February 09, 2012, 06:02:50 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: Help with interpreting rules, re: brakes in stock class?  (Read 479 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Will-VictorE-Lamb
Driver
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 15



View Profile
« on: April 14, 2010, 01:04:07 PM »

So I'm driving a 2007 Cobalt SS non-supercharged.  Need to change out the brakes soon and was unclear on how to interpret the rules regarding any possible upgrades.

It's pretty clear that I can run any type of brake PAD, but there is no clarification on the rotors.  I.E., can I go with slotted/drilled rotors?
Logged

Drive It Like You Stole It

#007 GS - 2007 Cobalt SS 2.4N/A
Charlie Thompson
Global Moderator
Legend
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 271



View Profile
« Reply #1 on: April 14, 2010, 01:54:04 PM »

my take on 13.6 is "if it does not say that I can, then I can't".

braided lines, and different pads (and speed bleed fittings) - that's it.

cheers,

Charlie
Logged

Charlie
Works Cooper - STX #1
NER Cannon Fodder
greenmaxse
Driver
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 34



View Profile WWW
« Reply #2 on: April 14, 2010, 03:09:38 PM »

"If it does not say that I can, then I can't" is a good way to put it.

"Except for modifications authorized below, Stock Category cars must be run as specified by the factory with only standard equipment as defined by these Rules" is how the rulebook words it.   

To clarify in your specific situation; you are allowed to change to whatever pad (lining) you wish, however there is no mention of an allowance to change the brake rotors.  As such, you must revert to the clause "Alternate components which are normally expendable and considered replacement parts (e.g., engine and wheel bearings, seals, gaskets, filters, belts, bolts, bulbs, batteries, brake rotors, clutch discs, pressure plates, suspension bushings, drivetrain mounts, etc.) may be used provided they are essentially identical to the standard parts (e.g. have the same type, size, hardness, weight, material etc.), are used in the same location, and provide no performance benefit."  This means factory replacement rotors, of same material, construction, and weight as factory.  In short, no slotted/drilled rotors allowed, unless the car came with them from the factory.

The section mentioned regarding braided brake hoses only applies to vehicles model years 1991 and older.  In the instance of a 2007 Cobalt, you are limited to factory replacement rubber hoses.  As the quote above from the rulebook states, 'factory replacement' is defined as an equal part providing no performance benefit; allowing you to purcase NAPA or CarQuest brake parts, for example.

All the information is available in the rulebook found here > http://scca.org/documents/Solo_Rules/2010_scca_solo_rules.pdf

The Stock Category is Section 13 starting at page 69. 

Pat Huxley

179HS Civic Si
88BS S2000
« Last Edit: April 14, 2010, 03:11:48 PM by greenmaxse » Logged

Δ9 Racing, A Division of Huxley Motorsports
Will-VictorE-Lamb
Driver
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 15



View Profile
« Reply #3 on: April 14, 2010, 05:56:37 PM »

Thanks for your help, guys.  I would have assumed such, but I didn't want to potentially 'give away' a legal upgrade if it were allowable.

Cheap rotors, expensive pads sounds like the way to go!
Logged

Drive It Like You Stole It

#007 GS - 2007 Cobalt SS 2.4N/A
greenmaxse
Driver
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 34



View Profile WWW
« Reply #4 on: April 14, 2010, 10:34:58 PM »

Cheap rotors, expensive pads sounds like the way to go!

That is the general consensus, but don't go too cheap on the rotors or this can happen.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/42487359@N07/3917841688/sizes/l/in/set-72157622236800615/

Mike, I'm jacking your picture of the CRX rotor.

Pat Huxley

179HS Civic
88BS S2000
Logged

Δ9 Racing, A Division of Huxley Motorsports
Charlie Thompson
Global Moderator
Legend
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 271



View Profile
« Reply #5 on: April 15, 2010, 04:03:43 AM »

i'm sorry but hte "full floating" rotor option (as illustrated in the previous post) would have to be considered non-OEM and a potential performance gain for two reasons...

1. clearly the fact that the rotor is seperate from the hub could affect unsprung weight, and
2. the absence of brakes would make the car much faster on course...

cheers,

charlie
Logged

Charlie
Works Cooper - STX #1
NER Cannon Fodder
PJ
Global Moderator
Legend
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 456


SMRT


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: April 15, 2010, 08:38:25 AM »

Unless it breaks on course and you end up with 1-wheel brake induced rotation into a sweeper:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3431/3930211206_141cba98e5_b.jpg

Logged

Gus Heck
Driver
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 182



View Profile WWW
« Reply #7 on: April 16, 2010, 12:15:36 PM »

Another good thing to do when trying to figure these things out is read the next class up. In this case you'll find that Aluminum Hat Rotors, venting and cross drilling are specifically authorized for SP, which makes it even clearer that the lack of a mention in stock is clearly intentional.
Logged

Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.5 | SMF © 2006-2008, Simple Machines LLC
AF316 theme by Fedhog
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!