sccchiii

Here is my summary.....either selection is a win in comparison to any other manufacturers stock setups, PERIOD! This only comes down to a "value" choice in terms of operating costs. I for one do not purchase cars and drive them for 2 years then trade for next best thing. I have ceramics on several cars I own and they are great but for long term ownership I think operating costs are ridiculous vs weight savings (quite higher if you track as has been discussed). It seems to me to be a problem when guys are trading the car in when getting a estimate for ceramics repair or replacement....I know of a 458 that was dumped off at dealership when they gave him a $40k+ estimate to repair discs after hard track use. I believe that most would order ceramics if replacement price was equal to take advantage of factual benefits of ceramics (lighter unsprung weight is a big one) but that just isn't the case and the steels are worlds better than anything I can think of that has been offered by a manufacturer in the past performance wise.

Gravs

Fed up with the speculation I wanted to test if I could feel the difference. Couldn't switch the brakes but got my mechanic to remove the tyres. He said that the unsprung weight reduction would be similar to switching to ceramics and the rotational mass change would be greater since they were further from the centre of the wheel. Anyhow it turns out the ride is worse if anything.

doubleurx

Yes, but you did state they stop better, when in fact, the stopping distance of both types will be nearly identical. The tires have more to do with this than anything.

911dev

Because the weight is at the furthest edge of the rotating mass thus offering better rotational weight reduction as opposed to the rotor which is very close to the axis.

Carrera GT

Speaking from deliberate, if unscientific, side-by-side comparison of iron to china, there's really nothing in it.
I owned and tracked a 996 GT3 with iron and a 997.1 with ceramics at the same time. Imperceptible or certainly negligible difference other than staggering braking performance from the bigger PCCBs.
I then got a second 997.1 GT3 with iron and still had the one with PCCBs. Again, utterly imperceptible difference to be found in ride quality or any measurable advantage on road (though on track, I'd argue peak braking was higher in the ceramics, but that's irrelevant because you can't use the bloody things at peak for more than about as long as it takes to type this sentence because they wear out.)
That was 2007.
I did much the same thing in 2010 with the RS.
I'm doing it again (will I never learn?) right now with the 991 and I conclude upon these factors:

1. If you can afford or justify the cost, get PCCBs. They look great and make the whole car more appealing. But not everyone with a GT3 gives a flying hoot.

2. If you track more than a handful of days, factory iron or ceramic, you'll want aftermarket rotors and preferably calipers.

3. If you track, you might have the desire to run Hoosiers and that means 19's, which requires some further effort (not to digress too far, but the front uprights are the same, the calipers are different between iron and larger diameter ceramics, the rear lca can be made to fit inside a 19 by replacing the through-bolt inverted with a thin head item.)

Porsche brakes, no exaggeration or generalization, ever since 911's could go fast enough to need the brakes (instead of just a Fin flick and more power) have been the limiting performance factor and the major cost factor when tracking the 911 (other than tires or capital risk,) and if you're really pushing the car hard on track, the GT3's have been no exception.

reidry

Joe,

Was that in a video, magazine or book? Got a link?

Thanks in advance,

Ryan

orthojoe

Will be in a upcoming panorama article. Was based on a conversation Stout had with Rohl.

reidry

Looking forward to that one!

Thanks,

Ryan

forhamilton

Going with steel!

orthojoe

Just read this on OGRacing's website:

"Next, let’s discuss rotor material:

Iron is easily one of the best materials used for rotors. Size for size an iron rotor will outperform a carbon ceramic rotor. For example, let’s say you have 14″ rotors, one in carbon-ceramic, one in iron. The iron rotor will generate a more consistent and higher TQ output over the carbon ceramic rotor. Not to go too far off track, but that is why you see 15-16″ carbon ceramic rotors on many production cars – the manufacturers need the increased size to get the performance! The benefit of carbon is that it will outlast an iron rotor and have a larger temperature range. "

http://www.ogracing.com/blog/2014/10...ten/#more-2092

Very interesting if true.

Carrera GT

You could look to racing to see the various factors leading to brake rules.
Not all ceramic rotor materials, composition, construction methods can be compared with all iron rotors in a simple "A vs B" analysis.

I think the unpleasant performance characteristics for ceramics of a decade ago -- that have improved dramatically, especially with the solid construction rotors like Movit -- linger in the general perception of ceramics being just an expensive indulgence. Setting aside the Porsche and Ferrari CCBs as bean counter decisions, not serious engineering solutions, the solid composition and construction ceramic rotors are light, they don't wear, they are not brittle, they can be run down to the studs and backing plates of the pads and they can be repaired. Taking Movit as the premium example, their only shortcoming is price and their only limitation is pad compound. Most track day drivers are cost conscious and want excellent pedal feel in the brakes, so these are factors to be considered, but with new vendors offering solid rotors at less stratospheric prices, well, I think iron is obsolescent, if far from obsolete.

UAEGT3

I find this very confusing, can some one correct me if I am wrong.

As far as I know the PCCB where created for the track, bcz they are light weight, have an excellent bite and last longer when compared to Steels. Thats why you see all the Challenge cars with Ceramics.

Putting replacement cost aside, I think my statement is true.

So what we are seeing now, is people are offered the braking system that you need for the track and as a plus side also does well for daily driving and braking, but people are avoiding it due to costs, which to some might be pushing them away bcz they might be getting a mixed message that steel rotors are more superior when it comes to tracking and braking than ceramics.

UAEGT3

I have ceramics on my Scud and my new GT3 and love them. Especially the Porsche, I find it has a better bite in city driving than the Ferrari ones.

And as a few mentioned, they do fill in the area behind the wheel pretty well and it looks amazing.

Carrera GT

Challenge cars are a factory program and using factory OEM hardware. I don't think Ferrari even offers an iron rotor. Keep in mind they run a computer just to track usage and a proprietary algorithm to declare when the rotor is expired. It's not a realistic way to run a car without a professional race team budget. These teams fill their brake reservoirs from century old Lalique decanteurs and have silver monograms on their brake pads.

As for PCCB, as with all road car makers, it's a way to ask a cashed up customer to drop another $10K into the deal at 50%+ profit (on a car that's maybe 15-18% margin, that's tasty) but it's never been about performance other than in the marketing literature and the eye of the beholder.

If you want to look at F1 or other race brakes, they're not like factory ceramics. I think that topic has been covered. Functional ceramic rotors are monolithic. Factory "CCB's" from the likes of Porsche and Ferrari are filamental layers bonded to carbon cores.

I think it's fair to say the new 410mm rotor on the GT3 is the same bonded filament, only thicker for durability and being of a much larger diameter, the swept area is greater, moving at higher speed and having better leverage as well as cooling. These are conventional design revisions to improve any disk brake. I can only hope it will suffice for occasional track days.

I'm starting to think the ceramics are now part of what should be considered de rigeur for the road car, and come off for track days. Either to be replaced by aftermarket top shelf iron product or exotic ceramic.

I go back and forth on this (and I have to make a decision before my next order freezes ... on rotors and on nose job.)

UAEGT3

thanks for the explanation Carrera GT