Brake Standards Discussion Rises Again

The brake market has never been the subject of so much attention regarding standards. Three separate moves in recent months have put the brake market under scrutiny.

First, there was the introduction of a private member’s bill on brake friction standards in the Ontario legislature in June. Shortly afterward came the Brake Manufacturers Council’s introduction of an Enhanced Brake Effectiveness Evaluation Procedure (BEEP). And then, for good measure, Affinia launched a suit in the U. S. against “lightweight rotors.”

While the fact that mandatory standards do not exist for aftermarket brake parts is well-known in the industry, it is a fact that still continues to surprise many who do not work specifically in the brake segment, as well as consumers.

This, however, does not mean that it is a new issue. I wrote my first article on the lack of brake standards in the aftermarket, “The Search for Standards in the Brake Industry,” in 1995.

Then as now, while mandatory performance standards do exist for original equipment brake systems through the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards/Canadian Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, those standards do not apply to aftermarket products.

But this is not to say that there hasn’t been progress: D3EA testing, which can be considered the granddaddy of all dyno-based testing, providing a true simulation of on-vehicle performance as opposed to material durability testing, came onto the market in 1996. As good as it is, it raised issues regarding disclosure of the true evaluation procedure, as it was a proprietary process and not open to outside scrutiny from the industry. It was also judged to be expensive compared to other single-ended brake dynamometer testing procedures then being used by industry.

At the time, the Brake Manufacturers Council (BMC) was still several years away from an open, industry standard. What came to be known as the Brake Effectiveness Evaluation Procedure, BEEP for short, wasn’t introduced until 2002. The automotive aftermarket is a different place than it was back in 1995, or even 2002. And so is BEEP.

“The difference [is] in this test, BEEP always has been an open standard,” says Rick Jamieson, CEO of ABS Friction, Guelph Ont., chairperson of the BMC Friction Committee and also a key figure behind Ontario Bill 181, as the proposed legislation is known. “The biggest thing about BEEP is that it has gone from a voluntary standard administered by the BMC to one administered by a third-party organization called PRI.”

Most in the automotive business are aware of the role of the SAE in creating open testing standards for a variety of components. SAE Inc. created PRI in 1990 as a not-for-profit organization that exists to advance the interests of the mobility and related industries through development of performance standards and administration of quality assurance, accreditation, and certification programs as well as related activities for the benefit of industry, government, and the general public.

From a technical standpoint, the introduction of the enhanced BEEP standard is significant. According to Tim Duncan, vice-president, test operation for Link Engineering and co-chair of the BMC’s Technical Steering Committee, the core of the enhancement is the upgrade to utilize the new SAE J2784 FMVSS 135 inertia dynamometer test procedure. “The J2784 was developed under a collaboration effort with the SAE Brake Dynamometer Test Committee, including representatives of Ford, GM, Chrysler, Tier-1, and Tier-2 suppliers, to more closely comply with the standards established under the FMVSS 135 testing procedure. One of the features of the SAE J2784 test procedure is that it allows the evaluation of vehicle braking for ABS/Electronic Brake Proportioning when used in conjunction with the appropriate vehicle modelling.

“In 2008 the BMC validated the updated BEEP model with fully instrumented vehicle tests on FMVSS-compliant proving grounds and laboratory tests using OE and aftermarket friction materials of known and different qualities,” says Duncan. “The BMC’s Technical Steering Committee reviewed the test results and, in combination with their individual experiences and testing activities, provided feedback to the program in a structured peer review dialogue that keeps the model valid, relevant, and current.”

Duncan is one of a number of strong supporters of the BEEP standard. However, a number of requests for comment from brake manufacturers went unheeded on the points of standards and regulation, and some would not go on record with their views, which ranged from concerns about the validity of the testing to its true value as a genuine indicator of real-world performance.

What can be said is that, despite moves like the strong promotion of BEEP as an industry standard and the push for legislation, there remain conflicting views within the industry about how to ensure that products that reach the market are, in fact, up to standard.

“I do encourage the Ontario and Canadian governments to pass safety standards rules on aftermarket parts in general, not only on brake pads,” says Ramzi Yako of ProMax Auto Parts Depot Ltd. “I sell brake pads in a lot of Latin American countries; my brake pads have to pass a local safety test so the importer is allowed to import my product. These tests in Latin America are done in local universities funded by local government. For example, I just signed a contract with a company in Venezuela, and my brake pads and rotors had to pass a safety test before I shipped any merchandise. The test was done in a university in Caracas for a fee of under US$2,000. Similar tests are done in Europe called R90; each country of the European Union has its own standards and requirements for the test.”

Yako says that if a legislated standard were to come into force, testing should be done at publicly funded facilities, as in his Latin American experience. He also states that the approach could apply to many products.

“The Ontario government should consider safety rules on other critical aftermarket products besides brakes–for example, CV axles, suspension parts, chassis parts, wheel bearings, hydraulic units, tires, etc. If any of these parts fail the vehicle, they could cause a very serious accident. During the summertime all you see along Ontario highways is parts of rubber from blowing cheap tires. No matter what quality of brake pads you put on a vehicle that has low-quality tires, it will not make any difference.”

He says that he currently tests all products he has manufactured for sale in Canada, though the addition of the BEEP test would add cost for all manufacturers not currently employing the test. This view is supported by others in the industry.

Bob Peters, who is a director at Akebono’s R & D facility in Farmington Hills, Mich., says that a push for standards would only hurt those who are already acting responsibly. At the core of his concern is the impossibility of enforcement.

“There have been rumblings by NHTSA in the past about potential regulation of aftermarket friction,” he says. “My personal opinion is that friction material output is rarely an issue. So, by inference, legislation that attempts to validate friction output is a waste of money in all but some very extreme cases (and those extreme cases would likely circumvent the regulation anyway, by testing one material and selling another). The biggest differentiators in the aftermarket are noise and roughness, same as OE.

“Responsible suppliers will continue to be responsible, and shady suppliers will continue to be shady, with or without the regulation–the only difference being that it will cost everyone more money to develop and administer the regulation,” says Peters. It may be a cynical view, but it is one that was echoed in a number of on-and off-the-record conversations.

Of course, the distributor and the jobber are caught in the middle. Regardless of the quality of the product–good or bad–being produced, very little gets to market in Canada, and th
e U. S. for that matter, without the participation of the recognized aftermarket distribution players. In many cases the networks work with their suppliers to ensure that the products they sell, as well as others in the market, are up to standard–but not always.

And what is clear in the investigations into the matter is that distributors, who arguably have the most power in determining which products make it to market, are the least equipped to independently determine the performance of brake products being presented to them. One distribution executive even “congratulated” me on finding what he called the flaw in the system; it was not a revelation that I was particularly proud to have tripped across.

Overall, there seems to be very little desire on the part of most of those interviewed to pursue either a legislated or industry-policed standard for brake products, arguing that it would only add cost for the conscientious players in the market, leaving those unconcerned about such niceties with an even greater cost advantage than they might enjoy today.

In the end, it is clear that the pursuit of standards to eliminate the worst of the product on the market is viewed as a noble but slippery concept; proponents vow to fight on, while the industry at large continues to do its level best to ensure that consumers continue to have access to quality products, while remaining blissfully unaware that it is largely good intentions that keep it that way.