Members Brian L. Posted July 11, 2012 Members Share Posted July 11, 2012 So I have had this discussion in other series about what "stock style and type" means. Does this mean no slotted rotors of the same size? The rotors from Nissan are obviously VERY expensive compared to what I can get Centric slotted rotors from my local parts house for. So there is no cost savings argument to make. Also, I have a good relationship with Michael from MBS Brakes. He is PFC distributor. They make a really nice fully floating 2 piece hat and rotor, and could be whiling to make a Spec Z deal for us. This option would again save money in the long run being able to replace just the rotor ring once the initial investment is made into the hat. Thoughts? Who would support lobbying to allow 2 piece rotors of the same size? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laze1 Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 I 'think" you can run floating rotors now...but the NASA National guys would need to speak up on this one... 17 Brake System 17.1 Brake System a) Brake pads are unrestricted. b) Brake rotors must be the same type, material, and dimensions as OEM. Brake rotors from alternate companies may be used. Brake rotors may be cryogenically treated. c) Steel braided brake lines may be used. d) Disc brake backing plates may be removed. e) The emergency brake level and/or cables and associated must remain functional. f) Anti-lock braking systems (ABS) may be disabled. g) Nissan Motorsports front brake cooling kit part # may be utilized. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Brian L. Posted July 11, 2012 Author Members Share Posted July 11, 2012 Yeah that was kinda my point . I also "think" I might be able to run floating rotors now. That seams to be the popular way to describe rules involving rotors in many classes, and its open to interpretation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Brian L. Posted July 11, 2012 Author Members Share Posted July 11, 2012 And after re-reading this, why in the world would you need to keep the e-brake functional? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scotts300 Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 So I have had this discussion in other series about what "stock style and type" means. Does this mean no slotted rotors of the same size? The rotors from Nissan are obviously VERY expensive compared to what I can get Centric slotted rotors from my local parts house for. So there is no cost savings argument to make. Also, I have a good relationship with Michael from MBS Brakes. He is PFC distributor. They make a really nice fully floating 2 piece hat and rotor, and could be whiling to make a Spec Z deal for us. This option would again save money in the long run being able to replace just the rotor ring once the initial investment is made into the hat. Thoughts? Who would support lobbying to allow 2 piece rotors of the same size? Cost, longevity, and reduced weight are all reasons to support a 2pc rotor. I'd sign up to support it, but at this point, I read "same type" as full blank (no slots/dimples), cast iron and only as large as the Brembo kit or the non-Brembo kit (from any year). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fixxxercask Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 And after re-reading this, why in the world would you need to keep the e-brake functional? Good question. I removed mine before I knew about Spec Z. I had to hunt down a used assembly and purchase just to meet Spec rules. I haven't installed it again though. Don't see the point. Just another Spec rule though At least shift knobs are open Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
National Staff Jeremy C. Posted July 13, 2012 National Staff Share Posted July 13, 2012 More info needed on that one Brian. Cost savings over the usual centric rotor? Is there one? Remember, this is a spec class! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Brian L. Posted July 13, 2012 Author Members Share Posted July 13, 2012 More info needed on that one Brian.Cost savings over the usual centric rotor? Is there one? Remember, this is a spec class! Well we won't really be able to tell until we do some testing on life span of each option. Again the up front cost for the hat will be probably at least triple the cost of the centric rotor, but after that it will probably be similar, and the PFC rotor will likely last WAY longer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Brian L. Posted July 16, 2012 Author Members Share Posted July 16, 2012 So I have some more info on the PFC rotor option. Only front are available right now, but that is not a huge issue considering they take the majority of the abuse. I have spoken with Michael at MBS and he said he would do a minimum 20% discount for Spec Z racers, maybe more depending on volume. So the pricing is... Front Hat and Rotor Assembly - $499.91 w/ Spec Z 20% = $399.20 vs. $357.16 Stock Brembo Replacement Rotor Ring - $256.82 w Spec Z 20% = $205.46 vs. $357.16 Stock Brembo, or $143.00 Centric from Tirerack.com With that pricing to me its a no brainer that IF these aren't already legal, they should be. These are the same rotors that we ran on the GOTO:Racing/COBB Motorsports Nissan GTR time attack car. For an idea of the performance level of these rotors, that car was 3800 lbs with me in it, made 800 WHP, and ran on 335's all the way around, and had no brake ducts. We changed out rotors maybe once a season as a precautionary measure, but they probably would have gone the entire season. They are also currently prototyping their new 08 compound for the Brembo calipers. This is also the same compound we used on the GT-R . I prepurchased two sets to get them to do the run, but they have 8 more sets if anyone is interested. Anyway, I argue for this point because of the cost savings. Trying to avoid the false economy of many other series mandating stock parts that don't last on the track. We run some big tires in Spez Z, we need brakes to stand up to it . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
velocitymotorsports Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 Some things should be limited to what you can do to the car as it is spec-z not gt-z. I do agree on the e-brake being removed. I wonder if pfc make a performance e-brake shoe assembly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Brian L. Posted July 22, 2012 Author Members Share Posted July 22, 2012 Some things should be limited to what you can do to the car as it is spec-z not gt-z. I do agree on the e-brake being removed. I wonder if pfc make a performance e-brake shoe assembly. What is the argument behind not allowing something that saves the competitors money, is readily available, and performs better than the OE part? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dkmura Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 What is the argument behind not allowing something that saves the competitors money, is readily available, and performs better than the OE part? The problem with expanding the rule set before the class fully matures is that it raises the bar significantly for those considering entry. There's little doubt that allowing aftermarket two-piece rotors will be a performance advantage, and thus becomes one more item that racers (who are considering building a Spec Z) have to factor in. Sure, it'll save money in the long run, but in the initial build, it inflates what the cost to compete will be. In my region, I've had plenty of inquires from potential Spec Z racers. Some of them already own a Z33 and want to get involved, but are unsure of the costs. I let them inspect my car, ask questions and fill them in on the prep and running costs involved. But let's face it, the more the rule set allows any performance advantages, EVERYBODY wants them and NOBODY wants to come out to race in a stock 350Z. And when initial build costs escalate, interest wanes. Beyond those considering entries, allowing two piece rotors would also mandate them for those of us who are current Spec Z competitors. As a racer who competes in both SCCA and NASA, it represents an additional cost to bear in Spec Z's inagural year. In coming years, as Spec Z fully matures into a class with closer to 40-50 competitors nationwide, I can see the rule set evolving. But this can be a slippery slope, and I support the mindset of keeping our rule set as simple and stable while this class builds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Brian L. Posted July 24, 2012 Author Members Share Posted July 24, 2012 What is the argument behind not allowing something that saves the competitors money, is readily available, and performs better than the OE part? The problem with expanding the rule set before the class fully matures is that it raises the bar significantly for those considering entry. There's little doubt that allowing aftermarket two-piece rotors will be a performance advantage, and thus becomes one more item that racers (who are considering building a Spec Z) have to factor in. Sure, it'll save money in the long run, but in the initial build, it inflates what the cost to compete will be. In my region, I've had plenty of inquires from potential Spec Z racers. Some of them already own a Z33 and want to get involved, but are unsure of the costs. I let them inspect my car, ask questions and fill them in on the prep and running costs involved. But let's face it, the more the rule set allows any performance advantages, EVERYBODY wants them and NOBODY wants to come out to race in a stock 350Z. And when initial build costs escalate, interest wanes. Beyond those considering entries, allowing two piece rotors would also mandate them for those of us who are current Spec Z competitors. As a racer who competes in both SCCA and NASA, it represents an additional cost to bear in Spec Z's inagural year. In coming years, as Spec Z fully matures into a class with closer to 40-50 competitors nationwide, I can see the rule set evolving. But this can be a slippery slope, and I support the mindset of keeping our rule set as simple and stable while this class builds. I totally agree with all your points, except that I don't think $43 per rotor, and $86 total is even on the radar for most people when building a $25K racecar. I also don't think that anyone is going to think that a 2 piece rotor is such a performance advantage that they won't run spec Z in favor of its SCCA counter part. I totally understand cost creep, and agree with controlling it. But this does the opposite, it saves money. We still haven't heard from a NASA official yet on the interpretation of the rule... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dkmura Posted July 25, 2012 Share Posted July 25, 2012 I totally agree with all your points, except that I don't think $43 per rotor, and $86 total is even on the radar for most people when building a $25K racecar. I also don't think that anyone is going to think that a 2 piece rotor is such a performance advantage that they won't run spec Z in favor of its SCCA counter part. I totally understand cost creep, and agree with controlling it. But this does the opposite, it saves money. We still haven't heard from a NASA official yet on the interpretation of the rule... Brian- your own figures indicate (with a production discount) these two-piece rotors will cost (Front Hat and Rotor Assembly - $499.91 w/ Spec Z 20% = $399.20, with a replacement rotor ring - $256.82 w Spec Z 20% = $205.46) over $800 w/shipping and nowhere near the $86 total you quoted above. That's exactly the type of "cost creep" Spec Z needs to avoid at this point in its gestation. IMHO- I'm not sure we need to hear back from any NASA official on this topic. The V2 rules are clear: two-piece rotors aren't allowed at this point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Brian L. Posted July 25, 2012 Author Members Share Posted July 25, 2012 I totally agree with all your points, except that I don't think $43 per rotor, and $86 total is even on the radar for most people when building a $25K racecar. I also don't think that anyone is going to think that a 2 piece rotor is such a performance advantage that they won't run spec Z in favor of its SCCA counter part. I totally understand cost creep, and agree with controlling it. But this does the opposite, it saves money. We still haven't heard from a NASA official yet on the interpretation of the rule... Brian- your own figures indicate (with a production discount) these two-piece rotors will cost (Front Hat and Rotor Assembly - $499.91 w/ Spec Z 20% = $399.20, with a replacement rotor ring - $256.82 w Spec Z 20% = $205.46) over $800 w/shipping and nowhere near the $86 total you quoted above. That's exactly the type of "cost creep" Spec Z needs to avoid at this point in its gestation. IMHO- I'm not sure we need to hear back from any NASA official on this topic. The V2 rules are clear: two-piece rotors aren't allowed at this point. I think you misread my post, or I wasn't clear. I was talking about the difference between stock rotors from Nissan and the PFC rotors, which is exactly the number I quoted. It is NOT clear, Jeremy's post said that as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeorgeZ Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 Does anyone have an idea of the cost of a new set of "factory" Brembo's for the 350Z? Finding a Track model project car with them used is challenging. Finding the Brembo's used is also tough and besides, they're USED! Perhaps there is an aftermarket supplier that can provide something that performs exactly like the Brembo kit does and we could save a few dollars. Surely NASA has "contacts" or "partners" that can figure this out. We wouldn't be taking money from Nissan if we go elswhere for calipers, they are not a Nissan product to begin with... My $0.02 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scotts300 Posted August 13, 2012 Share Posted August 13, 2012 I totally agree with all your points, except that I don't think $43 per rotor, and $86 total is even on the radar for most people when building a $25K racecar. I also don't think that anyone is going to think that a 2 piece rotor is such a performance advantage that they won't run spec Z in favor of its SCCA counter part. I totally understand cost creep, and agree with controlling it. But this does the opposite, it saves money. We still haven't heard from a NASA official yet on the interpretation of the rule... Brian- your own figures indicate (with a production discount) these two-piece rotors will cost (Front Hat and Rotor Assembly - $499.91 w/ Spec Z 20% = $399.20, with a replacement rotor ring - $256.82 w Spec Z 20% = $205.46) over $800 w/shipping and nowhere near the $86 total you quoted above. That's exactly the type of "cost creep" Spec Z needs to avoid at this point in its gestation. IMHO- I'm not sure we need to hear back from any NASA official on this topic. The V2 rules are clear: two-piece rotors aren't allowed at this point. I think you misread my post, or I wasn't clear. I was talking about the difference between stock rotors from Nissan and the PFC rotors, which is exactly the number I quoted. It is NOT clear, Jeremy's post said that as well. If I have read the rules correctly, we don't need to run the OEM rotor, but one of like-kind and size. With that, the Centric rotors for the Brembos are like $90/pair, and I simply consider them a consumable and change/toss them every few events. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.