Brembo vs. ATE Rotors?

K

Knestis

Moderator
Someone is going to point out that the Brembos are not really legal for Showroom stock (or IT for that matter!) since the OE manufaturer for VW is ATE, but I have a pair of each in the heap of new bits.

I'm wondering if anyone has experience that relates to or compares these options, in terms of behavior with particular pad compounds, wear, or whatever.

I have a set of my favorite super-secret pads being made this week and am going to order a couple of other options, so I'll have a number of possible permutations, but I'd love any input.

Thanks!

K
 
Kirk,

I have noted certain ATE rotors were made in Italy. (check the fine print on the box)

Now, where do Brembo's come from?

I have noticed absolutely no difference in using either Brembo or ATE on the Rabbit.

Dave Z
 
I've never tried either, but I've tried both genuine Nissan and generic Taiwan rotors from autozone and can't detect any difference in either performance or wear on my Z.

I have tried supercooling new rotors, easy to do when there's LN2 at work, and it does seem to make the rotors last longer. I'm not sure I'd pay someone, such as 300 below, to treat them.

YMMV

Ty
 
Originally posted by Dave Zaslow:
Kirk,

I have noted certain ATE rotors were made in Italy. (check the fine print on the box)

Now, where do Brembo's come from?

I have noticed absolutely no difference in using either Brembo or ATE on the Rabbit.

Dave Z
Click to expand...


Brembo Rotors are made in Italy.
ATE would be made in Germany.

[This message has been edited by Edwin Robinson (edited December 19, 2003).]
 
For what it's worth. The last OEM VW rotors that I picked up at the dealer were made in Brazil. These were 10.1" rotors for a Passat (same as your A3). They worked fine for normal driving.

-Bob
 
***Someone is going to point out that the Brembos are not really legal for Showroom stock (or IT for that matter!) since the OE manufaturer for VW is ATE, but I have a pair of each in the heap of new bits.***

Kirk, Mazdaspeed has zero 1st gen RX-7 rotors & will have ZERO in the future. Must we all sell our 1st gen RX-7 race cars? There will be no more OEM rotors for the 1st gen RX-7.

Have Fun
wink.gif

David
 
As long as both the Brembo and the ATE are using the same dimensions, like on my VW A1 GTI, 9.4" vented, either manufacture, whether it be Kragens, Pep Boys, etc. It doesn't make any difference.

Just my $0.02 worth


------------------
Tim Linerud
San Francisco Region SCCA
#95 GP Wabbit (Bent)
http://linerud.myvnc.com/racing/index.html

[This message has been edited by racer_tim (edited December 21, 2003).]
 
Originally posted by ddewhurst:
Kirk, Mazdaspeed has zero 1st gen RX-7 rotors...
Click to expand...

You mean to tell me that if I call my local Mazda dealer they're going to tell me that they can't sell me rotors for my first-gen RX7?

If they do, they will either be the original P/N or a supercede - both of which are fine.

If they really don't? Please don't take this as a personal attack but I worry about the future of IT if the assumption is that the rules can be tweaked to accommodate ever-older cars.

Now, the crux of the situation is that I have a hard time understanding why OE-equivalent dimension and material replacement parts shouldn't be OK - but that's not what the rules currently allow.

K
 
Kirk, no they won't tell you they have no rotors. But they should tell you they have ZERO OEM (OEM would be Mazda manufactured)1st gen RX-7 rotors. That is what Steve at Mazdaspeed told me about 1 week ago. There are no more Mazda OEM rotors.

& being that this is the first time I have gone to procure rotors from Mazdaspeed & been told they have zero OEM 1st gen RX-7 rotors & after reading your posts & others about rotors I need to ask the question where is it spected that the rotors need be OEM?????? I can find on the ITA 1st gen RX-7 spec line where it spec's "Brakes Std." & spec's some diameters.

From my findings on the Spec line I would beleive one can use any rotor by any manufacture of the OEM design that fits the dimensions speced on the Spec line. What say yeeeeee ?

Have Fun
wink.gif

David
 
I say "pshaw," my good man...

The spec line data is a hold-over from the process that translated old SS cars into the IT rules - back when the ITCS was a separate publication. The only time that information bears on practice is if a specific exception is noted (BMW fuel cell location, allowance for Petty bar cages, or the MR2 aero kit that was technically an option but that damn near EVERY car came with).

Up to the point where an exception is defined, the rules - the letter thereof, ignoring common sense - 'spect you to use OE parts under "D. AUTHORIZED MODIFICATIONS," wherein IIDSYCYC is defined in way more words. There is no provision to use anything but OE manufacturer brake rotors, ipso facto we aren't s'posed to.

Now, for YEARS we have collectively used "OE-equivalent" parts where they are not specifically allowed - as they are for hardware, belts, and gaskets - and not worried about it. I actually sourced OE rotors for the Golf because (a) I don't like setting myself up to be called a hypocrite, and (B) it is EASY for me to take the moral high ground because they are neither outrageously expensive nor impossible to find for my car. I ordered the Brembos to use in non-SSC races (NASA, hillclimbs, whatever) because (a) they were cheaper (no tax, free shipping), and (B) I like to try differnent options to learn things.

The bigger point here is that we should collectively decide which way we want it: If the rule is "good" as written, it should be enforced. If it is "dumb," it should be changed. The precedent that we set by accepting loose interpretations for this rule are easy for folks to translate into others. I believe in the concepts of "gateway drugs" and "broken windows," by the way...

For example, there's no tolerance spec for the keyways in Miata cam pulleys listed anywhere, so it MUST be OK to mill them out and take advantage of the slop to change the intake/exhaust overlap. Do you think that "pro-built" engines make more power because they re-balance parts in an already well-balanced engine?

Pshaw.

K

EDIT - the point at which Mazda tells you that they have non-Mazda rotors for sale, we fall back on the points in my previous note.

[This message has been edited by Knestis (edited December 21, 2003).]
 
Kirk, without all the verbal hopula because there no longer OEM Mazda rotors I will use rotors of the OEM design & let some chicken shit protest me. (because someone is always going to say go be a junkyard dog & you'll find em.)

Everyone have some Happy Holidays
wink.gif

David
 
...or we could address the rule issue and potentially both be right down the road. That just seems like a more satisfactory long-term solution, than does branding the people who follow the rules chickenshit - because where is the chickenshit line? If it's not right to protest someone over non-OEM rotors, is the same social pressure going to be applied to the person who protests an engine that they think has the wrong camshaft?

K
 
Kirk, I don't have the long standing in road racing that you do therefore I will not do a written confrontation with you because we both know that seldom is there a protest by a competitor. As long as I know I have zero advantage that's all that counts with me.

Happy Holidays
wink.gif

David
 
Marty, it's the volume during duration where that is iffy at best maybe...........

Without talking directly about the subject that Matt is some kind of hard to communicate with via e-mail. Then I am trying to get my son to check out the stuff Matt has & my son is about as difficult to get off center as Matt. Son has way to many irons in the fire ongoing so his time is limited. I was hoping my son would check out the stuff, if the stuff is correct that he would bring it back to Wisconsin over the holidays. If he don't get it done I will call Matt after the holidays & tell him on the phone how to check out exactly what he has.

Happy Holidays to you & the family
wink.gif

David
 
Originally posted by Knestis:
The bigger point here is that we should collectively decide which way we want it: If the rule is "good" as written, it should be enforced. If it is "dumb," it should be changed. The precedent that we set by accepting loose interpretations for this rule are easy for folks to translate into others.
Click to expand...

Actually, "we" don't get to decide. What "we" should do is to write to the CRB and express "our" desires on this issue to get the rule changed. I agree with you 100% Kirk that the rules don't allow for aftermarket replacement parts, but they should IMHO. Bravo for you.

That said, I'll be honest, I'll probably use aftermarket replacement rotors on my 944. But I'd rather the rule be changed so they aren't illegal.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com
 
OK, lets assume I have the Ate rotors, because I do. If I have them heat treated or cryo'ed, who can tell the difference.
 
<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">Up to the point where an exception is defined, the rules - the letter thereof, ignoring common sense - 'spect you to use OE parts under \"D. AUTHORIZED MODIFICATIONS,\" wherein IIDSYCYC is defined in way more words. There is no provision to use anything but OE manufacturer brake rotors, ipso facto we aren't s'posed to.</font>
Click to expand...

I'm new to the SCCA world, so forgive me if there's some long-standing precedent, or ruling, which specifically states that part D of the ITCS precludes the use of anything other than OEM parts unless specifically permitted. The quote above (nothing personal Kirk, yours was just the most convenient example) states the 'letter of the rules' prevents the use of anything other than OEM parts unless permitted. Now I consider myself a reasonably literate person, but after reading part D I for the life of me can't find anything in there about using OEM parts exclusively. What I read is "The following modifications are authorized on all Improved Touring Category cars. Modifications shall not be made unless authorized herein. No permitted component/modification shall additionally perform a prohibited function."(emphasis added) Now, if you choose to interpret the use of non-OEM parts as a modification, then you're perfectly correct in that part D prohibits their use. However, I would rather defer to the authors of the GCR whenever possible, and since they define "modify" as "to change a component by reworking, but not by replacing" it seems to me the first paragraph of part D is much more limited in its restrictions than what has been widely held in this an previous posts. In fact, by extension, I think we need to amend the "If it doesn't say you can..." edict to read "If it doesn't say you can modify, you can't".

I do think that this only further illustrates Kirk's main point, that many of the rules are poorly worded and obtuse, and that steps should be taken to provide clarification in many areas. Maybe the SCCA should enlist the help of a professional editor in the writing of the GCR (please don't tell me they already do!).

------------------
Earl
ITA 240SX in process
 
What do you do in the cases in which both the OEM rotor and aftermarket rotor have absolutely no identification marks, p/n's, etc, and are physically identical to their OEM counterparts i.e. weight, thickness, diameter, number of vanes, etc? Unless you physically see the box that the parts came out of, you can't prove they are OEM or aftermarket. For Honda rotors, even the minimum resurfacing dimension stamped on the rotor is the same.

That said, if this is a gray area that serves no purpose or is unenforcible, then perhaps the rule needs to be expanded to state something like "Aftermarket rotors identical to OEM i.e. material, diameter, thickness, and style (solid/vented/slotted/etc) are permitted." or words to that effect.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top