They added a stupid roundabout in my area, it is a major state highway, instead of the few people getting on the express way having to slow down to turn onto the on ramps, now EVERYONE has to slow down even if there's no traffic. There's a place for roundabouts, but in that exact case it would have been far better to just add a turn lane to keep traffic flowing (no slow down for most drivers).
Same township made the 2 lane highway going out of town a 2 lane highway with a left turn lane for like 2 businesses in 2 miles, completely waste of money, and now no one can legally pass in that section. Some people go 45mph (speed limit in town), and it slows everyone down and no way to pass, of course for a short moment it's helping people get better mpg, but someone upset is known to get worst mpg and drive more aggressively. There was never a traffic problem heading out of town, I don't understand why they did it, the traffic light timing is more of a problem, but there's about 4 lights grouped right together and a timed where you have to be going the speed limit or faster to make them and the traffic in the area naturally goes around 35mph because of all the businesses and driveways in the area slows down the traffic.
Anyway, just wanted to point out, roundabouts are not a one fits all solution. Not every intersection in the usa has enough traffic to warrant the extra costs and a simple stop sign works just fine for low traffic areas, the usa is a massive area of land for the population, the only real traffic areas we have are primary in larger cities from what I've seen, that and road layout, like there's a large swamp in my area, so no road goes directly through, so have 3 or so turns to get to the other side of it.
I've had more people almost hit me in that roundabout than anywhere else from people coming off the express way. Never had a problem at all before the change. It's so tiny that semi's have to drive over the center and it's not exactly smooth for the cargo.
Here's an image of the setup. I guess google maps was drunk when they drew the road lines lol.
Depends on year, make, model, some vehicles used the parking brake as a way to adjust the rear brake drums up. I'm not sure which style my F250 is, it's a manual and the parking brake doesn't function. Seems like 99% of domestics the parking brake doesn't work in and 90% or so of toyota's it works fine.
You might be right on less self adjusting rear brakes for drum brakes. Disc naturally is self adjusting (always tight), so there is an advantage for disc in that area.
I've tested the parking brake on a lot of Toyota's, Camry, Corolla, Echo, Prius, Matrix, etc, up here in Michigan where road salt is a problem, roughly 90% of them work. The toyota pickups and 4runner is at 100% or near 100% for them not working. All are around 2000 and older besides the matrix and prius.
I'm sure the owner's manual gives more details on how the brakes should be adjusted if needed at all, but of course most people don't read the owner's manual. Too bad there wasn't a "what you need to know" section that covered things like that.
Anyway, for the thread topic. I think drum brakes are lighter than disc, the disc alone is about the weight of a drum, add the caliper and I think pure weight wise, the drum brakes would win. Spinning mass I suspect is real similar though.