A good question. I suggest that aluminum rotors hats are intended to be allowed, but that's not what the rules say. Submit a request for correction at the below link and we'll pass it through the CRB for clarification.
http://www.crbscca.com/
A good question. I suggest that aluminum rotors hats are intended to be allowed, but that's not what the rules say. Submit a request for correction at the below link and we'll pass it through the CRB for clarification.
http://www.crbscca.com/
He's not questioning the hats.. He's questioning the legality of a stainless steel friction surface with a (ceramic?) insert between friction surfaces.
Strange concept, but if it works.....
Houston Region
STU Nissan 240SX
EProd RX7
Send in a request for clarification, with details.
I suggest that as long as the friction surface is "ferrous", then the rest can be pea soup. But mine is not the official opinion/position.
GA
For what it's worth, stainless steel is lousy as a friction surface.
Ceramic are awful conductors of heat, they are brittle and the coefficient of thermal expansion is usually an order of magnitude lower than your average metal. Why in the world anyone would want to create a metal/ceramic composite rotor is beyond me.
When one of the claimed benefits is "Improved appearance: eliminates unsightly rusted rotors" I can guess what market they are targeting and it isn't the racing crowd.
~Matt Rowe
ITA Dodge Neon
NEDiv
I suspect the intent of the rule was to not allow carbon brake discs or carbon-ceramic brake discs.
(What if someone shows up to STO in a 911 GT2 with stock carbon-ceramic brakes?)
Bookmarks