When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Yup, same tool but the readings are different when the rotors are OFF the car. Something around interference from the metal backing plates so note the rotor is on a wood table in this video the tech sent to me...
Well this is the first time we’ve heard of anything like this. I can’t think of any information like this before. Is it possible that measurements have been done wrong for so long as they are almost always done on the car? Is it possible that these situations of PCCB wearing out prematurely are really just related to measuring the density incorrectly?
I reported the off the car procedure almost a year ago when i did this dance with PCNA. Thus , PCNA and presumably their dealers, are fully aware of the off the car test and the lack of reliability of on car measurements.
I'm betting that there aren't a lot of Porsche nerds coming in and asking for the carbon density of their rotors to track wear over time/miles. The service department is really looking to see if the rotors are above minimum spec and if so it's gtg. It could be the procedure is something like measure on the car first and if the numbers come back under the minimum only then pull the rotors and re-measure off the car.
I have my car serviced by a large and competent Porsche dealership -- the service techs that work on my car have been with the dealer for 10 to 30 years and have always done great work. Carrera GT's from all over the country, plus several 918's, etc. are maintained at this dealership.
I have had my PCCB rotors from several cars measured every 3,000 to 5,000 miles going back to the 2012 991s (Gen 2 or Gen 3) rotors -- I never had any of my 997 PCCB rotors measured for carbon, but I don't believe that was the process back then. Never once has one of the tech's recommended taking the rotors off the car for carbon measurement. I called PCNA and complained about rear rotor wear on my 2016 RS, after two weeks of back and forth, no one mentioned taking the rotors off the car.
I switched to OEM cast iron brakes about 6 weeks ago, but today I am taking my PCCB rotors down to the dealership to have them re-tested off of the car and I will share the results. I will be disappointed if the readings are substantially different, if so, Porsche has failed to properly educate their techs.
Hello Gents,
To those of you tracking your cars...I just wanted to make everyone aware that we are now offering front and rear AP Racing J Hook discs in the OEM PCCB sizes. Our discs allow you to run a wide range of street and race pad options, and they cost a fraction of what the PCCB's cost:
__________________
'09 Carrera 2S, '08 Boxster LE (orange), '91 Acura NSX, Tesla Model 3 Performance, Fiesta ST
Jeff Ritter
Mgr. High Performance Division, Essex Parts Services Essex Designed AP Racing Radi-CAL Competition Brake Kits & 2-piece J Hook Discs Ferodo Racing Brake Pads Spiegler Stainless Steel Brake Lines
704-824-6030 jeff.ritter@essexparts.com
There is a better way of running CCB, and more and more track racers are finding running CCB not only can provide some braking performance that conventional iron can't offer, but it's cheaper in the long run due to its durability of this unique rotor/pad combination, in addition to confidence inspiring.
Learn from John J - A Mustang GT350R track driver who has found RB CCB rotor on sintered brake pad, replacing his OE iron rotors and pads, to be the optimal track set up that provides a "bullet proof" performance with lasting durability.
Carbon Ceramic Brakes - They're on!
It's time for an update on the CCB's. After running them for three track days and four months of highway and city service, I wanted to give the folks who wondered about my sanity an update ;-).
It turns out that I'm sane. I have to say that I put these on with some trepidation - the internet knowledge base said they would be fragile, that they couldn't handle track use and they'd be nothing but an expensive headache. My experience is the EXACT OPPOSITE. I love them. I'm never going back to iron rotors. These things are that good.
First, for track work, they are flat-out phenomenal. I've run them with both RB sintered pads and with Pagid RSL-29's. To help with thermal management, I put the Cooltech brake duct completion air deflectors on and I used titanium shims to protect the brake calipers. After my three trips to the track, I still have healthy caliper piston dust boots and the ATE Typ 200 fluid worked fine. Now, I could have upgraded the stock Brembo calipers with RB's stainless pistons and high temp seals and used Castrol SRF. That would have given me even more thermal capacity, and for racing you'd want that, but for me as a casual track day guy, I wanted to see if that level of prep was needed, and it wasn't.
The sintered pads are a new product and they're "streetable" in the sense that you can run them all the time if you want to, but they're a bit noisy. As for bite, they've got the bite of a tyrannosaur. Mu is around 0.60 and it's immutable. Same brake feel from cold to glowing hot. Most racing pads have a mu curve that you ride up and down as the brakes heat up and cool down. These things are always the same. As for dust and wear, well there's no dust and almost no wear. After three track days, the total pad thickness (two pads pressed face to face) had gone from 34.0 mm to 33.6 mm. I'm not particularly hard on brakes, but it looks like those pads will last a long time. And what's really interesting about the sintered pads is the transfer layer (see photos in this thread). Basically, the pad lays down a metal layer and that becomes the friction surface for braking. So, not only do CCB rotors outlast iron rotors with composite pads, with sintered pads, the metallic transfer layer renews itself as you use the brakes. So, the long-lasting rotors will last even longer.
One of the criticisms of CCB's in the past has been poor modulation. My experience with sintered pads and with the RSL-29's is that they're just as easy to modulate as any other brake system. Now, the high-mu sintered pads give you a lot of braking with moderate pedal pressure, but once I got used to the sensitivity, I stopped thinking about it and got on with driving.
If you want to know more about racing with CCB rotors, Google "David Donohue Pikes Peak brakes" and you'll find videos (one is on the DSC Sport Suspension website) showing David Donohue's run up Pikes Peak in this year's hill climb event. He's Mark Donohue's son, by the way. Anyway, the Google search will turn up a review that David wrote and posted on a forum (that's why I didn't provide the link) about CCB brake performance with sintered race pads on the Pike's Peak race car. Apparently, he likes them too.
The Pagid RSL-29 pads are approved by Pagid for CCB track use. That means they don't crumble when they get hot as some composite pads are known to do. They have less bite than the sintered pads, and they work great too. They are still on the car, and after a couple of months of driving around town with them, they're remarkably good as a street pad. Super quiet, good braking and virtually no dust. Another winner.
I also ran the OEM GT350 Ferodo pads for a couple of weeks just to see what happened. They worked fine - they were a bit dusty, but nothing like they are on iron rotors. I didn't take them on the track, and I don't plan to. I've got everything I need with the RSL-29's and the sintered pads.
So that's the update. This was one of two rewarding upgrades I did on my GT350 this year. The second one is the DSC Sport Magride controller. It's amazing too, and together the two upgrades really change the driving experience.
Not only we make CCB brakes more durable than iron brakes, we also make them affordable to own and maintain. We know Porsche brakes and we build the system based on our extensive knowledge both on iron and CCM.
I had my rotors re-measured off the car -- not much difference on the front rotors, but a very significant difference on the rear rotors. Due to heat shields? Disappointing that Porsche was unable to advise that there is a problem measuring PCCB rear rotors on the car.
I had my rotors re-measured off the car -- not much difference on the front rotors, but a very significant difference on the rear rotors. Due to heat shields? Disappointing that Porsche was unable to advise that there is a problem measuring PCCB rear rotors on the car.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=NMM991;14610031]I had my rotors re-measured off the car -- not much difference on the front rotors, but a very significant difference on the rear rotors. Due to heat shields? Disappointing that Porsche was unable to advise that there is a problem measuring PCCB rear rotors on the car.
Ok, this is some pretty compelling info. I wonder how much extra $$ has been spent by owners of pccb who were told their brakes needed replacement. Or conversely, how many people like myself have shied away from buying pccb because fears of premature wear, possibly due to incorrect measurements. How could this oversight have gone on for so long? And why only the rears?
Ok, this is some pretty compelling info. I wonder how much extra $$ has been spent by owners of pccb who were told their brakes needed replacement. Or conversely, how many people like myself have shied away from buying pccb because fears of premature wear, possibly due to incorrect measurements. How could this oversight have gone on for so long? And why only the rears?
The Carboteq tool is quite EMF sensitive, and based on where the GT3 engine is, it is not surprising that rear brake readings would be off if measured when mounted on the car.
Some of these numbers make no sense to me. The service tech had a lot of trouble getting repeatable numbers every time he measured the rotors; may hav been due to the heat shields.
11-13-2017, 08:42 PM
