Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 28 of 28

Thread: DIY Brake rotor cryogenics?

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    7,381

    Default

    As a follow-up, I have no personal beef with cryo treatment vis-a-vis the philosophy of the class, I'm simply debating the letter of the rule. If the ITAC were to choose to specifically allow cryo of rotors, I'd not be opposed to it.

    GA

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    1,717

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Greg Amy View Post
    The ITCS takes precedence over the GCR for anything it specs, it does not replace the GCR in its entirety. Thus, anything mandated in the GCR but not mentioned in the ITCS is also mandated for cars prepped to the ITCS And, when conflicts exist between the GCR and the ITCS the GCR defers to the ITCS.

    For example, if the ITCS specifically said cages and handheld fire extinguishers are not required, then it would take precedence over the GCR requirement for cages and fire extinguishers. It's how IT racers get around the FIA certification requirement for fuel cells.

    So, since:

    - the ITCS takes precedence over the GCR for anything it calls out/conflicts, and
    - the ITCS specifically states "[o]ther than those specifically allowed by these rules, no component or part normally found on a stock example of a given vehicle may be disabled, altered, or removed", and
    - it is illegal to the ITCS to disable, alter, or remove any part not specifically called out in the ITCS, despite being allowed in the GCR, then
    - the ITCS overrides the GCR allowance for cryo treating.


    Ergo, cryo treating of brake rotors is illegal.

    Like I said, in reality it's undetectable, and personally I think it's all hoo-ey and money wasted...but ...

    GA
    D. AUTHORIZED MODIFICATIONS
    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.


    If the ITCS takes precidence then we have the following:

    So, since the ITCS doesn't call out that (cages/fire supression/cryo-treat) are allowed, and any modification not authorized herein the ITCS isn't allowed then (cages/fire supression/cryo-treat) are not allowed.

    If the GCR section takes presidence over the ITCS, then we have:

    Even thought the ITCS doesn't call out that (cages/fire supression/cryo-treat) are allowed, the GCR takes presidence and (cages/fire suppression/cryo-treat) are allowed.

    This is the contradiction caused by using IDSYCYC and consolidation of rules into the general section of the GCR, without referencing the GCR in the ITCS.
    Last edited by Z3_GoCar; 01-07-2011 at 04:57 PM.
    STU BMW Z3 2.5liter

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    1,717

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Greg Amy View Post
    The ITCS takes precedence over the GCR for anything it specs, it does not replace the GCR in its entirety. Thus, anything mandated in the GCR but not mentioned in the ITCS is also mandated for cars prepped to the ITCS And, when conflicts exist between the GCR and the ITCS the GCR defers to the ITCS....
    GA
    The ITCS has a section on safety, with no mention of either fire suppression or cages, thus by IDSYCYC these aren't allowed.

    The GCR says that fire suppression and cages are manditory, in direct conflict with IDSYCYC, so the GCR has to defer to the ITCS and then cages and fire suppression systems aren't allowed.

    But this is silly, because we know that they are allowed, so ergo the ITCS and IDSYCYC has to defer to the GCR. So since IDSYCYC has to defer to the GCR and there's no mention specifically disallowing cryo-treating as per called out in the GCR, then cryo-treating is allowed.
    STU BMW Z3 2.5liter

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Houston-ish
    Posts
    932

    Default

    In this case, I'm all for DADT... Don't ask, don't tell.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Buffalo, New York
    Posts
    2,942

    Default

    ...How Would One Ever Tell (HWOET)..

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    53

    Default

    How would people know?
    Here's the upcoming news article:
    IT-A Rx-7 SETS TRACK RECORD BY SEVEN SECONDS - CAR SMELLS LIKE BARBECUED CHICKEN
    Like a carnivorous biodiesel, the Kingsford Charcoal/Heinz BBQ Sauce Rx-7 has set a new track record while wafting grill smells across the paddock.
    "We owe it all to our brake rotors," said driver Craig Breedlove, "They stop on a dime and after the race, we use them as hot plates for dinner."


    (Thanks to all for the feedback. I won't try this, but if I did, I would videotape it.)

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Asheville, NC US
    Posts
    1,626

    Default

    Its winter. It's boring. Thanks for stirring things up.:026:
    Steve Eckerich
    ITS 18 Speedsource RX7
    ITR RX8 (under construction)

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Hendersonville, NC
    Posts
    174

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by timo944 View Post
    Is it legal in IT? Per GCR, section 6 Brakes:

    "Brake rotors and drums shall not be modified other than for truing within manufacturers specifications."

    I'm so sorry I asked....
    timo

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •