STL - what's going to be hot?

[lateapex911]

there are some good reasons for a brake allowance, but 'safety' isn't one of them. brake earlier. overheating? manage it.

IF the class were further along, I'd be dead set against it. But, as it's early in it's infancy, fine.

Just don't do it because it makes the car "look" more like a race car or 'safer"....

[coreyehcx]

Arent we racing cars like as in race cars?

I don't see why all the fuss over a bigger braking setup.

@Chip
Thanks. I doubt this motor will put down the same type of power but within the given rules I have done everything almost I can. The only thing I didn't do was os pistons incase of a future rebuild. I'm shooting for 150-170whp/120-130trq which I think is pretty doable from the 1.8 non vtec. Higher trq numbers would be nice, the last motor only made around 130.

[Knestis]

Arent we racing cars like as in race cars? ...

Yup. So what really matters is that everyone is running to the same rules - racing one-another - not whether they're going a couple seconds a lap faster than they would with stock brakes.

Thousands and thousands of fans go to horse races every year. Nobody - not even the jockeys - ever seem to argue that all horses should all get rule allowances to be faster.

K

[JohnW]

FWIW.

My BBK has saved me (my sponsor) a fortune. I'd burn up a set of OEM ITR pads in two weekends with the stock set-up. Now, with the BBK 4 piston unit, pad wear is almost nill. A good BBK is the easy button.

Larger brakes are the norm in a SUPER Touring type class, worldwide. This isn't Improved Touring.

[Chip42]

I'd burn up a set of OEM ITR pads in two weekends with the stock set-up. Now, with the BBK 4 piston unit, pad wear is almost nill. A good BBK is the easy button.

THIS.

new class - use the rules that make sense on a balance and cost basis in these times. done.

[Chip42]

Yup. So what really matters is that everyone is running to the same rules - racing one-another - not whether they're going a couple seconds a lap faster than they would with stock brakes.
K

but the rules make it so that everyone is running with different brakes. even the stuff expected to be popular, say a 96-00 Civic hatch. small front brakes, rear drums. only way it came in this country. STL has a problem here, because people are going to be putting big, ~200whp motors into little economy cars while others have cars equipped for much sportier intentions. but they could have the same motor.

STU and O allow alt brakes to a maximum diameter and piston count - you can get around it with OE brakes IF you are lucky enoguh to have soemthing bigger. everyone running to the same rules. STL should have a simillar allowance. IT rules work, for IT. and as someone said above, this is not IT.

[Knestis]

but the rules make it so that everyone is running with different brakes. even the stuff expected to be popular, say a 96-00 Civic hatch. small front brakes, rear drums. only way it came in this country. STL has a problem here, because people are going to be putting big, ~200whp motors into little economy cars while others have cars equipped for much sportier intentions. but they could have the same motor.

STU and O allow alt brakes to a maximum diameter and piston count - you can get around it with OE brakes IF you are lucky enoguh to have soemthing bigger. everyone running to the same rules. STL should have a simillar allowance. IT rules work, for IT. and as someone said above, this is not IT.

Fair enough. My point - not well made - was that "they are race cars" is a lousy reason, in and of itself. If the view is that ST(whatever) warrants bigger brakes, the easy answer is to spec a maximum diameter and thickness, front and rear, for each class, and let folks go nuts. That's consistent with the first assumption re: engine size.

The idea that alternatives will be "considered" on a case-by-case basis, or some such, is pretty dangerous.

K

[Andy Bettencourt]

I think the point is simple: Either allow them for everyone or none. Don't dork it up with line-item allowances.

[Greg Amy]

The idea that alternatives will be "considered" on a case-by-case basis, or some such, is pretty dangerous.

I think the point is simple: Either allow them for everyone or none. Don't dork it up with line-item allowances.

Plus many brazzillions. That's my personal position on the matter, and what I'm pursuing. - GA

[Matt93SE]

Fair enough. My point - not well made - was that "they are race cars" is a lousy reason, in and of itself. If the view is that ST(whatever) warrants bigger brakes, the easy answer is to spec a maximum diameter and thickness, front and rear, for each class, and let folks go nuts. That's consistent with the first assumption re: engine size.

The idea that alternatives will be "considered" on a case-by-case basis, or some such, is pretty dangerous.

K

I think the point is simple: Either allow them for everyone or none. Don't dork it up with line-item allowances.

Agreed on both counts. The STU rules are just that.. max diameter, thickness, and piston count. done. I don't see why STL should be any different, assuming there is a need for them over OEM rotors/calipers.

But those are the 2010 STU rules.. Or have they changed that too?