Brake Tech Rules

"After reading this post do any one of you really believe that the steel carrier of the REPLACEABLE friction material is what the GCR calls the brake pad?"



Sorry, David, your post did not give me an epiphany. :P Since, as others have pointed out, you cannot have a pad w/o the "steel carrier/pad mount/backing plate, I absolutely do believe that the original and continuing intent of the rule is that the whatchamacallit + friction material = brake pad. Another case where the language could perhaps have been more precise. But do you see any techs going around and comparing those whatchamacallits to OEM? No, legal brake pads are deemed any that will fit. But, as I acknowledged, you are right that the Glossary doesn't exactly say that.

OTOH, Jeff, I don't think you can do it unless the heat sink is manufactured into the "backing plate." .
 
It's been a good informative debate, and I'm glad I started the thread. I am going to try the shims as I see a good faith basis in the rules for doing so. We will see how it goes.
 
David, while I see your point, can you provide us with data that the backing plates (attatchment plates) on the aftermarket pads you use are exact in material and dimensions to your OEM ones? I have NO idea on the ones I use. I ASSUME they are the same size or else they wouldn't fit but I would THINK they would be made of a more durable and/or better heat dissapating material than OEM...and I would think that was fine because they are all one piece. I consider the friction material and teh backing plate to all be the 'brake pad' because you can't buy them any other way.
 
***I would THINK they would be made of a more durable and/or better heat dissapating material than OEM...***

Andy, being that as Bill calls it the whatchamacallit shall be the exact equivalent (steel) & for thermal conductivity practical purposes all steel is approx equal. ;)

Now to the sarcastic side. :o All of this MODIFYING brake whatever crap-o is illegal in Prodution what makes anyone think it's legal in IT? B)
 
The rules are different?

Let me clarify. The Production rules appear to me (I'm no expert) to allow a number of brake modifications that take care of the problem of heat overwhelming stock brakes in other ways. Off the top of my head, I know for example that 240zs can run rear discs in Production. So, we in IT have to work harder to find ways allowed by the rules to keep what are essentially stock brakes working.

Another thought. Ducting is free. What if the heat sink is not attached to the pad, but rather to the duct running to the caliper? It's not performing a prohibited function, as it is cooling the brakes and ducting is completely and entirely free.

Shutting up and signing off. I see enough room here to do this. David, if you feel strongly enough otherwise, write to our boys in Kansas and see what they say.
 
***David, if you feel strongly enough otherwise, write to our boys in Kansas and see what they say.***

Not required Jeff. I don't talk about what I may do with my car that's on the illegal side. ;) I also feel that when I take part in rule discussion I understand the WRITTEN rule very well. :D

Nuff said from me. :birra:

Now off to the Mile for the IRL race.
 
I gotcha. You do stuff that may be legal or may not on your own instead of discussing it with the guys in the club you race with.

That's cool.

Have fun at the Mile. I've always wanted to see that track.
 
So, among all involved so far there is what seems to be well-intentioned disagreement on whether or not the recirc or the brake pad backing plate or shims with a generally non-stock size and shape and/or material is technically legal according to the rules as they are currently written. But would we all agree that the more liberal interpretation which believes these things are legal is at least an escalation of the status quo? THis stuff has pretty much not existed in IT prior to recently (please spare me the anecdotal stories of what this guy or that guy used to do, I'm talking about the vast majority of IT racers here.) I think a rules clarification might be in order to keep it that way. Let's keep it simple folks, no need to start down the same path as the RR shocks or the replacement FI computers...

BTW, anyone can "win" an argument with themselves in their own mind.
 
Evan, I do agree it is an escalation of the status quo. Completely agree with that as a matter of fact.

The thing for me though is this. The status quo of ALL of IT has increased greatly since 1985, or 1995, or even 2000. When the rules were written in 1985 or whenever, Hoosier tires and coilovers and 30% gains on engine builds and Motec etc. were NOT anticipated.

In at least one area, admitteldy on MY car..(lol..your statement about people looking out for themselves is accurate), the "rest" of the IT ruleset has far outstripped the brake rules. Cars are going faster, turning faster and carrying way more speed, I think, than in the past.

So, yes, I am looking to move the status quo on brakes forward to keep up. There are guys out there now who are having serious brake issues because of the "advancement of IT speed."

I'm not asking for any rule changes. I am however looking to "do" to the brake rules what has been done to almost all of the IT ruleset which is move it out of 1985 by using grey areas in the rules. You used to be able to compete with a stock motor, some decent shocks and brake pads. Well, the suspension and motor stuff has just skyrocketed, while the brake stuff has not.
 
***I don't talk about what I may do with my car that's on the illegal side.***

***You do stuff that may be legal or may not on your own instead of discussing it with the guys in the club you race with.***

& you appear to do stuff that's illegal & you type about the same stuff. Oh. I get it now sharing illegal stuff with the site makes the same stuff legal. At the least within my statement I say "what I may do". Kind of open ended for......................


***BTW, anyone can "win" an argument with themselves in their own mind.***

Evan, I like that ^ a lot. :023: I like to win an arguement on the legal side.

Jeff, the "D" girl did vey well comming from 17th to 5th before a car cut down in T1 & clipped her R front damaging the steering arm. She may have gone in a bit deep a bit late. Have know her & Hornish since WKA Karting days in the early 90's.
 
No dude, I try to hash out grey areas here first to see if my interpretation of the rule (and if you think everything is as black and white as "legal" or "illegal" you have a lot to learn my friend) is the same as others.

I saw the Danica-Dan clip on ESPN last night. Looked to me like Wheldon came down on her for sure. She can drive. Like Hornish too, he seems like a racer-racer. they as down to earth as they come across on TV? Wheldon on the other hand seems like a Class A......you know.
 
Evan, I do agree it is an escalation of the status quo. Completely agree with that as a matter of fact.

The thing for me though is this. The status quo of ALL of IT has increased greatly since 1985, or 1995, or even 2000. When the rules were written in 1985 or whenever, Hoosier tires and coilovers and 30% gains on engine builds and Motec etc. were NOT anticipated.

In at least one area, admitteldy on MY car..(lol..your statement about people looking out for themselves is accurate), the "rest" of the IT ruleset has far outstripped the brake rules. Cars are going faster, turning faster and carrying way more speed, I think, than in the past.

So, yes, I am looking to move to status quo on brakes forward to keep up. There are guys out there now who are having serious brake issues because of the "advancement of IT speed."

I'm not asking for any rule changes. I am however looking to "do" to the brake rules what has been done to almost all of the IT ruleset which is move it out of 1985.
[/b]
Click to expand...

THIS is the crux of the issue. Engine management improvements have allowed higher speeds, brake compounds have improved to create far greater stress on the rotors/drums/bearings, ultimate tire grip has improved substantially. This will get worse if it is not addressed, especially for the antiques among us. But, I don't think anyone will do anything about it, because it's a self solving problem. The cars with these issues will slowly fade away as they are totaled one failure at a time, just remember that those of you in newer cars might be taken out by one of these brake failures.

I may be all alone on this one, but I'd like to see this addressed early enough that some of these antiques are preserved. Unfortunately, the only suggestions I can come up with to fix this really stink. One would be to require everyone to use a spec tire with less grip (I HATE THAT IDEA), or require everyone to use a spec pad/shoe material (IMPOSSIBLE to police). Like I said, all of my ideas for this stink, but I'd like to see us do something to extend the lives of what will otherwise be parked or totaled race cars.
 
***I don't talk about what I may do with my car that's on the illegal side.***

***You do stuff that may be legal or may not on your own instead of discussing it with the guys in the club you race with.***

& you appear to do stuff that's illegal & you type about the same stuff. Oh. I get it now sharing illegal stuff with the site makes the same stuff legal. At the least within my statement I say "what I may do". Kind of open ended for......................[/b]
Click to expand...

I would disagree with that characterization. I applaud Jeff for sharing his thoughts on something that *may* be illegal and not just doing it and hiding. And it has been clearly shown that there could be circumstances in which both items discussed are technically (if not in spirit) legal. The heat sink falls here, the brake recirc valve is a slam dunk.

***BTW, anyone can "win" an argument with themselves in their own mind.***

Evan, I like that ^ a lot. :023: I like to win an arguement on the legal side.
[/b]
Click to expand...

Well, the argument in your mind is the first one anybody would have before coming here to hash it out. If you can't win the one in your head, you're a dead duck on this board.

I appreciate your position on the brake pad/heat sink issue, David. The problem is not your stance, since I actually agree with you in spirit. The problem, as Andy and others have shown, is that the wording fails your position. You are making an assumption that since the GCR only references the pad material in the glossary, that all else must be OEM. Andy makes the assumption that since the pads are free and you can't get the pad material without the supporting mounting plate, then the mounting plate is free as well. Different sides of the same coin in my view. The answer may be that you're both right......you in spirit, Andy/Jeff technically. Under the current language in the GCR, legal in this instance is definitely gray.
 
Backing plates that reduce thermal loading of the piston/fluid are not recent developments in IT. If it is escallation, then it took place in the 80s/90s.
 
I have no problem with the idea of using shims as thermal heatsinks, provided there is absolutely no modification to the caliper or rotor assembly to install. I don't think we want to ban some new idea that improves braking on our cars.

In my opinion, I think the GCR wording should be changed to specifically allow alternate shims of any material. If not for the cooling/insulating use, shims can also used to compensate for pad wear, by pushing the pistons back into the calipers the same ammount that a set of new pads do. This dramatically reduces caliper flex and tapered wearing. This is a common practice in most of the other classes. There was a good post over on the Formula car website by 7-Time national champ Dave Weitzenhof discussing how he prepared his shims, and uses progressively thicker shims as his pads wear. This is not done for performance reasons, it's done for cost savings. The alternative is to throw away a set of pads with only 5-10% wear. While I can't speak for other cars, but Hondas have really crappy calipers that flex like hell. The pedal always feels the best with brand new pads, but gets progressively worse as the pads wear, due to increased caliper flex. Adding shims to the pads restores the pedal feel to something almost as good as brand new pads.

When I ran IT, to meet the spirit of the rule, I used to glue thicker shims to the backs of my pads to accomplish this. Since the GCR says 'Brake Pads' are free and isn't restricted to 'Pad Material' and since 'free' does mean 'anything goes' by having the shims and pads bonded together, I was satisfied that I met the rule. I also only used them on the outboard pad on my single piston calipers, so in my case, there was no insulating effect since the piston side had no shim.

With shims, I was able to get several race weekends of life out of a set of pads. That would have gotten pretty expensive if I had to toss the pads with minimal wear.
That said, it's a hell of a lot easier maintenance if you don't have to glue the shims to the pads. IMHO, the extra step to glue the shims on is similar to the old threaded body shock rule from years ago i.e. buy a set of threaded body shocks, machine off the threads, and install a threaded collar to meet the spirit of the rule.

Even if the PTB decide that the high tech cooling shims sould be banned, I would still like to have a shim provision to compensate for pad wear. If somebody is concerned about making shims out of 'unobtanium' then specify ferrous or stainless steel. Restrict them to the outboard side of single piston calipers.
 
Chris, agree with your post totally. I think the "spirit" of the original rules would not allow this stuff, but I think the words do.

David, question -- if the words of the rule are to be read to mean that only the pad friction material is free, doesn't that mean that you can only use stock backing pads or their EXACT equivalents? To take Andy's point to the extreme, are we reduced to sending stock backing plates to Carbotech, etc. to have our "free" material applied to them?

I don't think that is the "spirit" of the rule either.
 
Some cars accelerate well, some cars handle well, some cars brake well. This whole discussion has boiled down to the "if I can't go as fast as I want, I'm going to call the part on my car that is holding me back a safety problem. We have to fix all safety problems, right?" By the same thinking, can I add a larger throttle body to my car so that I can accelerate faster and not pose a safety problem to other cars when coming off a corner?
 
Evan, I understand your point and your concern. But two things make this different, way different, from your example:

1. We are not talking about brakes that just stink, but work. I am talking about brakes that at one point were not even lasting a single session before caliper seals failed. The fellow above was having the same problem with his RX3 wheel cylinders. My car will never stop well, and that stinks but it is fine and I have to live with it.

2. You have to agree with me that the 1985 rules on brakes lag quite a ways behind what has gone on with suspension development and engine development in IT. We are at a point, as the RX3 driver said above, where either gray areas get exploited for older cars, or they get put away and don't race anymore. As the owner of an older car, I'd like to race it for a few years more.

Trust me, I understand the "me-first" attitude and the damaging effect it can have on the IT ruleset. I don't want and don't expect to have a car that stops like a SM, or a Second Gen RX7 or even a 240z. I just want a car that has brakes that (sort of, actually) last 30 minutes. With good ducting, careful brake management, and titanium shims, I'm there. And I don't think I am tossing out the rulebook to do it. I do agree that I am operating in a gray area and exploiting it, but that is racing right?

And not to go tit for tat, but are the valve springs that Volvo sells now for your car the 100% equivalent of what was sold back in the early 70s? Didn't Volvo update/upgrade the springs to account for failures? I'm not knocking you or Volvo if that is the case.
 
Evan, I understand your point and your concern. But two things make this different, way different, from your example:

1. We are not talking about brakes that just stink, but work. I am talking about brakes that at one point were not even lasting a single session before caliper seals failed. The fellow above was having the same problem with his RX3 wheel cylinders. My car will never stop well, and that stinks but it is fine and I have to live with it.

2. You have to agree with me that the 1985 rules on brakes lag quite a ways behind what has gone on with suspension development and engine development in IT. We are at a point, as the RX3 driver said above, where either gray areas get exploited for older cars, or they get put away and don't race anymore. As the owner of an older car, I'd like to race it for a few years more.

Trust me, I understand the "me-first" attitude and the damaging effect it can have on the IT ruleset. I don't want and don't expect to have a car that stops like a SM, or a Second Gen RX7 or even a 240z. I just want a car that has brakes that (sort of, actually) last 30 minutes. With good ducting, careful brake management, and titanium shims, I'm there. And I don't think I am tossing out the rulebook to do it. I do agree that I am operating in a gray area and exploiting it, but that is racing right?

And not to go tit for tat, but are the valve springs that Volvo sells now for your car the 100% equivalent of what was sold back in the early 70s? Didn't Volvo update/upgrade the springs to account for failures? I'm not knocking you or Volvo if that is the case.
[/b]
Click to expand...

I am not going to go read through all the bullcrap that is being said here. But please do not try to upgrade the rules becaue you feel you don't have enouigjh brake to get the job done. There are so many legal things that can be done that have not even been considered that I would be all over shutting down any rule prop that opens up brake allowances. Cars are classed and the brake are considered during that classification. Jeff you have a partner that is a scientist look at the swept area of a drum brake and compare it to the disc partner....Drum brake has more surface in play an more opportunity to cool if you go looking for the proper way to get it done.... With PROPER prep work the 240z is not short on brakes in anyway... When was the last time you measured your operating temps of your drums shoes discs and pads? What is the surface temp of your caliper compared to the piston temp at the backing plate? If you can't answer those questions then you have not done your home work.

PS a heatsink behind the pad on a racecar will be as effective as a swirl tube in the intake......Both items have little to no effect but will get you bounced in the tech shed....Some times I think you all need a little more fiber in your diets....
 
Joe,

Ok, you feel that shims designed to assist in cooling/shielding should not be allowed. That's fine.

Would you have a problem with a wording change to permit a thicker shim to replace the OEM anti-squeal shim, on the non-piston side (i.e. outer pad) of the caliper to compensate for pad wear for single piston type calipers?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top