October 2020 Fastrack - The Brake Rules...

kruck

kruck

Well-known member
The October 2020 Fastrack Prelim was released this morning:
https://www.scca.com/downloads/51929-oc ... 9/download

You can download there and see it for yourself, but below is the proposed modified wording to the brake rules, which will be voted on by the Board of Directors later this year, and if it passes through that, it'll become effective January 1st, 2021. It was the PAC's desire to get this finalized and into official public print prior to the 2020 Runoffs, so it can have adequate time to be openly discussed, as well as give everyone ample time to plan ahead. I can't figure out how to do strike-thru text on this forum, so it's not included here. Any new or moved wording is presented in red though.

In Production, GCR section 9.1.5.E.7., Brakes Level 1 and 2, make changes as follows:
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.

d. Alternate drums can be used, but must be made of ferrous or aluminum material, and be the stock diameter, width, and design.

e. Cars fitted with rear drum brakes, can convert to rear disc brakes without penalty. Note that the “Brakes Std.” and “Brakes Alt.” listings on a vehicle’s spec line do not prohibit a car that was fitted with rear drum brakes stock, from converting to rear disc brakes under this rule. When converting from rear drum brakes to rear disc brakes:

1. Rear brake rotors must be solid and can be no larger in diameter than the largest permitted front brake rotor, as defined on the vehicle’s spec line.

2. Rear calipers and mounting brackets are unrestricted but must be made of a ferrous or aluminum material.

f. Dual braking systems are required. Any dual brake master cylinder(s) and pedal assembly can be fitted. Pressure equalizing and proportioning valve devices are unrestricted.

g. Servo assists are unrestricted.

h. Drum brake wheel cylinders are unrestricted.

i. Brake pads and brake linings are unrestricted.

j. Brake lines are unrestricted.

k. The hand brake and its operating mechanism can be removed.

l. Brake air ducts can be fitted. Front duct inlet(s) cannot extend to the side beyond the centerlines of the front wheels, or beyond the forward most part of the front bodywork/air-dam. Rear duct inlet(s) must face forward, cannot extend to the side beyond the centerlines of the rear wheels, or be located more than 24” forward of the rear axle centerline.

m. Backing plates and dust shields are unrestricted.
Click to expand...
 
Kevin,
Maybe for sake of illustration, any strikethrough text could be in italics or underlined? (or maybe change to yet another text color?)
 
The allowance of any size rotor that fits in the wheel is too much. We have fitted 355/380mm rotors and 6 piston calipers inside 18" wheels with ease. There should be some sort of upper limit besides wheel size... The modern cars such as the FRS, 944, RX8 will be able to run massive brakes compared to the older cars...
 
dhrmx5":22w83hf4 said:
The allowance of any size rotor that fits in the wheel is too much. We have fitted 355/380mm rotors and 6 piston calipers inside 18" wheels with ease. There should be some sort of upper limit besides wheel size... The modern cars such as the FRS, 944, RX8 will be able to run massive brakes compared to the older cars...
Click to expand...

There is. Four piston max calipers.
 
Right, increased rotor size is a speed creep. Due the 2%
Better calipers on stock rotor may be a very small speed creep but may increase pad durability and reduce cost.Not due the 2% IMHO .
 
So, if this rules proposal is approved, one could install vented, cross-drilled rotors of stock diameter at the front without wight penalty? Even if stock front rotors were solid?
 
I like it. Nice and simple.

Anyone want to buy some non vented VW Rabbit / Scirocco front rotors? :)

Al Seim
HP VW Scirocco 1.6
 
Re rotors - it says non stock size not diameter, size would include thickness IMO, thus ruling out a freebee for vented rotors.
 
Serious question:

Is writing to the CRB the correct way to express our opinion of this, now that it is forwarded to the BOD?
 
GT6":33jpv3t3 said:
So, if this rules proposal is approved, one could install vented, cross-drilled rotors of stock diameter at the front without wight penalty? Even if stock front rotors were solid?
Click to expand...
Honest question: Is there some wording that makes you feel like that is permitted? Because no, that is not the intent. Keep in mind it is your responsibility to find within the rulebook an allowance that explains anything you do to your car, and be able to defend it.

Rule a says "Stock brake calipers and stock-size brake rotors may be used without penalty."
- "Stock-size brake rotors" would of course include the size/dimension of both diameter and thickness.

Rule b says "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."
- "Non-stock-size brake rotors" would mean any rotor with a size/dimension that isn't stock, which of course could be diameter and/or thickness. Going from solid to vented would be an increase in thickness, and be a "non-stock-size".

Rule c says "All brake rotors must be made of ferrous material, and can be cross-drilled and/or slotted."
- Everyone gets the ability to use "cross-drilled and/or slotted", no matter what, without any penalty. This rule does not say anything about stock vs. non-stock sizes, or vented vs. solid.

We had hoped this was all pretty clear, of what YOU CAN do. If it is not, please help point out your confusion.

Protech Racing":33jpv3t3 said:
Yeah, It needs a clarification . It should say any "non stock rotor" instead of "non stock diameter".
Click to expand...
The wording is always "stock-size brake rotor" or "non-stock-size brake rotor". There is no "non stock diameter" wording, or at least there shouldn't, so if you're seeing that or something different, please point out exactly where that is. Thanks.
 
Al Seim":28rwljnv said:
Also - who is Chris Taylor and what have we ever done to him? :think:
Click to expand...

I just submitted Letter #29999 - Please Disband Chris Taylor Entirely

Anyone want to write a letter in support of this? :D :D
 
So the car tech line will now include both the diameter and thickness of stock rotors. I suggest the stock thickness should be a maximum thickness. If not, standard wear, truing rotors, surfacing rotors to use a new type of pad material or some who may have turned their rotors to reduce unsprung weight will produce a rotor which is not stock thickness
 
He was taken out by a slow Prod car, well over the 120% at a Majors.
IMHO we need to use/enforce, the 115% rule at Majors and Runoffs. Write a letter for that. I have .
 
Of course there's something that makes me feel like this proposed rule permits wider and/or vented rotors without wight penalty.
Why would I have asked the question???

All wording about front rotor, "width and design" has been removed. I assume on purpose.
The only thing remaining to define "stock" is the spec line, and many spec lines only list diameter.

You mention "thickness" thrice, but that word does not appear in the proposed rule or many spec lines.

The only thing that limits, "design", or "venting" is the rear disc allowance when changing from drums.

Did I just screw myself out of a loop hole while trying to make sure the rules are crystal clear?
 
Dick Barlow beat me to the punch.

Also, please tell me I didn't take Chris Taylor out!
 
GT6":gvn1gk2t said:
Of course there's something that makes me feel like this proposed rule permits wider and/or vented rotors without wight penalty.
Why would I have asked the question???

All wording about front rotor, "width and design" has been removed. I assume on purpose.
The only thing remaining to define "stock" is the spec line, and many spec lines only list diameter.

You mention "thickness" thrice, but that word does not appear in the proposed rule or many spec lines.

The only thing that limits, "design", or "venting" is the rear disc allowance when changing from drums.

Did I just screw myself out of a loop hole while trying to make sure the rules are crystal clear?
Click to expand...
"stock size rotor" dimensions are clearly spelled out in the factory service manual for your particular car, which a competitor is supposed to have. no point in adding that to the GCR as well.
 
Al Seim":2vvn3cpq said:
Also - who is Chris Taylor and what have we ever done to him? :think:
Click to expand...
Chris is a pointy-end B Spec driver who has been taken out of the race and/or had his race adversely affected multiple times by >120%ers. Most of which were Prod (or IT7 cars entering as EP).
what's funny is that he grew up doing rotary work with his dad, where Prod is just about the last bastion of hope for the Wankel. he's biting the hand that fed him as a child!

While I didn't see the letter and can't verify the exact wording of it, I wonder if the paraphrase was entirely accurate. That said, his comments (to me in personal conversations and not taken out of context) have some merit and if the 115% rule was enforced for Runoffs, Super Tours, and well-attended Majors events, I think it would reduce carnage and improve the racing quite a bit at the front end of the field, with the exclusion of a very small number of participants.

Conversely, for some of the small regions/divisions-- which is Chris's home area-- almost all of their events are held as Majors races, and they are not exactly crowded. A whopping 88 entries this weekend. Thus they have to allow regional classes and ignore the 115% in order to gain enough entries to break even.
Chris (and others) were able to successfully petition locally to get B Spec moved from small bore to run with SM, and they seem to do OK in that group.
 
Most would be OK if B-spec was permanently moved in with SM and out of the production group. Maybe that’s letter worthy to make that change for all Majors/HST events?

Plus, that gives an opportunity for a HP/BS double dip would could generate a few thousand additional in entry fees.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top