Tim:
I agree with your assessment that a dual chamber mc is much safer than a single chamber, however, I not so sure that I agree with the application of the statistics you used to get there. It seems to me that academic solutions often rely on the old economics 101 qualifier "ceterus parabus", meaning "everything else being the same, or being constant, or being equal" (choose your definition). It seems to me that in real life things are never the same, or constant, or equal.
Also, there are two things changed between a dual chamber mc application and a single chamber application; the actual mc and the changed fluid distribution system (the brake lines). Quite a bit of the safety improvement is due to the changed distribution system, not the dual chamer mc per se. Looking at master cylinders by themselves, not considering the changed distribution system, I would think that in real life, if a particular dual chamber mc was in such a deterioriated condition that one chamber would fail, there is a pretty good chance the other chamber is not in much better condition and also subject to failure in the near future. So, (again ignoring the distribution system) I think both sides of a dual chamber mc would fail before two single chamber master cylinders would fail, one after the other, making the dual chamber mc less than twice as safe as a single chamber mc. (At least, my inner pedant thinks so.)
Actually, I realize that everyone is considering the dual chamber and it's distribution system as a single system and saying the dual chamber system is "more than twice as safe" as a single chamber system and I agree with that, but that's not as much fun as trying to confuse things.
So, so you see my feeble point or should I just shut up and stay away from the computer for a week?
Larry
