NO on performance enhancing aluminum brake for Ff

October Fastrack

FC/FF
1. (Multiple) aluminum brake caliper input
Thank you for your input. The recommended rule change will be submitted to the BoD.

the recommendation to approve performance enhancing aluminum brakes for Ff makes NO sense! there's a 40+ year installed base of compliant hardware and two viable suppliers. why should everyone who owns a Ff be forced to purchase performance enhancing aluminum brakes to remain competitive?? the brakes on their cars and their fellow competitor's cars are fine!! the only people who benefit by approval of this proposal are the car builders, brake suppliers, their distributors, and the prep shops that will do the required work on front line cars.

I urge everyone to write the BOD since letters to the CRB urging reason were apparantly ignored.

Art
artesmith@earthlink.net

I agree,

If FC has to have aluminum calipers, fine. Then that just opens up more that should be even more readily available for the FF market.

......ditto.........

I think I agree.

What are some of the arguments for changing the rule? Do we know who requested it?

It's too bad the notifications in Fastrack have so little information about a proposed change. I'd like to see arguments that were submitted along with the request. Otherwise all you hear is internet forum discussions which can be incomplete or off the mark.

At first glance, allowing aluminum calipers seems like a mistake. Reality is that it is no big deal.

The facts are:

1. ICP calipers are just as light or lighter than similar aluminum alloy calipers. The latest version is also as strong or stronger;

2. Costs for aluminum calipers from say Wilwood are way lower than any cast iron alternative;

3. Brake performance is limited by tire capability and more powerful brakes will not result in better braking.

4. AP is no longer a reliable source for cast iron calipers and Gerling quit decades ago.

The experience in pro F2000 was that hardly any one changed over to aluminum calipers.

ICP will supply what ever customers want. The new RFR FC has modified ICP calipers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by S Lathrop

At first glance, allowing aluminum calipers seems like a mistake. Reality is that it is no big deal.

The facts are:

1. ICP calipers are just as light or lighter than similar aluminum alloy calipers. The latest version is also as strong or stronger;

---

I don't see an ICP replacement for an LD19 on your website.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BWC54

I don't see an ICP replacement for an LD19 on your website.

---

Years ago we found that the LD19 was not up to the job for a FF. We changed our cars over to ICP20 front and LD19 rears for a while and finally to ICP20 all around.

Our market has been selling ICP20 calipers to replace AP LD19 on FF and the rear of FC. And the ICP 20 is a light weight alternative to the AP LD 20. Infact the ICP 20 is the same weight or slightly lighter than the AP aluminum alternative to the LD 20.

We offer the ICP 20 for 3/8 and 1/4 thick rotors. The ICP 20 for 1/4 rotors is a significant improvement for FF. It also gives reduced pad consumption.

I say no to alloy/aluminum calipers for both classes.
The only reason that it was recommended to the board, was to make some alloy caliper manufacturer happy. This was not asked for buy the bulk of the competitors in either class. Sounds like something one of the single seater chassis importers has been asking for, since the Run-offs were held at Mid-Ohio. This is being recommended just to waste your money on something that is not needed to continue your racing. It's not like we replace them on some type of regular bases, and thus they are hard to find.
Write the BOD and tell them no. Then, the next time an election comes up, remember what your elected has done to your racing, and vote accordingly.
What was also interesting, was the release of this information. It was to be on Monday the 20th, but was delayed until Wed. the 22nd. Was there some meeting at the Run-offs that someone didn't want this topic brought up at ? I don't know, but as years go on, I've become more and more suspect, of what our "Club" has done.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by S Lathrop

Years ago we found that the LD19 was not up to the job for a FF. We changed our cars over to ICP20 front and LD19 rears for a while and finally to ICP20 all around.

Our market has been selling ICP20 calipers to replace AP LD19 on FF and the rear of FC. And the ICP 20 is a light weight alternative to the AP LD 20. Infact the ICP 20 is the same weight or slightly lighter than the AP aluminum alternative to the LD 20.

We offer the ICP 20 for 3/8 and 1/4 thick rotors. The ICP 20 for 1/4 rotors is a significant improvement for FF. It also gives reduced pad consumption.

---

Is the ICP 20 mounting lug spacing the same as an LD19?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BWC54

Is the ICP 20 mounting lug spacing the same as an LD19?

---

Yes. But you should talk with Richard Pare 317-273-0089 for exact details.

This is starting to sound like a re-hash of the Fit vs. Kent. For years the Brits have been using alloy calipers, and they are the source of most of our chassis (and calipers). The LD-19 and LD-20 iron units are more expensive and heavier than more readily-available alloy units. Let's just charge boldly into the 21st Century and adopt what has already been in common use for 20 years...alloy calipers.

Larry Oliver
International Racing Products

The proposal was first published in the July Fastrack, so everyone has had plenty of time to voice their opinions one way or the other. A poll was taken here on Apex starting back in June : http://www.apexspeed.com/forums/showthread.php?t=40672 . Apparently there was enough favorable input for the CRB to forge ahead with it.

As to performance : No one will find any great gains just because the caliper is aluminium instead of cast iron, so the fearmongering that everybody will have to switch is a bit off the mark. In fact, I've sold quite a few sets of our CI caliper to England, Australia and New Zealand where the new cars are equipped with alu caliper from the factory, and the feedback so far is that our CI caliper is better than the alu APs they are using.

Where an alu caliper can shine is in the fact that the designer has a bit more freedom to tweak the design as necessary without investing in new casting patterns, but those tweaks won't necessarily mean that they will outperform the older CI calipers to the point of forcing everyone to change. Better performance at the threshold and during the transitions, yes, but not a game breaker for those who cannot afford to switch.

I haven't voted one way or the other since I am a supplier. I will continue to supply the CI caliper for the foreseeable future, as well as an alu version as the market warrants.

We dropped the LD19 about 13 years ago after 2 years of zero sales.

Quote:

---

The only reason that it was recommended to the board, was to make some alloy caliper manufacturer happy.

---

If you had paid any attention, it was first published in the July Fastrack as a request by Bob Wright for FC, NOT a manufacturer.

Quote:

---

This was not asked for buy the bulk of the competitors in either class.

---

Proposals rarely are asked for in bulk - 99% are from a single member, and you, the rest of the members, get to vote on it.

Quote:

---

What was also interesting, was the release of this information. It was to be on Monday the 20th, but was delayed until Wed. the 22nd. Was there some meeting at the Run-offs that someone didn't want this topic brought up at ?

---

You are about 3 months off on the timing of the release of the proposal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BWC54

Is the ICP 20 mounting lug spacing the same as an LD19?

---

The width between the mounting bolts is the same, but the distance from their centerline to the top sweep of the pad is 1/8" taller on the LD20, necessitating a 1/4" larger diameter rotor. Our radial mount version of the caliper is easily adaptable to the necessary mounting dimensions - vertical as well as horizontal placement is controlled by a simple aluminium bracket. We've equipped a lot of DB1's, etc, that came originally with LD19s with the radial mount version of the ICP20 and larger dia rotors.

So does the new proposal allow for more than 2 pistons and differential bores? If so then it will provide improved performance right? And improved pad wear?

4 pot calipers with the necessary larger pad area won't necessarily translate to better performance - for many, if not most, pad compounds, the pads will be thermally "under-stressed", meaning that they will not be operating in their best thermal zones. That can translate into poor modulation characteristics, depending on the pad compound characteristics.

Differential bores will only help in controlling taper wear on pads that wear rapidly - there is no other performance gain from them.

Frankly, 4-pot calipers even on FCs are a waste of time - the cars barely stress the upper end of the thermal limits of the usual 2-pots now.

Richard:

You are assuming a caliper with four pistons will have a larger pad, which is not true with our design.

Taper wear is a big issue with the current two-piston calipers. I'm not sure about in club racing, but in the pro series most teams flip the pads regularly to try to combat taper wear, and replace them more often than would be otherwise necessary.

I agree that two piston calipers are fine for most racers, and are the most economical.

Simply because of the structural geometry, all else being equal a four piston caliper will be stiffer and lighter than a two piston caliper, but we found the benefit is only about 20 percent (weight or stiffness, your choice).

Nathan

Richard, I did write in to voice my opinion many months ago. That's how I knew to look in fast track, because they wrote back and told me to. Then they sent another e-mail about the delay (but not the reason). So don't think I'm just now joining the party.
Anybody can vote on the poll, even those in classes that don't have a horse in the race. And there are many in the 2 classes effected. who don't come to Apexspeed on any kind of regular (or at all) bases.
The person who asked for the proposal, is involved in a series that allows it, but possibly because SCCA doesn't (in FC), there has been few (if any) who made the change. Thus, for what ever reason they allowed it in the first place (manufacture request?) it has been poorly received.
And as far as proposals go, at one time, the concern was if it would increase the cost of racing to the competitor, it was investigated more thoroughly.

The people who oppose this are the people who do not quite understand that

a) you cannot generate more deceleration g's without changing the tire contact patch or compound, unless the brakes are unable to cause wheel lockup. Ergo stopping distances remain the same.

b) you cannot make an aluminum caliper stiffer than a cast iron caliper without making it almost as heavy or heavier. Exclude MMC's for the moment from this argument, plus they arent legal anyway. This removes any potential for "oh the feel from a stiffer caliper is better so the driver has more confidence on the limit" type arguments.

Once these two simple technical facts are understood, the fear of the unknown should pretty much be laid to rest. Anyone who switches to alloy calipers would then be doing so for convenience and cost reasons, which is pretty much exactly the intent of this proposal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ananth K

The people who oppose this are the people who do not quite understand that

a) you cannot generate more deceleration g's without changing the tire contact patch or compound, unless the brakes are unable to cause wheel lockup. Ergo stopping distances remain the same.

b) you cannot make an aluminum caliper stiffer than a cast iron caliper without making it almost as heavy or heavier. Exclude MMC's for the moment from this argument, plus they arent legal anyway. This removes any potential for "oh the feel from a stiffer caliper is better so the driver has more confidence on the limit" type arguments.

Once these two simple technical facts are understood, the fear of the unknown should pretty much be laid to rest. Anyone who switches to alloy calipers would then be doing so for convenience and cost reasons, which is pretty much exactly the intent of this proposal.

---

Hey, facts aren't allowed here! This is a discussion forum! :blackflag:

No.

what is the case for aluminum brakes in Ff ??? surely there must be a case/reason everyone should be forced to buy new aluminum brakes to maintain the competitive status quo ...........................

I haven't seen one and there certainly isn't a brake problem in Ff. aluminum brakes in Ff has the feel of a get well plan from a trade association or one of those targeted recovery programs from Washington D.C., not something from a well intentioned sanctioning body being run for the benefit of its members. given a working understanding of contact patch mechanics at a macro level, applied mechanics, and properties of most modern aerospace structural materials, I wonder how long it will take before we see integrated upright/brake hardware at the track IF this bad idea is approved . specific stiffness usually goes up and specific weight usually goes down with decreasing numbers of joints/fasteners. there is NO rational reason to assume seperate functional hardware if brakes can be made of aluminum and that's all thats been argued....................................

Art
artesmith@arthlink.net

For some, it means installing calipers that use off the shelf race pads.

It means removing some weight at each corner to get closer to min weight.

Now, if I could just lay off the cookies and take the dog for a walk every night....

When will they decide?:confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reddog

When will they decide?:confused:

---

IIRC, the BoD is meeting this weekend (today) to finalize the rules for 2011.

back into the autoclave Clayton, parts to be made !

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stan Clayton

IIRC, the BoD is meeting this weekend (today) to finalize the rules for 2011.

---

Nope, you are off a couple of weeks. They will meet Oct 14-16.

Dave

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KevinFirlein

back into the autoclave Clayton, parts to be made !

---

I'm in the shop today. No rest for the wicked nor the weary... :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dave Gomberg

Nope, you are off a couple of weeks. They will meet Oct 14-16. Dave

---

They say the memory is the first thing to go... :o

...no, they say memory is the second thing to go...

Larry Oliver

that's what i thought.....but i forgot

I'm looking at getting back into car racing with my son. Since SCCA went to Topeka I've been out of it. He's been kart racing since I hung up my helmet, and doing very well. We're looking at FF it has always been a great class very competitive and I remember the days when my brother and brother-in-law raced FF and there were 80 car fields at the sprints. When I converted older FF to D S/R's I always put a set of $89 Wilwoods on the cars. Way easier that dealing with rebuilding 20 year old caliper that are frozen up and rusted. It really wasn't a big deal. I could have put $800 mag. AP's on but what's the point the $89 calipers will lock the wheels up. If your origanal calipers will lock the wheels up you have maximum braking. Some of you guys should be racing Farmall cubs, that's the technology you seem to be embrassing. Do you guys want FF to be 6 old guys with 6 old cars racing with a Geritol break half way through the race or 80 car fields. The reason for Alum. brakes I would imagine is they are cheaper and way more choices are available for new builds. I'm sure a new car manufacturers would prefer to use an $89 racing caliper aposed to a $300 caliper off a 1967 for cortina. So when I go to buy a new "RACE" car should I have to spend another $1200 to Backdate the brakes to brakes from a street car form the 60's? Sorry if my prices on the cast iron stuff are off but you get me point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Art Smith

given a working understanding of contact patch mechanics at a macro level, applied mechanics, and properties of most modern aerospace structural materials, I wonder how long it will take before we see integrated upright/brake hardware at the track IF this bad idea is approved .

---

If you truly did understand all of those things in the depth that you claim, you would know that ferrous material would be a much better choice for that type of design than aluminum.

But Ben, you have always been one who liked to try new things, tinker, so to speak. Not everyone wants to be involved in a caliper of the week game, looking for the better "mouse trap". I've never had a brake caliper on a single seater rusted or frozen. Now on some street cars I've seen in the past, that's a different story. And $89.00 calipers, the manufactures would not design their cars around a caliper/pad that small. The truth is, this idea is for some manufacture(s) (or want to be) and those who like spending money to change things, looking for an edge or what ever it is. That's what classes like F/A, F/5, C/SR and D/SR are for. F/F and F/C should be left as they currently are now, which have plenty of brakes to over-slow them, if needed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kea

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ben Beasley

When I converted older FF to D S/R's I always put a set of $89 Wilwoods on the cars. Way easier that dealing with rebuilding 20 year old caliper that are frozen up and rusted.

---

I've never had a brake caliper on a single seater rusted or frozen.

---

When I bought my Zink Z-10, it had rusty frozen Girlings on the back, so I bought ICPs to replace them. Anybody who wants the Girlings can have them for the price of postage... :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ananth K

If you truly did understand all of those things in the depth that you claim, you would know that ferrous material would be a much better choice for that type of design than aluminum.

---

it appears we now has an expert in what we should know and what is better versus compliant. since better has nothing to do with compliant I'm at a loss for words............

Art
artesmith@earthlink.net

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Art Smith

it appears we now has an expert in what we should know and what is better versus compliant. since better has nothing to do with compliant I'm at a loss for words............

---

sorry, I am not well versed in the Queen's English. Therefore I am not in a position to retaliate.

I'll still hazard a guess as to what you meant, and state the following:

My argument is purely technical in nature and has nothing to do with rules.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Art Smith

what is the case for aluminum brakes in Ff ??? surely there must be a case/reason everyone should be forced to buy new aluminum brakes to maintain the competitive status quo ...........................

---

Since when will this allowance force purchases?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Art Smith

given a working understanding of contact patch mechanics at a macro level, applied mechanics, and properties of most modern aerospace structural materials, I wonder how long it will take before we see integrated upright/brake hardware at the track

---

That can be done now in steel - just because alu would suddenly be allowed doesn't change that. We looked at such a setup 18 years ago.

Stan,
You must have found your Z-10, here up north, where we use lots of salt on the roads in the winter!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kea

Stan,
You must have found your Z-10, here up north, where we use lots of salt on the roads in the winter!

---

Not quite...Santa Barbara on the central California coast.

Might be the same thing! :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ben Beasley

I'm looking at getting back into car racing with my son. Since SCCA went to Topeka I've been out of it. He's been kart racing since I hung up my helmet, and doing very well. We're looking at FF it has always been a great class very competitive and I remember the days when my brother and brother-in-law raced FF and there were 80 car fields at the sprints. When I converted older FF to D S/R's I always put a set of $89 Wilwoods on the cars. Way easier that dealing with rebuilding 20 year old caliper that are frozen up and rusted. It really wasn't a big deal. I could have put $800 mag. AP's on but what's the point the $89 calipers will lock the wheels up. If your origanal calipers will lock the wheels up you have maximum braking. Some of you guys should be racing Farmall cubs, that's the technology you seem to be embrassing. Do you guys want FF to be 6 old guys with 6 old cars racing with a Geritol break half way through the race or 80 car fields. The reason for Alum. brakes I would imagine is they are cheaper and way more choices are available for new builds. I'm sure a new car manufacturers would prefer to use an $89 racing caliper aposed to a $300 caliper off a 1967 for cortina. So when I go to buy a new "RACE" car should I have to spend another $1200 to Backdate the brakes to brakes from a street car form the 60's? Sorry if my prices on the cast iron stuff are off but you get me point.

---

Whether you support the rule proposal or not, trying to justify it by comparing any of the LD-20 variants to a Wilwood caliper is not particularly fair. The wilwood calipers will not be up to the job. The likely calipers will be the PFC calipers and some from AP if the ban on differential bores remains part of the rules.

As for the people who say that the brakes don't matter and braking is only a function of tires, that does not really reflect reality. There is a reason that different pad compounds exist and that there are some outrageously expensive brake pedal setups available. Obviously the cars don't stop without the tires, but all of the parts come in to play.