, the information brought forth is nonetheless valuable knowledge, particularly since we are dealing with a vehicle that already has a more than sufficient quantity of squirrely characteristics designed into it. So what will we do. I will tell you what I am going to do. I will examine each of the shoes I have for weld quality, and if I dont like what I see, fifty cents worth of MIG wire and 5 minutes will put my mind at ease. Jeff, I am going to get some more of these. They are still a great buy even if I might be inclined to do a little tacking on them just to put my mind at ease. As I said, this is good information, and an easy fix. Ed