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.
What I really want to know is, if running your CCM setup with sintered pads,
How long will they last?
How much they cost?
Is it worth it over iron?
I'm always looking for ways to reduce my cost per lap.
these are also questions i'm interested in. It would seem weird if the cost of sintered pads, ever even approaches the replacement costs of PCCB disks. From what I'm understanding, you can order your $9k PCCB now without any concern of them wearing down, as long as immediately you replace them with RB sintered pads.
My question is.. why wouldn't porsche sell their PCCB with sintered pads right away? what's the downside for the customer to make this switch immediately and do endless track days without the wear and replacement cost concern normally associated with these expensive rotors?
I have a low mileage take-off Set, or kit, of ST Rotors and hats for 991.1 GT3 for sale. Gently used with Pagid RSC1 pads... . They are great brakes and saved me from using my oem PCCBs.They can be refurbished 3-4 times, yielding many thousands of miles of use ultimately.
I put my oem PCCBs back on, and recently sold my car.
You are to be commended for keeping an even keel responding to so many insulting and superstitiously ill-informed taunts. I feel your pain.
Thank you for the comment. In fact that's how we present our brake products; Always based on the design merits, the fundamental of material science, and objective facts. Everyone has freedom to express themselves, but I am sure there are many other members read this thread with great interest, and found it refreshing and informative.
Originally Posted by W8MM
I have been chasing more durability in CCM brakes since I put Surface Transform rotors on my former Carrera GT a decade ago. I had the occasion to speak with a VP of engineering at Weissach when touring the long-lead intro for the 918 in August of 2011. He thoroughly explained the failure mechanism of PCCB rotors to me in the same way you have tried to explain it to Rennlisters. Your explanation agrees 100% with what he told me about over-temp causing the carbon fibers to "burn" (oxidize) and the "worm hole" voids left in the surface (pitting). His English was very good and I understood him exactly.I have had very good luck with Surface Transform rotors and can only imagine there are even better rotor construction possibilities now or in the future.
I had the same goal as yours in pursuing an ultimate braking set up aside from our decades of prior experience on iron brakes, and found the CCM has a much better thermal characteristics than iron, but the shortcoming (application wise) is lacking an adequate brake pad to deal with the extra heat a CCM rotor produces (more than iron counterpart), so the durability falls short, plus the rotor replacement cost is too high for most consumers to justify. So no wonder there are hundreds of threads debating "To PCCB or not PCCB" this seems to be an endless discussion, and the more it's debated the more confused a consumer can get.
So in order to help clear up the confusion, I again believe a fundamental understanding on the rotor material is essential, so my research result on these two distinctly different rotor materials is published on web which was also posted on rennlist (below). I was hoping these hard data* can help consumer to have a "clear" understanding w/o misconception based on the comment (usually subjective) from other members (street or track), or misled by some marketing publications.
I have one remaining question about the sintered metallic pads: When they build up a metal layer (micro foil?) on the CCM rotor, how does that modify the oxidizing-from-heat failure mechanism of the underlying CCM material? I can see how copper could be a heat spreader to equalize impending hot spots, but is there more to it?
Very intelligent question.
If you refer to the above data table you will notice iron has in fact, a better thermal conductivity than CCM, in other words CCM rotor heat dissipation is about 30% worse than iron.
But if you look at copper it's a whopping 401 (although the metallic film is not 100% copper), thermal conductivity is tremendously increased in multiple times to surpass even iron by ~7 times. Thus we can expect this "coated" CCM rotor's running temperature shall be lower than a CCM rotor without a metallic coating. Therefore we can draw to a conclusion that an uniform metallic layer from a sintered pad is beneficial that can help CCM rotor dissipate heat much faster, and protect it from oxidization due to overheat, and extend the rotor and pad life.
If you own a 918, you would know Dave Donahue who was the racer competing in Pikes Peak with RB CCM brake system on 991 Turbo S.
Last edited by RacingBrake; 07-06-2017 at 03:39 PM.
Is there a difference between how a RB ceramic rotor responds to the sintered pad, vs how a Porsche PCCB responds to a sintered pad? In terms of durability and compatibility as you show in this thread?
What I really want to know is, if running your CCM setup with sintered pads,
How long will they last?
How much they cost?
Is it worth it over iron?
I'm always looking for ways to reduce my cost per lap.
This is a very broad question which is hard to give a generalized anwser. A well function brake system is comprised of Brake Caliper, Pad and Rotor. If cost is not a major concern we think the best value is to upgrade to our complete CCB system especially for track use. However due to the cost more customers are interested in CCM rotor upgrade which meaning the rotor design is still limited to retrofitting the original OE calipers and pads (size wise) that was intended for iron brakes, so the overall performance and durability is still compromised.
Worth it or not is depending on individual's purpose and judgement. I can only quote what this GT350 owner' said who recently upgraded his iron to RB-CCB rotors. Carbon Ceramic Brakes - They're on!
So, the logic (there is some) goes like this: If you have a GT350 and you take off one 60 pound front wheel/tire combo and replace it with a 44 pound GT350R front CF wheel/MPSC2 tire combo, you reduce the unsprung weight by 16 pounds. Buying new CF rims and PSC2 tires for the front axle costs about $6k or so, and of course you'd really need all four corners, so maybe $10k to $12k by the time you're done. The magic of the CCB front rotors is that they also reduce the front axle weight by 16 pounds a side and they cost about the same as the CF front rim/tire combo. However, with the rotor swap, you don't need new rear rims, and the weight reduction stays on the car when the wheels come off. The front axle always weighs 16 pounds less, regardless which wheels and tires are installed.
In other words, they're more expensive than iron rotors, but they're a lot cheaper than a set of CF rims!
Street braking is SOMe better than either the "track" oriented sintered pads. And...wait for it....
MUCH better than the pagids that I had used last. The RSC1's. I cannot say for high speed stops (yet), but the street braking is the best I've had on any pad on carbons of any type so far.
Four months of street use, and 340 miles of track use, and
I'm pretty sure these pads have another two day event in them. Most of my buddies had to change pads at least once.
I did NOT. Very impressed. Not the maximum brake force available*, but very very close.
I have nothing but praise for this pad.
Shawn
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Above is a feedback from Shawn of GTR testing RB *"Streetable" sintered pad.
re performance and durability.
Last edited by RacingBrake; 07-06-2017 at 09:08 PM.
Ok guys. I've been waiting for this thread to die or actually produce information. Neither has happened.
Guys from racing brake--
Please post data.
If your pad is truly better there should be quantifiable data to back it up. Not just pictures of smooth rotors and statements that say carbon rotors don't wear.
Carbon rotors do wear. Just not like metal rotors. Instead of losing thickness they lose carbon crosslinks in the rotor which, when down to a critical level, will cause the rotor to fail. When the percent gets too low you replace the rotor or risk catastrophic rotor failure. And catastrophic carbon rotor failure happens, ask F1 drivers.
This carbon crosslink degradation is a measurable number. Porsche dealers have the device that will read the amount of carbon crosslinks left. It says so in the manual. You can buy one. This is how you get data.
Get a reader. Measure the carbon crosslink wear rate on a set of standard pccb rotors and pads over a set number of miles. Repeat this process with pccb rotors using your pads. Compare these numbers. If pccb rotors using your pads degrade less than stock pads hurray you've proven to us your pads do something.
This is called science.
Please do this. I'm tired of the arguing in this thread and I'm tired of seeing it pop up.
This thread is like a bad run of the Walking Dead. It just won't die.
The OP obfuscates facts and science through his commentary of CCM rotor wear pattern. His logic can be summarized as follows:
i. "Carbon fiber threads in the Si-Carbon substrate burn out at high temperature causing pitting of the surface" (FACT)
ii. RB "sintered pads are effective at transferring to the surface of damaged rotors because of their specific properties" (PLAUSIBLE... but that incremental transfer has yet to be substantiated relative to other brands)
iii. "Transferred pad material can fill up the pitted surface of damaged rotors and results in an even surface" (FACT) "
iv. "Damaged rotors are therefore healed" (FALLACY)
There is a logic gap the size of grand canyon between (iii) and (iv). When challenged, the debate was steered to focus on (i) (ii) and (iii).
Transferred pad material does not a rotor make. I have gone through enough PCCB and cast iron rotors myself to know that a rotor at the end of its life may look shiny but the braking properties are markedly different. That is irrefutable fact.
In almost ten years of RL participation I have never seen a vendor go so far to obfuscate, mislead and then defend half-truths. The majority of the paying participants are here to engage in factual discussions.
Please provide hard data on how RB sintered pads are better at transfer properties than competing pads (point ii) and how a damaged rotor covered with transfer material is good as an undamaged rotor (point iv).
As many of us wrote at the start of this thread, the OP has a high burden of proof. We did not impose this on the OP but rather the OP chose to make these claims. That burden of proof is his and his alone.
This thread only presents RB sintererd pads as an options for CCM rotors. Those who are happy with their pccb and whatever pad combination should continue doing so and just ignore this presentation.
We only present engineering data on how the pads are made of, how it's different than conventional semi-metallilc pads, and why it works better on CCM through transfer of layer. This combo was then tested on tracks by highly experienced track racers (ZR1/Z28 and GTR) who have tried ALL available brake pads for their CCM, with proven result.
Unfortunately we don't provide marketing data/curve that some members are looking/asking for.
We just started testing sintered pads on ST (Surface Transforms) CCM-X rotors, for those who are interested in following the process and how we document the procedures may click below link.
We just started shipping our CCM rotor upgrade for Mustang GT350 and Camaro G6 ZL1. Rotors are designed to retain the use of OE Brembo 6-piston calipers. For those fast track racers (having issue with OE set up) RB sintered pads are certainly on their check list.
CCB is a brake disc made from a core of ceramic material reinforced with carbon fiber with an additional ceramic layer on both the friction surfaces where brake pads are in contact. Some are shinier than the other but same mfg process.
CCM disc is made from Ceramic Composites Material (or Matrix). There are mainly two types of mfg process on how the material is composed.
Chopped carbon fibers - Typically for mass production like SGL/Brembo
Continuous fibers - Surface Transforms (UK) and recently from some Chinese CCM rotor factories
Anyone interested in learning more can click below link that's published on our website.
In theory continuous fiber (in construction) is stronger (in tensile/impact strength etc.) than chopped fiber CCM, however both are still venerable to heat and subject to attack if the heat is over the threshold, although their respective disc damaged surfaces would appear differently.
If rotor is deteriorated at this point or earlier, the disc must be re-furbished or replaced (depending on the degree of damage) as you will never be able to stop the car (server vibration) due to the rough surface, and the disc will wear the pad down like a super grinder. (bottom pic)
The idea of RB sintered pad is to lay a protective coat of metallic film onto the disc surface (when disc is new) that can help to promote the heat dissipation, and/or heal/repair the void or patches of used disc, depending on the degree of damage, and restore the disc to a smooth and healthy surface again.
Weight (carbon) loss is a result of heat attack, and shall be exhibited on the disc surface (above). This is why I advocate a visual inspection which is everyone can do and more practical than weight measurement suggested by OE, but again it's only an optional method, you can disagree to it and stay with OE method; in that case you should clean all the plugged drilled holes and pad deposit in order to be accurate in determining its serviceability.
07-05-2017, 04:53 PM
