ShinnyGroove (Forum Supporter) said:

Aren't the stock pads on the 1LE Camaros basically a full-blown track pad?  It always seemed like one of their selling points that the car is basically track-ready off the dealer lot.  Seems like a regular street pad would be challenged to stop a car with that much power/weight on the track.

This wouldn't surprise me. I mean, the way some car makers create "sports" cars these days is, instead of cutting weight, they put on really sticky tires and huge brakes, because that's what it takes to slow down these modern-day behemoths.

NOHOME said:

In reply to Stampie (FS) :

Remember this Headline a while back?

 

 

Spiders could theoretically eat every human on Earth in one year

I wish they would get to it then.

What's bothered me most about this bit of 'news' is how it has been portrayed by much of the media, especially that targeting the automotive enthusiast crowd.  Many headlines make it seem like a new action from these states is targeting these vehicles to ban them.   The reality is that it is a several years old law which has another step in limits coming at the beginning of next year.  None of that is new.  It appears that GM missed it for these low volume vehicles and will have to source and qualify a different brake pad.  But the headlines all scream that these states are targeting these particularly high performance vehicles.  The original post here doesn't have that hyperbole in the headline, but the lead photo still says "BANNED".  I see no value in riling up the car enthusiasts to believe that these states are actively targeting these cars.  Sure, there are a lot of folks who are actively anti-car, and there will be other laws we may object to, but winding up an uninformed and unaimed mass is counterproductive.

Here's an example of some politicians trying to win some votes for the next election cycle by going after small things that make it look like they are "caring for the environment." Instead of focusing on bigger issues like industrial polution. 

this happened a few years ago in Australia , 

There was an asbestos ban put in about 10 years before but never really pushed ,

But someone found this law and  decided to hit the import car market , 

So you needed to prove you did not have asbestos in the car you were importing.....

So pull the brakes , exhaust manifold gaskets etc ,  undercoating  etc

That is what this  copper ban seems to be , ignore it to the very end and then moan !

pkingham (Forum Supporter) said:

  Many headlines make it seem like a new action from these states is targeting these vehicles to ban them.   

"How a Little Too Much Copper Means a Ban for the Camaro SS and ZL1 in California and Washington?" Because when I read this thread title, I assumed the actual cars were going to be banned over some actual structural thing involving copper. Not over easily-replaced brake pads.....

If a place like GRM is making sensational/misleading headlines like this, not surprising non-car publications would as well.

GM is gigantic, and cars like the Camaro are bound to have a host of aftermarket pad options. How hard would it really have been for Chevy to have a set of "Cali Compliant" parts for that market? Getting to the point where GM is barred from selling certain cars in the #1 US market over a brake pad sounds like someone in the Camaro management chain needs to be sacked.

DirtyBird222 said:

Here's an example of some politicians trying to win some votes for the next election cycle by going after small things that make it look like they are "caring for the environment." Instead of focusing on bigger issues like industrial polution. 

More likely, here's an example of a mundane environmental regulation being enforced by some bureaucratic agency (which is their job), probably not expecting the general public would even notice, and then the automotive media (I'd bet SEMA is on the frontline of this hype machine) whips it up to make it sound like a big deal.

It isn't a big deal. It's a sensible regulation that can EASILY be mitigated by GM by simply changing to different pads. Environmental stewardship isn't mutually exclusive to performance automobiles. This is low-hanging fruit that is super-simple to pick.

I mean, that's like saying "getting rid of Asbestos brake pads was just a political ploy." 

In reality, GM *should* have been out front of this with marketing saying "we are changing our brakes to a more environmentally-conscious material, because we care about your health when you're driving our cars." But of course, GM isn't very good at getting out ahead of things. 

irish44j (Forum Supporter) said:

If a place like GRM is making sensational/misleading headlines like this

well said!!!! 

These cars were marketed and built as 'track ready' cars, hence those brake pads.

Easy way around this is that state affected cars get compliant pads/ include a set of boxed race pads in the trunk or order from Chevy performance parts. 

No need for all this berkeleying drama.

Geezoi

fasted58 said:

These cars were marketed and built as 'track ready' cars, hence those brake pads.

Easy way around this is that state affected cars get compliant pads/ include a set of boxed race pads in the trunk or order from Chevy performance parts. 

No need for all this berkeleying drama.

Geezoi

Yep, there are other "track-ready" cars sold in California (Porsche GT3 comes to mind). They don't seem to be affected by this law. All in all, I'm sure there are other pad options for GM, they just botched it by not doing their due diligence. As you say, no need for all the drama. This should be a simple correction - especially considering these are low-volume cars and the great majority of them will never see a track anyhow. 

Side note: The stock (Pagid) pads on a GT3 are $510 PER AXLE SET. Insane. 

irish44j (Forum Supporter) said:

DirtyBird222 said:

Here's an example of some politicians trying to win some votes for the next election cycle by going after small things that make it look like they are "caring for the environment." Instead of focusing on bigger issues like industrial polution. 

More likely, here's an example of a mundane environmental regulation being enforced by some bureaucratic agency (which is their job), probably not expecting the general public would even notice, and then the automotive media (I'd bet SEMA is on the frontline of this hype machine) whips it up to make it sound like a big deal.

It isn't a big deal. It's a sensible regulation that can EASILY be mitigated by GM by simply changing to different pads. Environmental stewardship isn't mutually exclusive to performance automobiles. This is low-hanging fruit that is super-simple to pick.

I mean, that's like saying "getting rid of Asbestos brake pads was just a political ploy." 

In reality, GM *should* have been out front of this with marketing saying "we are changing our brakes to a more environmentally-conscious material, because we care about your health when you're driving our cars." But of course, GM isn't very good at getting out ahead of things. 

It's not just politicians trying to get re-elected. Salmon fisheries in Washington state are a huge deal, economically and culturally. In addition, Chinook salmon (and to a much lesser extent, coho, the ones most affected by the chemical recently ID'd in tires) are the main diet of the state's dwindling orcas, which are on the endangered species list and also a large tourist draw for the state. People who care about the state's natural resources and people who are more concerned with the economic impacts of toxic metals in brakes both support the ban; there was broad bipartisan support for it (incidentally, the law was passed in 2010). In 2016, a stakeholder group of nearly 30 people was convened by the state to determine how to phase out copper-containing brakes; roughly half were automotive industry representatives, including, as it happens, one from GM.

In reply to californiamilleghia :

A guy in the Ducati Bevel forums got nailed with that trying to bring a bike into Oz.

He must have done something to upset the inspector because he was trying to prove contents of gaskets, exhaust packings, brakes, etc.

It's madness.

Yes, new cars, absolutely, legislate away but I doubt that a vintage motorcycle, used to blat around backroads on weekends is going to cause any extinctions.

NOHOME said:

OK, I get it. And I applaud the intentions and all that.

 

But has nobody done an impact assessments of Humans on the planet and come to any similar conclusions? "Hello Elephant in the Room!"

Yes.  For instance, they found that the brake pads that humans use in their motor vehicles are detrimental to aquatic wildlife if they contain too many of certain compounds...

irish44j (Forum Supporter) said:Side note: The stock (Pagid) pads on a GT3 are $510 PER AXLE SET. Insane. 

That's about what the stock pads for a RAM Promaster cost, too.

irish44j (Forum Supporter) said:

DirtyBird222 said:

Here's an example of some politicians trying to win some votes for the next election cycle by going after small things that make it look like they are "caring for the environment." Instead of focusing on bigger issues like industrial polution. 

More likely, here's an example of a mundane environmental regulation being enforced by some bureaucratic agency (which is their job), probably not expecting the general public would even notice, and then the automotive media (I'd bet SEMA is on the frontline of this hype machine) whips it up to make it sound like a big deal.

It isn't a big deal. It's a sensible regulation that can EASILY be mitigated by GM by simply changing to different pads. Environmental stewardship isn't mutually exclusive to performance automobiles. This is low-hanging fruit that is super-simple to pick.

I mean, that's like saying "getting rid of Asbestos brake pads was just a political ploy." 

In reality, GM *should* have been out front of this with marketing saying "we are changing our brakes to a more environmentally-conscious material, because we care about your health when you're driving our cars." But of course, GM isn't very good at getting out ahead of things. 

The laws that made this particular law allowed passed many years ago.  Nobody needs to be re-elected based on this, even if anyone tries to use it to get re-elected (which does happen).  This is a group of scientists who look at an environmental problem, identify what caused it, and then make rules to prevent it from happening again.

Pretty much every tightening of the emissions laws for what I do dates back to congressional approval signed by Nixon.  There have been some additions- to include new constituents, but the base law that supports the change passed almost 50 years ago.  (or longer if you live in CA)

irish44j (Forum Supporter) said:

 

This is low-hanging fruit that is super-simple to pick.

Ask someone in the brake friction material industry how high they had to climb to get this low-hanging fruit. Over the course of 7 years, it took many hundreds of thousands of engineering man-hours, thousands of dynamometer tests, pressing and curing process modifications, etc.

to the end customer, it's low-hanging fruit that is super-simple to pick. you're welcome.

gearheadmb said:

NOHOME said:

In reply to Stampie (FS) :

Remember this Headline a while back?

 

 

Spiders could theoretically eat every human on Earth in one year

I wish they would get to it then.

Truth. They have 21-days left, get to work already. 

Stefan (Forum Supporter) said:

irish44j (Forum Supporter) said:

So, they'll change the pads. Somehow other high-performance cars seem to be able to stop with "Cali-legal" pads (or so I assume, unless a bunch of other cars are banned too). Seems like a lot of non-story here. 

Yup, a TSB and some time spent swapping pads and they are back on the lots.   The collector nerds will snap up the old pads to resell on eBay, etc. to those that want that "exclusivity" and if someone respected in that world comes out and states that the "old" pads were somehow better?  Practically printing money (as far as selling old brake pads goes).

Like the craziness of people selling an old unopened bottle of ATE Superblue on ebay.

(I kept a bottle of Super Blue that was half full to collect ;) )

AngryCorvair (Forum Supporter) said:

irish44j (Forum Supporter) said:

 

This is low-hanging fruit that is super-simple to pick.

Ask someone in the brake friction material industry how high they had to climb to get this low-hanging fruit. Over the course of 7 years, it took many hundreds of thousands of engineering man-hours, thousands of dynamometer tests, pressing and curing process modifications, etc.

to the end customer, it's low-hanging fruit that is super-simple to pick. you're welcome.

The "low-hanging fruit" comment was a reference to the the fact that brake pads can be easily physically changed  (as compared with, for instance, having to redesign an internal engine casting and replace THAT on every car). 
 

However, cry me a river for engineers who spent all that time and effort but for some reason weren't aware of already-existing regulations in one of the car's large markets. Apparently they either didn't do their professional due diligence, or they intentionally tried to "get away with it." Either way, it's on GM alone, and no sympathy is needed for these "hard-working" friction industry employees. This is what they get paid for and they botched it. 

 Nobody is lamenting the time and testing spent by hard-working Tachikara airbag inflator engineers, lol. 

aw614 said:

Stefan (Forum Supporter) said:

irish44j (Forum Supporter) said:

So, they'll change the pads. Somehow other high-performance cars seem to be able to stop with "Cali-legal" pads (or so I assume, unless a bunch of other cars are banned too). Seems like a lot of non-story here. 

Yup, a TSB and some time spent swapping pads and they are back on the lots.   The collector nerds will snap up the old pads to resell on eBay, etc. to those that want that "exclusivity" and if someone respected in that world comes out and states that the "old" pads were somehow better?  Practically printing money (as far as selling old brake pads goes).

Like the craziness of people selling an old unopened bottle of ATE Superblue on ebay.

(I kept a bottle of Super Blue that was half full to collect ;) )

I still have three unopened ones sealed in bags in my shop cabinet. But, I'll actually use them. 

AngryCorvair (Forum Supporter) said:

irish44j (Forum Supporter) said:

 

This is low-hanging fruit that is super-simple to pick.

Ask someone in the brake friction material industry how high they had to climb to get this low-hanging fruit. Over the course of 7 years, it took many hundreds of thousands of engineering man-hours, thousands of dynamometer tests, pressing and curing process modifications, etc.

to the end customer, it's low-hanging fruit that is super-simple to pick. you're welcome.

Patently false. I was working in the industry at the time and when the law passed something like 75% of the pads already on the market met the first tier for compliance with no changes. This was a super easy low hanging fruit that the friction companies were all for as they fought each other to be the first full line in compliance for the marketing. 

In reply to Javelin (Forum Supporter) :

Patently false? Go berkeley your mother. Where were you "in the industry" at the time? Counter jockey at AdvanPepZone? You know where I was? I was working at one of the largest friction material suppliers in the world, working on new formulations, crunching through mountains of data to determine what worked and what didn't, etc.

In reply to irish44j (Forum Supporter):

or maybe GM said "we are not going to compromise performance in 48 states to appease two, we'll sell them as long as we can and then we won't." Swapping pads is easy. Developing, validating, and manufacturing a pad is not. Not asking for a River of tears, simply stating that there were no low-hanging fruit that were simply missed because of a lack of due diligence. 

Don't the cars in question use cookie-cutter Brembo calipers?  I can't imagine that the solution doesn't exist already for another application.

Probably noisy/squealy when cold, but then again, the engine is also loud and gets poor fuel economy, why should the brakes be expected to be the same as a rental Malibu?

http://info.nsf.org/certified/friction_materials/listings.asp?