PCCB - Am I being too picky?
#31
Rennlist Member
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: West Vancouver and San Francisco
Posts: 4,186
Received 1,150 Likes
on
568 Posts
If you track more than 3-4 times a year, the rotors that come with the car are not important - your best bet will be to get aftermarket anyway. There are aftermarket options available for both PCCB and iron, so it does not matter which set up comes with the car. If you do not track or do it up to 3-4 times a year, PCCB would be better - no dust, less weight.
#32
I don't know what counts as heavy track use, but I have about 4000 track miles on my PCCBs. I think I tracked 15 or so days last season. I am surely not using them as hard as I could be since I am very much learning and enjoying, with times being one data point rather than the goal for me. I haven't seen over 700 degrees C indicated on the rotors. My PCCBs have >85% density left. I think that probably means they are somewhat less than half done, at least from a CPO perspective (and yes, I am changing my hubs very soon). I believe I have not had a rock get caught between the calipers and barrels, only clag so far as I can tell, and only on the front where the clearance really is slim. The scoring is very minimal on a set of FI-Rs. I mounted lighter wheels because what is the point of light rotors and heavy wheels? I have found that if I clear the debris from the barrels between sessions I haven't had any more scoring deeper than the paint. I do believe I feel the difference with the PCCBs, and more generally with cars the unsprung rotating mass of which I have reduced, and therefore ordered them for our RS which will arrive in port next week. I intend to put a set of STs on it and keep the PCCBs for when the STs are being rejuvenated every 2-3 years. On the odd occasion when I have been asked, I advise buying the PCCBs. It's best to have options, and you never get the PCCBs (or kit) cheaper than at build time. Cheaper, in fact, than the list on a set of STs.
#33
Nordschleife Master
Originally Posted by BlazinPond
Why not go with ST Carbon Ceramics?
I'm planning to do this on my .2 GT3.. but still doing some research before pulling the trigger.
https://www.autoquestcars.com/custom-11
I'm planning to do this on my .2 GT3.. but still doing some research before pulling the trigger.
https://www.autoquestcars.com/custom-11
Touring has pccb
Both big red rotor, don't care for yellow
#34
Race Car
#35
Race Director
I would not let the brakes be a deal breaker. You honestly cannot go wrong either way so just get the best car that matches the other criteria you have. But i am a big fan of the ceramics.
#37
Three Wheelin'
My .1 and now .2 both have pccb. Only squeak I would get is when the I've been driving hard for a few weeks and the car needed a wash. Washed it and no squeaks
#38
I had ceramics on my gt3 (17k miles) and now have irons on the RS and I honestly can’t tell the difference other than some brake dust and the fact my wallet feels $10k heavier.
#39
Race Car
Thread Starter
Thanks Rob. I think that's where I've landed - at least considering cars that are otherwise specced very close to what I want even if they have PCCB.
#40
Race Director
#41
Race Director
Keep in mind that unsprung weight is very different from sprung weight. Losing 40 pounds of unsprung weight (which the PCCBs save vs irons) is more significant than just saving 40 pounds of sprung weight (i.e. supported by the suspension). It impacts handling and steering in ways that savings to sprung weight cannot. So you get better performance in braking, handling, steering AND overall weight reduction. Sure they are expensive, but they represent one of the biggest upgrades you can make to the car.
It is just expensive. That is the only downside, both in upfront and replacement cost.
From F1...
Reducing unsprung weight is the key to improving handling. The lower the unsprung weight, the less work the shocks and springs have to do to keep the tires in contact with the road over bumpy surfaces. Lot of problems, if not all of them is caused by inertia. Bigger weight means higher inertia.
It is just expensive. That is the only downside, both in upfront and replacement cost.
From F1...
Reducing unsprung weight is the key to improving handling. The lower the unsprung weight, the less work the shocks and springs have to do to keep the tires in contact with the road over bumpy surfaces. Lot of problems, if not all of them is caused by inertia. Bigger weight means higher inertia.
#42
Race Car
Thread Starter
Thanks all. The wider net resulted in a hooked fish. Pulled the trigger on a Miami Blue w/ PCCB. I'm excited to be back in a GT car. Take delivery tomorrow.
#43
#44
Race Car
Thread Starter
#45
Yes but hasn't this been also previously discussed? The difference in effective unsprung weight between PCCB's and irons is not as significant as just the unsprung weight because of the larger diameter of the PCCB's placing more mass at a greater diameter when compared to the smaller irons...