| Storm | 12-14-2006 03:06 AM |
I guess I'm the only one who thinks it's okay to leave them alone(in SP)? If any alternate brakes are going to be allowed, they should not weigh less than the OEM brake components they are replacing.....regardless of rotor diameter, caliper design, etc....
Jay Storm
Jay Storm
| crystalhelix | 12-14-2006 06:53 AM |
[QUOTE=Storm;16321146]I guess I'm the only one who thinks it's okay to leave them alone(in SP)? If any alternate brakes are going to be allowed, they should not weigh less than the OEM brake components they are replacing.....regardless of rotor diameter, caliper design, etc....
Jay Storm[/QUOTE]
I am with Jay for the most part on this. Just a gut feeling.
Jay Storm[/QUOTE]
I am with Jay for the most part on this. Just a gut feeling.
| Calamity Jesus | 12-14-2006 08:05 AM |
I happen to think it should go:
S -> ST
|-> SP -> P
|-> SM -> M
I don't really see any reason why all the classes need to build upon one another. If that were the case, SP would just cost even more to remain competative in which would hurt the sport. Remember that ST was just created to allow people who've made silly car-show modifications to their cars to play without being forced into a prepared or mod class. It's the big wing, body kit and BBK bastard child of autocross, not one of the major pillars.
S -> ST
|-> SP -> P
|-> SM -> M
I don't really see any reason why all the classes need to build upon one another. If that were the case, SP would just cost even more to remain competative in which would hurt the sport. Remember that ST was just created to allow people who've made silly car-show modifications to their cars to play without being forced into a prepared or mod class. It's the big wing, body kit and BBK bastard child of autocross, not one of the major pillars.
| crystalhelix | 12-14-2006 09:48 AM |
[QUOTE=Beaverboy;16321860]It's the big wing, body kit and BBK bastard child of autocross, not one of the major pillars.[/QUOTE]
:lol: :lol:
:lol: :lol:
| BIGSKYWRX | 12-14-2006 10:00 AM |
I was thinking that the ST #s were showing they were drawing pretty good numbers- not true?
| AUTOwrXER | 12-14-2006 06:56 PM |
[QUOTE=Storm;16321146]I guess I'm the only one who thinks it's okay to leave them alone(in SP)? If any alternate brakes are going to be allowed, they should not weigh less than the OEM brake components they are replacing.....regardless of rotor diameter, caliper design, etc....
Jay Storm[/QUOTE]
That would be part of the constraints that we put on the allowance. Nobody on the SPAC wants mini/carbon/swiss cheese brakes, but some of us don't have an issue allowing BBKs because they don't provide a performance advantage.
Jay Storm[/QUOTE]
That would be part of the constraints that we put on the allowance. Nobody on the SPAC wants mini/carbon/swiss cheese brakes, but some of us don't have an issue allowing BBKs because they don't provide a performance advantage.
| sciolist | 12-14-2006 09:42 PM |
[QUOTE=Beaverboy;16321860]Remember that ST was just created to allow people who've made silly car-show modifications to their cars to play without being forced into a prepared or mod class. It's the big wing, body kit and BBK bastard child of autocross, not one of the major pillars.[/QUOTE]
That was 2004. Now we're looking at 2007.
That was 2004. Now we're looking at 2007.
| Storm | 12-15-2006 01:34 AM |
[quote=sciolist;16331842]That was 2004. Now we're looking at 2007.[/quote]+1!!!
ST is today what SP was intended to be many moons ago.....
Jay Storm
ST is today what SP was intended to be many moons ago.....
Jay Storm
| AUTOwrXER | 12-15-2006 01:57 PM |
[QUOTE=sciolist;16331842]Now we're looking at 2007.[/QUOTE]
Actually from a rules perspective we are looking at 2008. The 2007 recommendations were made a while ago...
Actually from a rules perspective we are looking at 2008. The 2007 recommendations were made a while ago...
| espEVO | 12-17-2006 11:42 PM |
[QUOTE=AUTOwrXER;16330176]That would be part of the constraints that we put on the allowance. Nobody on the SPAC wants mini/carbon/swiss cheese brakes, but some of us don't have an issue allowing BBKs because they don't provide a performance advantage.[/QUOTE]
Please add constraints! The last thing I need to tell me wife is I now "need" $1500 minimum for some lightweight 2 pc rotors....or worse...
Please add constraints! The last thing I need to tell me wife is I now "need" $1500 minimum for some lightweight 2 pc rotors....or worse...
| Scooby921 | 12-18-2006 05:53 PM |
[QUOTE=Beaverboy;16321860]It's the big wing, body kit and BBK bastard child of autocross, not one of the major pillars.[/QUOTE]
Ummmm...did you see the wings flying around in SM and STU this year?
Ummmm...did you see the wings flying around in SM and STU this year?
| Patrick L | 12-19-2006 11:15 AM |
While we are on the subject of SP. I maybe overlooking the rule. WHat does it say about radiator hosed. Can a silicone hose be use insted of the factory ones. I have one that might be going back and need to replace it.
| crystalhelix | 12-19-2006 12:44 PM |
13.10
J. Silicone replacement hoses are permitted as alternate components,
provided they meet the requirements of Section 13.0 with
regard to size, shape, location, and performance equivalence.
Replacement induction system air intake hoses must also match
the standard part in stiffness, contour, and internal wall texture.
J. Silicone replacement hoses are permitted as alternate components,
provided they meet the requirements of Section 13.0 with
regard to size, shape, location, and performance equivalence.
Replacement induction system air intake hoses must also match
the standard part in stiffness, contour, and internal wall texture.
| Patrick L | 12-19-2006 01:31 PM |
thx dude. :)
| Fogrider | 12-19-2006 04:01 PM |
[QUOTE=Storm;16321146]I guess I'm the only one who thinks it's okay to leave them alone(in SP)? If any alternate brakes are going to be allowed, they should not weigh less than the OEM brake components they are replacing.....regardless of rotor diameter, caliper design, etc....
Jay Storm[/QUOTE]
I will assume that your OEM defines "standard part on vehicle at time of purchase from dealer" and NOT the rotor that comes with the BBK ("OEM" to the BBK manufacturer.) Strick adherence to this proposed rule negates any cost savings of the presently BBK equiped ST* vehicle moving to SM as any piece weighing less than "stock" would need to be sourced and replaced. It would seem surprising of the rules committee to generate a new rule that essentially says," Yup, You can use your BBK in SM, just not any that are on the market at this time."
The aluminum hat on a typical 2-piece rotor reduces weight in the region where it has the least impact on inertia, near the axis of rotation. If rotor diameter and caliper design are made irrelevant (pursuant to your phrase between the ellipses) and only weight is the factor to be judged, smaller rotors of the same mass/weight as the OEM sized pieces would have less centripital inertia to be overcome.
It is rational that any rule that would result in shifting the results of an entire class better have incredible justification. I like playing in STU with my present budget of time and money. I think its cool that I can strap on R compounds and play in SM. And I think its good that the dedicated SM-preped competitors know that my arrival won't disrupt their balance of power. Would commercially available, track capable BBK's disrupt the SM landscape?
Jay Storm[/QUOTE]
I will assume that your OEM defines "standard part on vehicle at time of purchase from dealer" and NOT the rotor that comes with the BBK ("OEM" to the BBK manufacturer.) Strick adherence to this proposed rule negates any cost savings of the presently BBK equiped ST* vehicle moving to SM as any piece weighing less than "stock" would need to be sourced and replaced. It would seem surprising of the rules committee to generate a new rule that essentially says," Yup, You can use your BBK in SM, just not any that are on the market at this time."
The aluminum hat on a typical 2-piece rotor reduces weight in the region where it has the least impact on inertia, near the axis of rotation. If rotor diameter and caliper design are made irrelevant (pursuant to your phrase between the ellipses) and only weight is the factor to be judged, smaller rotors of the same mass/weight as the OEM sized pieces would have less centripital inertia to be overcome.
It is rational that any rule that would result in shifting the results of an entire class better have incredible justification. I like playing in STU with my present budget of time and money. I think its cool that I can strap on R compounds and play in SM. And I think its good that the dedicated SM-preped competitors know that my arrival won't disrupt their balance of power. Would commercially available, track capable BBK's disrupt the SM landscape?
| Storm | 12-19-2006 09:37 PM |
As soon as you put "BBK" in place of "alternate", you lose the strict adherence to the rule that you're attempting to explain around. "OEM" would apply to the brakes delivered on the car.....or the brakes [I]available[/i] on said model of car.
2 pc. rotors are already specifically excluded from SP allowances, unless the car was delivered that way. The proposal would have to address that fact as well.
Jay Storm
[quote=Fogrider;16379077]I will assume that your OEM defines "standard part on vehicle at time of purchase from dealer" and NOT the rotor that comes with the BBK ("OEM" to the BBK manufacturer.) Strick adherence to this proposed rule negates any cost savings of the presently BBK equiped ST* vehicle moving to SM as any piece weighing less than "stock" would need to be sourced and replaced. It would seem surprising of the rules committee to generate a new rule that essentially says," Yup, You can use your BBK in SM, just not any that are on the market at this time."
The aluminum hat on a typical 2-piece rotor reduces weight in the region where it has the least impact on inertia, near the axis of rotation. If rotor diameter and caliper design are made irrelevant (pursuant to your phrase between the ellipses) and only weight is the factor to be judged, smaller rotors of the same mass/weight as the OEM sized pieces would have less centripital inertia to be overcome.
It is rational that any rule that would result in shifting the results of an entire class better have incredible justification. I like playing in STU with my present budget of time and money. I think its cool that I can strap on R compounds and play in SM. And I think its good that the dedicated SM-preped competitors know that my arrival won't disrupt their balance of power. Would commercially available, track capable BBK's disrupt the SM landscape?[/quote]
2 pc. rotors are already specifically excluded from SP allowances, unless the car was delivered that way. The proposal would have to address that fact as well.
Jay Storm
[quote=Fogrider;16379077]I will assume that your OEM defines "standard part on vehicle at time of purchase from dealer" and NOT the rotor that comes with the BBK ("OEM" to the BBK manufacturer.) Strick adherence to this proposed rule negates any cost savings of the presently BBK equiped ST* vehicle moving to SM as any piece weighing less than "stock" would need to be sourced and replaced. It would seem surprising of the rules committee to generate a new rule that essentially says," Yup, You can use your BBK in SM, just not any that are on the market at this time."
The aluminum hat on a typical 2-piece rotor reduces weight in the region where it has the least impact on inertia, near the axis of rotation. If rotor diameter and caliper design are made irrelevant (pursuant to your phrase between the ellipses) and only weight is the factor to be judged, smaller rotors of the same mass/weight as the OEM sized pieces would have less centripital inertia to be overcome.
It is rational that any rule that would result in shifting the results of an entire class better have incredible justification. I like playing in STU with my present budget of time and money. I think its cool that I can strap on R compounds and play in SM. And I think its good that the dedicated SM-preped competitors know that my arrival won't disrupt their balance of power. Would commercially available, track capable BBK's disrupt the SM landscape?[/quote]
| PhilC | 12-19-2006 10:56 PM |
I think the tough part would be how to write a rule that won't go to the extremes that flywheels/clutches in SP are now. Our StopTech brakes on the WRX are actually a touch lighter in total than the stock calipers, brackets, worn Carbotech pads and DBA rotors that we took off. They are what would obviously be considered a typical track worthy BBK even though the weight is less than stock (or at least what we had on the car). So you've got a traditional BBK that wouldn't fall into the "weighs as much as OEM" category and yet you've got to come up with a rule that doesn't allow someone to use go kart brakes and swap them every run to prevent over-heating. Do you go for a "at least OEM diameter and thickness ferrous and/or aluminum rotor" rule or does that cause problems too?
As far as things go though the fact that I'd have to swap back to stock brakes isn't what is keeping us from making the move to SP and I doubt that is the case for any of the nationally prepped ST cars. I could easily sell my StopTechs and get enough to buy the right front caliper (which siezed prompting our upgrade in the first place), pads and rotors I'd need to go back to stock style brakes.
After a lot of thinking on it call me an interested spectator. I didn't write a letter in support or against the idea because I don't have strong feelings either way and I can easily see the arguments for both sides of the issue. Perhaps I should write a letter just to let the SPAC know that I think it is an issue that should be addresed one way or the other but that I know what they're facing in regards to pros and cons. Can't believe I'm still considering sending in my resume for STAC knowing what the guys on the ACs deal with on a regular basis.
As far as things go though the fact that I'd have to swap back to stock brakes isn't what is keeping us from making the move to SP and I doubt that is the case for any of the nationally prepped ST cars. I could easily sell my StopTechs and get enough to buy the right front caliper (which siezed prompting our upgrade in the first place), pads and rotors I'd need to go back to stock style brakes.
After a lot of thinking on it call me an interested spectator. I didn't write a letter in support or against the idea because I don't have strong feelings either way and I can easily see the arguments for both sides of the issue. Perhaps I should write a letter just to let the SPAC know that I think it is an issue that should be addresed one way or the other but that I know what they're facing in regards to pros and cons. Can't believe I'm still considering sending in my resume for STAC knowing what the guys on the ACs deal with on a regular basis.
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét