October 2020 Fastrack - The Brake Rules...

chois":1xoqmhhf said:
Greg is so dramallama with his story telling.
:D

"I don't think anyone really likes adding a much slower car to their run group - whether its an under developed bugeye or an underdeveloped Fit"

Well, we can't have it both ways: you allow in other classes like ITB to help build the numbers (or "give them a place to play"), but you can't then complain that they're under-developed...or you don't.

Of course, until there's a minimum prep requirement for a class/category - highly unlikely to ever happen - then the allowance doesn't mean you can't bring an under-developed car in anyway. That car would be compliant to the regs by simply pulling a couple of ABS sensor wires.

I had a lot of fun driving that car as an STU car at PittRace Majors, in the T1/T2/T3/T4/STU/STL class...my pointing arm still hurtz...and yet, sadly, I didn't finish last...

"Pretty sure the 914 answer was that there is a place for that car in H and a place for that engine in Prod, which may well have missed your point, but it wasn't a needle moving event"

I don't think there was opposition to it per se in terms of performance performance/capability. The inference I got from it was "cause 2 liters." Which is silly, IMO.

"The ABS thing is a good idea, and should be requested again by anyone reading this who agrees with this"

<shrug> I thought so too, especially in context of the existing proposal for brake upgrades. Stock unmodified ABS with stock brake components, or you can do the upgrades. Maybe it'll get future consideration.

"Looking forward to seeing the next alternative."

Won't be secret for much longer...if it even still is...
 
Stiner0931":shkpxuwq said:
Greg Amy":shkpxuwq said:
- Requested my 2L 914 into HProd Limited Prep. Heads asploded.

I know the perfect place for the 2L 914... GP :D

Yeah - GP would solve a lot of classing challenges. I wish that class hadn't been assassinated by the BOD.
 
100% agreed, even though my GP comment was purely for humor (that horse is long since dead). Yet, we had how many classes with less than 15 cars at the Runoffs last year? I think every open wheel class aside from FE2 had less than 15...
 
It appears that as written the new brake rule would penalize those who have retained their stock calipers while utilizing a two piece rotor. That doesn’t seem right. Am I reading it right?
 
a. Stock brake calipers and stock-size brake rotors may be used without penalty, as defined in the “Brakes Std.” and “Brakes Alt.” columns of a vehicle’s spec line.

b. Any other non-stock brake calipers and/or non-stock-size brake rotors may be used with a penalty of 2% of the base weight.

1. Non-stock brake calipers must have a max of 4-pistons and the caliper body must be made of ferrous or aluminum material. Calipers must be mounted in the same location and orientation as the stock positioning. Mounting brackets are unrestricted, but must be made of ferrous or aluminum material. Stock caliper mounting tabs may be modified or removed to facilitate caliper installation. In all other regards, non-stock brake calipers are unrestricted.

2. Non-stock-size brake rotors are unrestricted, provided they fit inside the max wheel limitations on a vehicle’s spec line.

c. All brake rotors must be made of ferrous material, and can be cross-drilled and/or slotted. A two-piece hat and rotor design may be utilized, but the hat must be made of ferrous or aluminum material.

I'm interested in hearing the interpretation to your question from the rules writers, but the above makes me think you have no penalty for a "stock sized" two piece brake rotor with stock caliper.
You also can now go crossed drilled or slotted without penalty as I read it.

I'm still waiting to hear if they are going to reference anything other than the spec. line to define "stock size".

I also think hats (two-piece or integral) were never regulated which meant you could move the stock caliper around with a new mounting bracket. Waiting to see if this interpretation is correct.
 
You are right-the rotors are “stock-size” and therefore I should think that they would be allowed without the 2% penalty. Thanks.
 
Greg, did you build that Civic Si or buy it? The reason I ask is our 07 Civic Si was a brake eating death trap. There was a huge difference between the 06s that Honda ran in SSB and the 07 we ran in SSB and then in STL.

Plenty of power, ehh handling, sh*tty brakes. Honda swore they weren't having any issues but when I switched to STL (and thus was not racing against their guys in SSB) they offered up their SSB/Pro brake package to the tune of 3500 bucks. I would make sure you have the correct master cylinder and ABS ecu before you offer to run your car with "stock parts"...

The 07+ ABS ecu is for sh*t, Honda's words, not mine... but I won't disagree...
 
dhrmx5":1ugkl158 said:
Greg, did you build that Civic Si or buy it? The reason I ask is our 07 Civic Si was a brake eating death trap...The 07+ ABS ecu is for sh*t, Honda's words, not mine... but I won't disagree...
Mine is/was an '08 ex-Lipperini T4 car that we converted to ITS (to run in STL at the '15 Daytona Runoffs*), then pseudo-STL specs in 2016, then ITR-competing-as-STU in '17 and '18, then EProd with some cams and weight reduction in '19 (where I lit it on fire on the second lap at the Runoffs. I really need to rethink this whole paradigm).

All through that, other than battling the lack of ABS and thus flat-spotting rear tires (regardless of bias valves and shitty rear pads) we had pretty decent luck with Hawk DTC-70s up front. I'd chew up rotors but rarely had any kind of massive failures.

It's why I requested factory unmodified ABS on the car in EP, just to keep from tearing up rear tires (and was cock-blocked on it). In the end, we simply blocked off most of the pressure going to the rear calipers (hey, brake lines are free, with no subsequent restriction against putting BB's or other restrictions in the lines to keep the rear brakes from locking...maybe someday Prod will embrace the concept.)

GA

*At the time, ITS allowed bigger (stock) brake rotors than STL, larger-lift (stock) cams than STL, more (1/2 point) compression than STL, larger wheels and tires than STL, and no intake restrictor (like STL). But the car weighed 3,000 pounds (we put "1.50 US tons" on the car, to much the scru's dismay). Had I had more time to develop that combo that year (mostly, put a LSD in it and learn to drive it) I'm pretty convinced it was a podium STL car for Daytona (I unofficially killed the ITS lap record). It also needed ABS, as we ate through rear tires every session into T1 and the Bus Stop due to pulling wheel sensors to disable the ABS...ITS/ITR allows ABS now.
 
GT6":1i916ijh said:
a. Stock brake calipers and stock-size brake rotors may be used without penalty, as defined in the “Brakes Std.” and “Brakes Alt.” columns of a vehicle’s spec line.

b. Any other non-stock brake calipers and/or non-stock-size brake rotors may be used with a penalty of 2% of the base weight.

1. Non-stock brake calipers must have a max of 4-pistons and the caliper body must be made of ferrous or aluminum material. Calipers must be mounted in the same location and orientation as the stock positioning. Mounting brackets are unrestricted, but must be made of ferrous or aluminum material. Stock caliper mounting tabs may be modified or removed to facilitate caliper installation. In all other regards, non-stock brake calipers are unrestricted.

2. Non-stock-size brake rotors are unrestricted, provided they fit inside the max wheel limitations on a vehicle’s spec line.

c. All brake rotors must be made of ferrous material, and can be cross-drilled and/or slotted. A two-piece hat and rotor design may be utilized, but the hat must be made of ferrous or aluminum material.

I'm interested in hearing the interpretation to your question from the rules writers, but the above makes me think you have no penalty for a "stock sized" two piece brake rotor with stock caliper.
You also can now go crossed drilled or slotted without penalty as I read it.

I'm still waiting to hear if they are going to reference anything other than the spec. line to define "stock size".

I also think hats (two-piece or integral) were never regulated which meant you could move the stock caliper around with a new mounting bracket. Waiting to see if this interpretation is correct.


You've always been able to run stock diameter rotors with aluminum hats.
You're correct, you can now run stock diameter rotors that are drilled and slotted with no penalty. The spec line gives the size.
That didn't mean you could move or can move the stock caliper and bracket. In this case you're supposed to be running a stock caliper in the stock position with a stock diameter and thickness rotor, just like it's always been.
There's no penalty for this.

Don't overthink it.
 
5. When the PCS refers to a component as being unrestricted, this permits the addition, modification,
substitution or removal of that component.

d. Suspension pickup/pivot points are unrestricted. Suspension Components including anti-roll bars,
camber compensating devices, panhard rods, watts linkage and suspension stabilizers are unrestricted.

2. Steering system components are unrestricted.

Cars fitted with integral hat brake rotors can convert to a two
piece design hat and brake rotor. The alternate design hat must be made of ferrous or aluminum
material.

Alternate discs and drums must be
the stock diameter, width and design.

These are excerpts from the GCR, not the proposed brake rules.

Is the front upright (king pin) unrestricted, and if so, how do you put the stock caliper in the same position/location when using a different/substitute upright?
Certainly adjusting the track to meet the spec. line changes the stock caliper position/location?

If you can change a single piece rotor to a two piece, how can you maintain the "design"?
I don't see anything limiting the offset generated by the alternate hat.
 
L1 ; I see uprights as unrestricted. Pretty much everything else is for L1 .

In this case "stock location" is a visual thing. Not a measured thing. IMHO . IE rear mounted or front mounted on the spindle.
edit .I was wrong .
 
GT6":idxb0oy4 said:
5. When the PCS refers to a component as being unrestricted, this permits the addition, modification,
substitution or removal of that component.

d. Suspension pickup/pivot points are unrestricted. Suspension Components including anti-roll bars,
camber compensating devices, panhard rods, watts linkage and suspension stabilizers are unrestricted.

2. Steering system components are unrestricted.

Cars fitted with integral hat brake rotors can convert to a two
piece design hat and brake rotor. The alternate design hat must be made of ferrous or aluminum
material.

Alternate discs and drums must be
the stock diameter, width and design.

These are excerpts from the GCR, not the proposed brake rules.

Is the front upright (king pin) unrestricted, and if so, how do you put the stock caliper in the same position/location when using a different/substitute upright?
Certainly adjusting the track to meet the spec. line changes the stock caliper position/location?

If you can change a single piece rotor to a two piece, how can you maintain the "design"?
I don't see anything limiting the offset generated by the alternate hat.

You must be looking at level 1 rules. Pickup points aren't unrestricted in level 2.
Absolutely not the front upright isn't unrestricted, especially on a rwd car in level 2.
It says exactly what you can do to the rotor and it has to fit like the stock rotor.
 
GT6":uo5fsmsm said:
5. When the PCS refers to a component as being unrestricted, this permits the addition, modification,
substitution or removal of that component.

d. Suspension pickup/pivot points are unrestricted. Suspension Components including anti-roll bars,
camber compensating devices, panhard rods, watts linkage and suspension stabilizers are unrestricted.

2. Steering system components are unrestricted.

Cars fitted with integral hat brake rotors can convert to a two
piece design hat and brake rotor. The alternate design hat must be made of ferrous or aluminum
material.

Alternate discs and drums must be
the stock diameter, width and design.

These are excerpts from the GCR, not the proposed brake rules.

Is the front upright (king pin) unrestricted, and if so, how do you put the stock caliper in the same position/location when using a different/substitute upright?
Certainly adjusting the track to meet the spec. line changes the stock caliper position/location?

If you can change a single piece rotor to a two piece, how can you maintain the "design"?
I don't see anything limiting the offset generated by the alternate hat.

Front upright isn't restricted in L1, it is in L2. Whats hard about stock location? Either it is or it isn't? If its on the front stock, it needs to remain on the front modified for L2. If you want to move the caliper in L1 because you built a new upright, go for it. Simple.

A two piece rotor means just that. A two piece rotor. It still has to meet the specs laid out on the spec line in the rule book. What benefit is there to changing the lateral mounting points on the caliper only to change the offset on the rotor? If you have to keep the stock diameter and the rotor width, who cares what the offset is? You are over thinking this WAY too much.

You are looking for an excuse to be against the brake rule, where there really isn't a good one. The GT6 is a level one prep at 1830lbs. You don't even get hit for an alternative transmission. So a 2.0 six cylinder running at 1830lbs.


9.1.5. Production Category Specifications
GCR - 472

Suspension and Steering Level 1
a. The stock system of suspension, e.g., live axle, swing axle, McPherson strut, A-arm, etc. must be
retained.
b. Ride height is unrestricted.
c. Bolt on suspension cross members/sub-frames are unrestricted.
d. Suspension pickup/pivot points are unrestricted. Suspension Components including anti-roll bars,
camber compensating devices, panhard rods, watts linkage and suspension stabilizers are unrestricted.
These components can pass through any portion of the car with the exception of exterior
body work. If these components extend into the driver/passenger/trunk compartments, they must
be covered with metal panels.
e. Spindles, hubs, bushings, bearings and ball joints are unrestricted.

Level 1, you can pretty much build a GT car with a production tub as referenced by many other L1 LBCs.
 
I hope everyone wrote their support or disapproval of this rule in


I’m not sure a 2% penalty is needed. Just allow them.

4 piston 6 piston 8 piston it doesn’t matter. He’ll most of the 4 and 6 calipers use the same pad.

We could have made this easy and copy the stl/stu rules.
 
How many days passed between the release of the Preliminary October Fastrack, the final October Fastrack, and the release of the 2021 Recommended Rules Changes document that Greg referenced above?

Did the CRB review letters submitted to them after the preliminary Fastrack release and before the 2021 Recommended Rules release?

Was the CRB ever going to change the rule/wording after the release of the preliminary Fastrack?

If the proposed rule was already going to the BoD, why were we writing to the CRB?

Does the BoD have (and take) adequate time to review the letters written to the CRB before they (BoD) vote?
 
GT6":3ewhda3j said:
How many days passed between the release of the Preliminary October Fastrack, the final October Fastrack, and the release of the 2021 Recommended Rules Changes document that Greg referenced above?
Prelims are typically released on the 10th of each month. It is done as a courtesy for members to review for egregious typos and errors prior to final publication.

Final Fastracks are typically released the 20th of each month, so roughly 10 days later.

Fastrack (and its pre-game Prelims) is published after the Club Racing Board has already met and made their decision(s) on the matter indicated. Given the matter has already been decided, it is typically not subject to changes/adjustments based on membership feedback since it is already being sent to the BoD for review and approval.

The file I linked to is simply a courtesy summary of all prior Fastracks waiting for BoD review, put into one easy-to-read file. It directly reflects all the prior changes published on the 20th of each month that are waiting for BoD review. It is no different than the Fastracks you've already read and are not subject to be changed prior to going to the BoD.

Did the CRB review letters submitted to them after the preliminary Fastrack release and before the 2021 Recommended Rules release?[/
They probably saw them, but it was "water under the bridge" by then. As noted above, the CRB had already made their recommendations to the BoD which were published in Fastrack and summarized in the Recommend Rules release.

If you are sending emails to the CRB after something is published in Fastrack as a recommendation to the BoD, you're pissing in the wind, that caravan has already departed (am I missing any metaphors...?)

Was the CRB ever going to change the rule/wording after the release of the preliminary Fastrack?
No. See above.

If the proposed rule was already going to the BoD, why were we writing to the CRB?
Good point. See "pissing in the wind" above.

Does the BoD have (and take) adequate time to review the letters written to the CRB before they (BoD) vote?
Yes, every time. We now get access to their summary review file (the one I linked to). They are no doubt looking at them on a regular basis, just like you and me. Maybe even right at this moment...

All rules changes (except for CRB authority for comp adjustments, "Weights, plates, and tires") must be approved by the Board of Directors. They review each and every one of the proposed rules changes. Then they vote on whether to approve them or not.

Your only recourse at this point if you are happy/unhappy with any proposed regs change is to write to your favorite BoD member (for you, Anthony, that's Bob Dowie) and ask them to oppose/edit/send back/reject the CRB's proposal.

Or, you can write them and ask them to support it.

-- Greg

Basic regs writing process (I'm just a bill, yes I'm only a bill..."):

- Member submits change request
- Request is directed to the appropriate advisory committee (in our case, the Prod Advisory Committee, the "PAC")
- Advisory committee reviews and investigates the requests, and makes an advisory to the Club Racing Board "CRB".
- CRB reviews request and information provided by the advisory committee.
- CRB/committee may choose, optionally, to solicit feedback from the membership ("What Do You Think?"). This is not mandatory.
- CRB decides to either spike the request ("thank you for your input") or forward it to the Board of Directors "BoD" for review and approval.
- CRB decision is published in Fastrack (with a pre-game)
- At their next meeting, the BoD reviews the request, along with the committee and CRB recommendations, and coupled to subsequent membership feedback chooses what to do with the recommendations.
- Final answer is published in Fastrack and, as needed, reflected in subsequent issues of the GCR.
 
Thank you for the information Greg.

I'm still confused about the answer to my last question.

You say that NOW (after the preliminary Fastrack is published asking for input to the CRB, which is after the meeting) I can only write to the BoD. So far, I have only written to the CRB.

Then later in the Basic Regs Writing Process, you say, "BoD reviews the request, along with the committee and CRB recommendations, and coupled to subsequent membership feedback..."

Do I need to write a redundant letter to the BoD, or are they going to review the "subsequent membership feedback" that I have already submitted?
 
Back
Top