How did this bike pass tech at round 1

[27007RT]

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?

Hopefully Tech / Rules will get this fixed & say "wave type rotors are legal" or "wave type rotors are illegal".

 

[27007RT]

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.

You bet. Hopefully we can get this sorted out. I think that we should allow for the cheapest possible solution in a case like yours.

My EBC Vee Rotors are the same dimension as my stock rotors but they are definitely made from higher quality stainless steel. I can imagine that older model years would feature rotors of a thicker dimension than the OEM part.

 

[Holeshot]

Hopefully Tech / Rules will get this fixed & say "wave type rotors are legal" or "wave type rotors are illegal".

Or allow them for everyone. I've got an 09' and 10' R6...one I can run waves on, the other I can't. Same exact bike...

 

[TWF]

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 is not true. It depends on inside diameter as well. Long pad on narrower swept area is not same as short wide pad on wider swept area.

 

[TWF]

"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.

They also claim that swept area is moving around on wave rotors for better heat transfer and braking performance. If true they have advantage over stock ones.
Surface swept by pad is smaller on wave rotors as well.
Fact is they are not legal if you keep argument about 5 year or older out of it. There is reason they are not legal

 

[Holeshot]

They also claim that swept area is moving around on wave rotors for better heat transfer and braking performance. If true they have advantage over stock ones.
Surface swept by pad is smaller on wave rotors as well.
Fact is they are not legal if you keep argument about 5 year or older out of it. There is reason they are not legal

Well, in the AFM for 2014, tech has ruled them legal for 5 years and older bikes!

 

[TWF]

Well, in the AFM for 2014, tech has ruled them legal for 5 years and older bikes!

Than you should clarify that rule if that is what they want it to be. Because that is not what is written in rule book, at least not clearly.
And there is no OEM that does not make rotors for 5 year old bike. Think you have to go back 20 years before it gets discontinued.

 

[duh_ave]

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

no; the approved submission was not yours, nor was that the the reason it went though.

I proposed this and got it through, based on the fact that around 5 years after and "end run" of a model, the mfgr may cease to have parts available, making aftermarket parts a needed option.
It had NOTHING to do with the involved economics of parts purchasing.

 

[duh_ave]

You bet. Hopefully we can get this sorted out. I think that we should allow for the cheapest possible solution in a case like yours.

My EBC Vee Rotors are the same dimension as my stock rotors but they are definitely made from higher quality stainless steel. I can imagine that older model years would feature rotors of a thicker dimension than the OEM part.

Tim, another part of the decision/ interpretation, is that as various models become eligible for the aftermarket rotor allowance, more and more of them came with wave rotors, and it's difficult to keep track of the various specifics, so it was interpreted this way, partially, to make tech "simpler"

 

[Holeshot]

Than you should clarify that rule if that is what they want it to be. Because that is not what is written in rule book, at least not clearly.
And there is no OEM that does not make rotors for 5 year old bike. Think you have to go back 20 years before it gets discontinued.

Good point and we talked about this last year; putting out competition bulletins with the e-blast system.

 

[SonoraMike]

so can I legally run my rear numbers on the bottom of the lower fairing like shown in the first post? The tail for the 03 R1 is nearly flat on the area where the numbers would mount, would seem more visible down low

 

[Corey]

Than you should clarify that rule if that is what they want it to be. Because that is not what is written in rule book, at least not clearly.
And there is no OEM that does not make rotors for 5 year old bike. Think you have to go back 20 years before it gets discontinued.

I agree. Production rotors and brakes only for under 10 years, unless the OEM is no longer available from the dealer. If not, then all production bikes should be allowed to run wave rotors. The stock front rotors are still available from Suzuki for my 2003 SV650, but retail for $231.00 each. :wow

 

[frozenuts]

so can I legally run my rear numbers on the bottom of the lower fairing like shown in the first post? The tail for the 03 R1 is nearly flat on the area where the numbers would mount, would seem more visible down low

I think the sides and undertail are more visible than the top of the tail on most modern bikes.

This is from a photog's view, not a turn worker's, but I should also add that I get asked numerous times in a race weekend to identify the number of a bike.

 

[Shaggy]

I think the sides and undertail are more visible than the top of the tail on most modern bikes.

This is from a photog's view, not a turn worker's, but I should also add that I get asked numerous times in a race weekend to identify the number of a bike.

If the bike is upright it is easier since most flat surfaces on newer tails are facing straight up. A downed bike would be more difficult to read, it seems.

 

[frozenuts]

If the bike is upright it is easier since most flat surfaces on newer tails are facing straight up. A downed bike would be more difficult to read, it seems.

Assuming the top of the tail is facing the turnworker, or that the subframe even stayed attached then it is perfect. The sense of number urgency is more for if a rider made a shady pass, has an off and on, has parts falling off, etc. than it is for a downed rider. The handler is usually there pretty quickly (we have great turn workers) and can signal the number, where as if the rider is still circulating and happens to be a red and white bike in a pack of red and white bikes...

If the front number was missed on this bike, where is the best location for a rear number? Keep in mind I was standing well above the turn worker in this corner and I can still see the undertail.

 

[Shaggy]

I was agreeing with you, Max (that belly pan and undertail are easier to read). Sorry if it didn't come across that way. :laughing

 

[eeeeek]

so can I legally run my rear numbers on the bottom of the lower fairing like shown in the first post? The tail for the 03 R1 is nearly flat on the area where the numbers would mount, would seem more visible down low

Yes.

 

[frozenuts]

I was agreeing with you, Max (that belly pan and undertail are easier to read). Sorry if it didn't come across that way. :laughing

I read your response twice, took it both ways. :laughing

Really I just like posting pictures.