How did this bike pass tech at round 1

[Holeshot]

Agree. Even on a 1 day old bike...

 

[fawndog]

When the industry changes (like rotor manufacturers not continuing to produce a five year old part), shouldn't a reasonable exception be made ?

Maybe that's not the case with Suzuki or Yamaha, but I feel like honda has a different rotor size for every bike and year.

Swept area should mean diameter for simplicity's sake.

 

[Holeshot]

Really, the thing should look the same and perform the same…Waves do have less mass which may aid in turn in…but at our level, I don't think it's helping anyone that much. Still, I'd prefer if the look and shape was kept same as stock.

 

[TWF]

imo on a 5 year old bike wave rotors aren't gonna make a night & day difference or give any substantial advantage against a bike thats 5 years newer, but thats just my :2cents

5 year old r6 is the new bike :teeth

 

[fawndog]

Really, the thing should look the same and perform the same…Waves do have less mass which may aid in turn in…but at our level, I don't think it's helping anyone that much. Still, I'd prefer if the look and shape was kept same as stock.

What if it's a brake reservoir cap that can't possibly have a performance advantage, even with less weight.

Will draconian rule enforcement make the club better ? I mean you're still trying to attract members right ?

 

[MellowYellow]

opcorn

What if it's a brake reservoir cap that can't possibly have a performance advantage, even with less weight.

Will draconian rule enforcement make the club better ? I mean you're still trying to attract members right ?

I am right now in the process of dealing with a bad rotor. I am on an 07 you would think in production you could stick any rotor on- I mean there are TONS of mods we allow in Prod that gives more of an advantage then the rotors.

just saying

and yes I will be buying used rotors on ebay

 

[thedub]

When the industry changes (like rotor manufacturers not continuing to produce a five year old part), shouldn't a reasonable exception be made?

The rule in question (9.1.2 r) already has that exception. It's saying that if your OE rotors are no longer made because your bike is old you may use aftermarket rotors so long as they are, for all intents and purposes, identical to your OE ones.

 

[Holeshot]

What if it's a brake reservoir cap that can't possibly have a performance advantage, even with less weight.

Will draconian rule enforcement make the club better ? I mean you're still trying to attract members right ?

So then 3 mil overbores for everyone! That brake cap reservoir thing was massive bullshit...but that's not quite the same...

 

[TWF]

So then 3 mil overbores for everyone! That brake cap reservoir thing was massive bullshit...but that's not quite the same...

Bullshit is when you let somebody slide knowing it is illegal. That is what rules are for, so you don't use what is not allowed.
You want wave rotors legal change rule.

 

[fawndog]

You also need to change the rule for guys that drill massive holes in their rear "stock" rotor. :laughing

 

[ZXR400SP]

The real question is how the wave rotors got past tech?
:later

Didn't look at the results, was he in the prod class?

 

[Mjollnir]

That was my rule submission. Five+ year old bikes can run aftermarket bolt ons, just no custom fabrications. The intent is to encourage economically challenged racers to break out old bikes and race since this helps close some of the performance gap to new bikes. If some think it's too much of an advantage, I'd be glad to trade my 05' for their new bike

 

[Mjollnir]

Maybe exclude R6's if it's unfair but I personally think old bikes should have even more allowances to help fill grids and make it less about cashflow. Even Moto GP is trying to help out the small teams with rule changes

 

[27007RT]

9.1.2 section r.

Stock brake rotors MUST be used. Brake rotors may NOT be modified. Aftermarket brake rotors and carriers are approved for motorcycles 5 years old and older, so long as they are a direct replacement and have the same dimensions, functionality, swept area as the original part, the mounting method is not changed, and is of like material.

THIS IS NOT FOR A BUNCH OF BARF DIATRIBE WITH ME, I'M ONLY PROVIDING THE INFORMATION. If you don't like the information or ruling, feel free to wait for more information from Tech and or submit your relevant changes to the rules committed later this season.

I happened to be walking by the Tech area when this occurred & helped mediate between the very upset pit crew of a racer involved and AFM officials.

Tech Officials are also part of the rules committee and thus are very familiar with the intent, interpretation and language of the current rules. In addition, many of the tech / rules officials have also conducted tech responsibilities for AMA, WSB & MotoGP so they are very familiar with rules, their decisions & the potential impact there.

Tech ruled the wave rotors WERE LEGAL given the current language of the rule. I have always been under the impression they were NOT LEGAL for Production classes. I've asked for information as to the rule and ruling to present it to everyone and we'll get info out in the next week or 2. In regard to how legal they will be in the future, Berto is correct - don't go running out to buy any just yet as they may or may not be legal at the next race or next year.

I'll provide a little information about how the rule is currently interpreted by Tech & the spirit of the rules committed as it was explained to me.

"5 years or older" - replacement rotors of exact stock dimensions may be difficult to obtain depending on the bike & bikes of 10 years or older may be more problematic. Nobody should have to purchase stock rotors at $500 each, that isn't affordable. Modern bikes also have a "wave type" design, so if the ruling stands it may allow slight updates more so than a "modification" of aftermarket part.

"Direct Replacement" was ruled in regard to the mounting system / carrier not being changed, custom or modified to allow use of a different rotor.

"Dimensions" being the dimensions of the rotor / thickness

"Functionality" being the basic function of the brake system. "Functionality" also speaks to solid mounted or floating mounted rotors.

As racers, we obviously we realize (perceive) there is a performance advantage to the wave type rotors (switching from my EBC Wave's back to stock led me to blowing Turn 1 at Buttonwillow in practice on the 2nd lap & I had to back up brake markers. I also went from a 152 to a 150.9 between Production & FP using slick tires and wave rotors, but those aren't necessarily the deciding factors). However, Tech also mentioned that a "performance advantage" at this point is a perception as there is no direct technical data proving the advantage enough to be impacting to the "functionality".

"Swept area" being the outside dimensions of the rotor itself, larger rotors provide a larger swept area and better braking performance. Wave rotors have the same swept area as stock rotors.

I asked about the wave design being of different "dimensions", tech was more inclined to say the wave design is a "design", which the rule does not speak to. The "dimensions" were interpreted as the overall dimensions or outside dimensions & the cutouts of the waves could be addressed by language such as "inside dimensions" or "appearance" or again "design". The current rule does not say "no wave rotors" or "stock in appearance".

Tech / Rules should clarify for us moving forward by providing an interpretation of the rule or an addition if they see fit. We'll keep everyone posted.

 

[MellowYellow]

THIS IS NOT FOR A BUNCH OF BARF DIATRIBE WITH ME, I'M ONLY PROVIDING THE INFORMATION. If you don't like the information or ruling, feel free to wait for more information from Tech and or submit your relevant changes to the rules committed later this season.

I happened to be walking by the Tech area when this occurred & helped mediate between the very upset pit crew of a racer involved and AFM officials.

Tech Officials are also part of the rules committee and thus are very familiar with the intent, interpretation and language of the current rules. In addition, many of the tech / rules officials have also conducted tech responsibilities for AMA, WSB & MotoGP so they are very familiar with rules, their decisions & the potential impact there.

Tech ruled the wave rotors WERE LEGAL given the current language of the rule. I have always been under the impression they were NOT LEGAL for Production classes. I've asked for information as to the rule and ruling to present it to everyone and we'll get info out in the next week or 2. In regard to how legal they will be in the future, Berto is correct - don't go running out to buy any just yet as they may or may not be legal at the next race or next year.

I'll provide a little information about how the rule is currently interpreted by Tech & the spirit of the rules committed as it was explained to me.

"5 years or older" - replacement rotors of exact stock dimensions may be difficult to obtain depending on the bike & bikes of 10 years or older may be more problematic. Nobody should have to purchase stock rotors at $500 each, that isn't affordable. Modern bikes also have a "wave type" design, so if the ruling stands it may allow slight updates more so than a "modification" of aftermarket part.

"Direct Replacement" was ruled in regard to the mounting system / carrier not being changed, custom or modified to allow use of a different rotor.

"Dimensions" being the dimensions of the rotor / thickness

"Functionality" being the basic function of the brake system. "Functionality" also speaks to solid mounted or floating mounted rotors.

As racers, we obviously we realize (perceive) there is a performance advantage to the wave type rotors (switching from my EBC Wave's back to stock led me to blowing Turn 1 at Buttonwillow in practice on the 2nd lap & I had to back up brake markers. I also went from a 152 to a 150.9 between Production & FP using slick tires and wave rotors, but those aren't necessarily the deciding factors). However, Tech also mentioned that a "performance advantage" at this point is a perception as there is no direct technical data proving the advantage enough to be impacting to the "functionality".

"Swept area" being the outside dimensions of the rotor itself, larger rotors provide a larger swept area and better braking performance. Wave rotors have the same swept area as stock rotors.

I asked about the wave design being of different "dimensions", tech was more inclined to say the wave design is a "design", which the rule does not speak to. The "dimensions" were interpreted as the overall dimensions or outside dimensions & the cutouts of the waves could be addressed by language such as "inside dimensions" or "appearance" or again "design". The current rule does not say "no wave rotors" or "stock in appearance".

Tech / Rules should clarify for us moving forward by providing an interpretation of the rule or an addition if they see fit. We'll keep everyone posted.

thanks tim- I want to point out one thing most aftermarket rotors are about 5.5 thick vs stock 4.5 on most bikes. I will do whatever I am not fast enough to worry about rotor advantages. All I am looking to do is put a set on my bike that I can use as affordable as possible. Sucks when a rotor warps on you... but it being 7 years old and raced for 2 years with trackdays I guess all in all that is not bad.

 

[thedub]

Why write a rule in such a way that leaves it so ambiguous and open to interpretation? If wave rotors are allowed, why not just add "wave rotors ok" in the rule?

 

[frozenuts]

Why write a rule in such a way that leaves it so ambiguous and open to interpretation? If wave rotors are allowed, why not just add "wave rotors ok" in the rule?

I am guessing because there might be certain wave rotors that do not meet the same swept area requirements?

 

[thedub]

I am guessing because there might be certain wave rotors that do not meet the same swept area requirements?

Well, according to to this part of Tim's post,

"Swept area" being the outside dimensions of the rotor itself, larger rotors provide a larger swept area and better braking performance. Wave rotors have the same swept area as stock rotors.

swept area is dictated by the outside diameter of the rotor. So the swept area of a wave rotor will always be the same as a stock rotor since their outside diameter must remain unchanged. Not to mention a larger diameter rotor wouldn't fit in the caliper and there is no provision for changing caliper mounting in 9.1.

 

[frozenuts]

Well, according to to this part of Tim's post,



swept area is dictated by the outside diameter of the rotor. So the swept area of a wave rotor will always be the same as a stock rotor since their outside diameter must remain unchanged. Not to mention a larger diameter rotor wouldn't fit in the caliper and there is no provision for changing caliper mounting in 9.1.

That makes sense.
I have never looked for anything "bigger" than stock and am just a troublemaking photographer so forgive me if this is a dumb thought. Would you be able to fit a wave rotor from a bigger bike using the same carrier within a brand? say 1000 to a 600? I guess that does not address the need for a matching caliper. Nevermind. Imma stick to riding track days and shooting racing. :laughing

 

[27007RT]

That makes sense.
I have never looked for anything "bigger" than stock and am just a troublemaking photographer so forgive me if this is a dumb thought. Would you be able to fit a wave rotor from a bigger bike using the same carrier within a brand? say 1000 to a 600? I guess that does not address the need for a matching caliper. Nevermind. Imma stick to riding track days and shooting racing. :laughing

There are small nuances of things that make sense & things that work - and things that don't. For example, the front brake bolts on my 2008 GSXR 1000 are solid, the front brake bolts on my 2011 GSXR 1000 are hollow and half the weight - theoretically reducing weight at the wheel & some advantage for turn in for the bike / less unsprung weight. You could put the 2011 bolts in the 2008 but the legality could be questionable.

A few years ago I knew a mechanic who told me that he actually learned a way to loosen the press fittings on stock rotors to make them behave like free floating rotors. Sounds like an awesome way to have your brakes fail if you ask me, but maybe it's been done. Brake rotors do start to rattle around when they are well worn - but modifying a brake rotor intentionally is not in compliance with the rules IMO.

Some of the 2009 + era GSXR 600's / 1000's use simliar calipers but a mechanic told me that a 600 using 1000 calipers is advantageous only to get the wheel off without having to pull the calipers. AMA allowed this on a particular race bike but it was not allowed with another club (not AFM).

Many similar bikes share OEM & aftermarket parts - but if you increase the diameter of the rotor (more performance), you have to space out the calipers to fit the upgrade. Unless you are running Brembo brakes & rotors depending on the bike - then both are larger and work together - 310mm vs 320mm rotors, etc.

So, there are a lot of nuances, some small tricks that make life easier & some tricks that obviously are outside the intent of Production / Superstock rules.