October 2020 Fastrack - The Brake Rules...

[GT6]

Al, this is what I tell all of my competitors.
"Improving your brakes offers diminishing returns."
"Developing your brake yields fairly minor improvements in lap times."
"It's only small gains"
"There simply isn't much performance to be had."

Between you and me, very small differences are what racing is all about.
First and second (and hopefully third) should be separated by less than 1%.
Top 10 should be within 3%.
Some people consider this small.

Plus, there is the old argument of perception-of-need creating unnecessary spending class-wide. I agree with this argument.

I can't be sure whether you are for or against non-stock diameter rotors and calipers.


Dakar318, are you making an argument regarding the proposed brake rule? I can't tell whether you want to change or keep the rules.
Maybe you're suggesting further rules change?
Certainly if you re-plumb and re-wire your car you can keep the stock calipers and rotors?

 

[Chris Schaafsma]

I had to SWAG some blanks but...

Average Model Year of Runoffs Entries by class:

EP: 1991
FP: 1983
HP: 1984

Now, some would say this is their very argument. But there is a large pool of cars well into the early 2000's that can be easily built without overriding complex electronics and systems, that everyone is skipping right over. While I agree, the complications surrounding these complex electronics will rear its head at some point, I don't agree that its in the next 5-10 years according to what history has shown for whats popular to build. To say that Prod is anywhere near relevant to new car markets or an age bracket that would entice someone right out of college solely on age of equipment is nuts. We're 35 years behind!


My car was built when I was age 2.

I don't disagree with you, but my point was just in response to Anthony's assertion that brakes are not a barrier to newer cars. They definitely are, regardless of whether most competitors are way more likely to develop an older chassis for the reasons you point out.

 

[tschreyer]

Dakar318, are you making an argument regarding the proposed brake rule? I can't tell whether you want to change or keep the rules.
Maybe you're suggesting further rules change?
Certainly if you re-plumb and re-wire your car you can keep the stock calipers and rotors?

Also confused, because how would this rule change any of that for you? Or perhaps to GT6's point, you are saying you wish there was an ABS allowance so you didn't HAVE to do that?

Not trying to be smart, but trying to understand what you are saying...

 

[Aaron Johnson]

As one of the guys running a newer car

You already have to get rid of the stock Ecu to tune it, you already have to get rid of abs etc

 

[Brett W]

As one of the guys running a newer car

You already have to get rid of the stock Ecu to tune it, you already have to get rid of abs etc

That depends heavily on the car. A KPro will run an S2000 successfully with no issues. A Cobb Accessport will allow you to tune the first gen RX8, all of the Honda products can use a Hondata solution with the stock ECU. Pretty sure BMW has a tuning option of E36 and possibly E30 (although you probably want to replace the E30 ECU with a standalone), The Ford Focus and Mustang has a tuning option for the stock ECU, Some of the VW stuff has a tuning option (some of it is pretty clunky), I don't know about Nissan, pretty sure no go.

That said a lot of the newer cars have so much overlap between the stability control, ABS, and engine ECU, probably more associated with the Drive by Wire cars. Think about the BMW, Porsche, etc. They are all networked because Porsche/BMW never wanted those separated. Again heavily car dependent. Wonder how the new GT86 does its stability control/ABS/ECU interaction?

I would expect we as a group need to start the conversation about the current generation of street cars and how to deal with them. Many of them have turbos, direct injection, heavily integrated chassis systems, ABS, etc. They will be looking for a place to run in the next few years. May even have to create a new higher than E class to accommodate some of those cars. Lets take my crap can daily driver. Where does the Fiesta ST go if it were looking to run Prod? At the moment Nowhere because turbo. Yet it only makes 187whp in lightly modified trim, but makes 260lbft, has direct injection, ABS, traction control, torque vectoring, etc. Those are pretty cheap cars for a guy to buy and turn into a race car. They will have a lot of compromises on the suspension, but they have some power potential and could be fairly light in race trim. 2950 with me in it as a street car. Imagine pulling out another 500lbs and fitting a decent 8in wheel.

 

[Matt Blehm]

That was the general direction I was going, but didn't want to spell it all out earlier. the Toyota 86/ Subaru BRZ is a great little car. NA 2.0L 4 banger which can do roughly 200whp in limited prep trim.

Nissan, Toyota, and Subaru all have available ECU flashes via ECUTEK, and guys are doing impressive things with them. however they don't have FULL engine control yet- I was chatting with my tuner a couple weeks ago about an idle issue on my STU car, and the factory Toyota ECU (even with the ECUTEK flash on top of it) chooses whether to idle off the direct or secondary injectors. yeah the car has 2 sets of injectors, and you cannot (yet) force the ECU to run off one set or the other- there's simply parts of the ECU programming they haven't been able to hack into yet. injector preference, cam timing, and some of the warmup/dummy/nanny modes are a few of them.
the only way to get away from that is to go full standalone with a Motec M150 or similar.

All cars nowadays- since like 2013 or so- are required to have ABS and "stability control" in the cars, as well as some sort of backup assist- cameras or beepers or something.. The backup stuff is no biggie to us, but dealing with the stability control is challenging. In a class like Prod with no ABS or traction control, it seriously hampers the car's performance since the car's built-in balance and chassis dynamics heavily rely on that stuff now.

Thus, modern cars and Prod simply don't go together. Touring or ST which allow more of the electronic wizardry is more suited to modern cars. Prod will need to alter its philosophy to adapt, or it will eventually become the vintage classes within club racing. I'm not saying that's good or bad, but simply to think about the long term direction of the class and what it will take to get there.

 

[tschreyer]

What does any of this have to do with new brake caliper and rotor allowances?

If we relate new cars back to the original topic, these will have readily available OEM rotors, calipers, brackets, pins, pads, etc, and frankly, really good brakes from the factory.

These mechanical parts have nothing to do with anything you are talking about.

I will however concede that, in general, newer vehicle's pads start to get very expensive. But that is true of basically any part on a newer vehicle for a variety of reasons.

"We need to update brake rules so that older cars can easily source "good" parts and thrive in prod."
"Prod has too many old cars in it and we need new blood"

:doh:

 

[Matt Blehm]

The issue was "well if the old cars benefit from it, the new ones will too".
New cars have issues of their own, particularly the 'dumbing down' to remove ABS and stability control to be legal for the class. thus you're not going to see many new cars trying to join Prod since it's a theoretical step backward in performance.
That makes the argument about new cars getting even better than their 'already good' brakes a moot point.

 

[Protech Racing]

Prod should look far enough ahead to allow the ABS, traction etc with some weight corrections . Why complicate entry to the class? Let the stock crap run, see how it goes and add corrections until we are close.
If done right , removing all of it will be faster. Except for ABS in the rain...

 

[Al Seim]

Al, this is what I tell all of my competitors.
"Improving your brakes offers diminishing returns."
"Developing your brake yields fairly minor improvements in lap times."
"It's only small gains"
"There simply isn't much performance to be had."

Between you and me, very small differences are what racing is all about.
First and second (and hopefully third) should be separated by less than 1%.
Top 10 should be within 3%.
Some people consider this small.

Plus, there is the old argument of perception-of-need creating unnecessary spending class-wide. I agree with this argument.

I can't be sure whether you are for or against non-stock diameter rotors and calipers.

As I stated earlier in this thread I'm in favor of this rule change.

I'm generally an anti rules creep person. I've been in and out of Prod racing since the 1970s, and watched the original Prod (now L1) get sillier and sillier with grenade engines, relocated suspension pickups, etc. In fact at one point Prod was in the process of being merged into GT. I was one of the people (from outside the committees) heavily involved with getting the L2 classifications instated to get away from all that, and I'm well aware that rules creep can get L2 right back to L1.

OTOH I have a car, the 1.6 HP Scirocco, that is a nose heavy fwd car with small unvented rotors. And I HATE BRAKE FADE. It's a subjective / value judgement thing, but if we are going to spend 5 figures prepping race cars I don't think we should have to put up with brake fade. In the case of my car, I'm reasonably sure that all I need is the vented rotors off the 1.8 VWs (also in H) so probably could have whined noisily and gotten vented rotors. But with decent racing brakes available at a reasonable price these days, I figure why not just let everyone upgrade.

Whether or not a given rules change is good for Prod is a judgement call, it's not black and white.

 

[Chris Schaafsma]

Dakar318, are you making an argument regarding the proposed brake rule? I can't tell whether you want to change or keep the rules.
Maybe you're suggesting further rules change?
Certainly if you re-plumb and re-wire your car you can keep the stock calipers and rotors?

Also confused, because how would this rule change any of that for you? Or perhaps to GT6's point, you are saying you wish there was an ABS allowance so you didn't HAVE to do that?

Not trying to be smart, but trying to understand what you are saying...

If this is addressed to me - it doesn't really matter to my personal situation. I race a 34 year old hatch back, and it's not hard to modify the brakes without affecting other "control" systems.


I am just pointing out that the interconnection of systems IS a barrier to developing a newer car with our current brake rules. It forces an all or nothing approach to get everything working. Regardless of whether 50% or 5% of new builds will be cars built in the last 15 years, this is an issue those new cars will present. Not complaining - just observing and commenting.

 

[tschreyer]

Wasn't at you Chris, I was lost in the reasoning as to how the main complaint was all of the integrated electronics on Dakar318's car, and puzzled how a caliper and rotor allowance fixes any of that.

And I agree, even 20 year old cars have some barriers, and it amplifies the closer we get to current era vehicles.

But this rule doesn't address any of that, thus my confusion on where Dakar318 is headed.

My head keeps going back to spec lines. Let someone submit a new VTS, present the case that the car is basically rendered useless if computer XYZ is removed, address it on the spec line that whatever function must be present, and then the PAC reviews the correct performance for that application based on how the car spec's out.

That approach keeps the old machinery, and allows the new stuff to be introduced...

This is just like the technology transformation from carbs to fuel injection IMO... a lot of spec lines saying "stock fuel injection" in IT spec lines... This was accounted for in the VTS vetting process.

 

[Greg Amy]

Prod should look far enough ahead to allow the ABS, traction etc with some weight corrections .

Eh, we tried that. My proposal was declined in the same Fastrack.

Best alternative is to leave our Honda Civic in ITR prep and run it in EP (and STU) with ABS in-place. No re-engineering required. It'll be a strong midpack-upwards 85% EP car as-is and we'll have other places/options to race it.

 

[Chris Schaafsma]

Prod should look far enough ahead to allow the ABS, traction etc with some weight corrections .

Eh, we tried that. My proposal was declined in the same Fastrack.

Best alternative is to leave our Honda Civic in ITR prep and run it in EP (and STU) with ABS in-place. No re-engineering required. It'll be a strong midpack-upwards 85% EP car as-is and we'll have other places/options to race it.

Have you tried the other path?
Request a spec line allowance?

 

[Greg Amy]

Have you tried the other path?
Request a spec line allowance?

Nah. Given the moaning about a B-Spec with ABS in HProd, along with a stated lack of interest in ABS (or, for the last 12 pages, brake changes), the juice ain't worth the squeeze.

It is telling, however, that even Improved Touring - the historic category of "no, no, no!" - has admitted that ABS is a viable factor in its future growth.

HProd is even fraidy-scared of 95hp engines, just because they're 2 liters. Eventually the OBC contingent will go vintage (or get too expensive on the resale market to justify racing) and we can re-discuss about where Prod's headed.

ITR works fine, with occasional pokes into STU and EProd (and regional catch-alls). Offers a lot more flexibility for a lot less work and money.

 

[Jerry Lee Oleson]

What B Spec car is 2 liter's ?

 

[Brett W]

914 with a limited Prep 2.0 engine was proposed in HP and the world almost ended.

 

[Greg Amy]

What B Spec car is 2 liter's ?

Yup, we took three different shots at Prod:

- Entered a B-Spec Honda Fit into HProd, leveraging its allowance as an ITB car. Heads asploded.
- Requested my 2L 914 into HProd Limited Prep. Heads asploded.
- Requested factory unmodified ABS into Prod with a weight adder (mine's an EProd 2008 Honda Civic Si.) Heads didn't asplode - it was actually considered - but it was declined.

We're pursuing alternatives. The next one will probably asplode heads, too...

 

[harvey]

914 with a limited Prep 2.0 engine was proposed in HP and the world almost ended.

They had already asploded when I tried to get the Volvo classed in HP before I built the Integra hell they actually voted on the Volvo and it actually passed for about 36 hours then they realized the world just ended and jerked it back

 

[Chris Schaafsma]

What B Spec car is 2 liter's ?

Yup, we took three different shots at Prod:

- Entered a B-Spec Honda Fit into HProd, leveraging its allowance as an ITB car. Heads asploded.
- Requested my 2L 914 into HProd Limited Prep. Heads asploded.
- Requested factory unmodified ABS into Prod with a weight adder (mine's an EProd 2008 Honda Civic Si.) Heads didn't asplode - it was actually considered - but it was declined.

We're pursuing alternatives. The next one will probably asplode heads, too...

Greg is so dramallama with his story telling.
- 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
- 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
- The ABS thing is a good idea, and should be requested again by anyone reading this who agrees with this

Looking forward to seeing the next alternative.