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.
The EVO iPad app has a rather detailed comparison between iron and ceramic brakes. They used two Jaguar F-Types: one w/ iron the other with CCBs. And then they executed 20 consecutive hard stops from 100mph.
After 1 to 12 stops, both kinds of rotors behaved about the same with the iron actually out-performing the CCMs in terms of stopping distances for more than half of those runs. I figure this had more to do with traction limiting fluctuations than the brakes (as both kinds of brakes performed well enough not to be the weakest link).
After those 12 runs though, the iron started to fade. After 14 stops, the iron fade accelerated. After 18, alarms started going off and "an acrid, burning smell began seeping into the cabin". At 20 they reported "flames from within the calipers". In all, stopping distance went from a best of 87.5m to 112.2m after the last run.
The CCMs actually improved with abuse. That is, after 20 stops, the CCMs were performing better than after the first. There was little variance. Best run was 89.6m, last was 90.8m.
The EVO iPad app has a rather detailed comparison between iron and ceramic brakes. They used two Jaguar F-Types: one w/ iron the other with CCBs. And then they executed 20 consecutive hard stops from 100mph.
After 1 to 12 stops, both kinds of rotors behaved about the same with the iron actually out-performing the CCMs in terms of stopping distances for more than half of those runs. I figure this had more to do with traction limiting fluctuations than the brakes (as both kinds of brakes performed well enough not to be the weakest link).
After those 12 runs though, the iron started to fade. After 14 stops, the iron fade accelerated. After 18, alarms started going off and "an acrid, burning smell began seeping into the cabin". At 20 they reported "flames from within the calipers". In all, stopping distance went from a best of 87.5m to 112.2m after the last run.
The CCMs actually improved with abuse. That is, after 20 stops, the CCMs were performing better than after the first. There was little variance. Best run was 89.6m, last was 90.8m.
Really interesting thanks for this and makes me glad of my decision....
EVO did this testing with factory pads and fluid. So it has relatively little meaning for track use, where you need to change at least brake fluid. The problem is not that the PCCB or any CCB disk will not perform OK on track. To me the problem is the cost, fragility and the lack of pad selection. I could run two days with a set of pads, maybe 2.5, then change them because I was down to 50% on thickness. Kept checking the surface of the disks and after only 6 days the wear indicator was showing?? For me running PCCB would more than double the cost.
It is your money however.
I personally regret my decision to buy PCCB on the RS. I am running PFC disks and their pads now.
For those that are interested, attached is the full EVO article. Depending on your bias, you can conclude either pro or con.
My conclusion is that the ceramics are just not worth it especially considering that it took over 14 consecutive stops from 100mph for any real difference to emerge. as the article concludes: "For those drivers who’ll not be venturing onto a racetrack with any regularity, though, a modern cast iron brake setup is more than adequate"
They are equating repeated stops with track work, and coming up with the exact opposite conclusion to Porsche owners who spec pccb when they DONT go to the track. What the article doesn't do is a handling comparison which could highlight the true value of ceramic brakes by showing the potential value of unsprung weight reduction.. Possibly the only definite area where ceramic rotors excel vs steel.. Straight line test doesn't help here at all.
It's a good attempt at explaining value of ceramics.. Not many magazines have tackled this yet, But article has major flaws it seems.
They are equating repeated stops with track work, and coming up with the exact opposite conclusion to Porsche owners who spec pccb when they DONT go to the track. What the article doesn't do is a handling comparison which could highlight the true value of ceramic brakes by showing the potential value of unsprung weight reduction.. Possibly the only definite area where ceramic rotors excel vs steel.. Straight line test doesn't help here at all.
It's a good attempt at explaining value of ceramics.. Not many magazines have tackled this yet, But article has major flaws it seems.
It's a test of one aspect of braking performance: how do they perform under repeated, heavy use in a short period of time. I don't see any flaws in what EVO did here. Maybe they could have performed *more* tests, but that doesn't mean the tests they did do were done improperly or "of no help at all" IMO.
They got the exact same model car, with the same tires, with the same tire pressure, with the same fuel load, with the same drivers, on the same day, at the same place. That's a great job of isolating any changes observed to the one thing that was changed, the discs.
Question for the guys who track their cars: does this test really duplicate real-life driving conditions. Repeated full stops, no longer runs that might cool the brakes, no difference in the intensity of brake application (duration, effort, speeds, etc). The test does certainly prove something about brake performance, however it doesn't seem to me to be a "real world" test.
If you need carbon ceramic brake, you can contact me.
If you need carbon ceramic brake, you can contact me.
I'm a salesman from a manufacturer of carbon ceramic brake discs.
Facebook contact: CCB20210001
Email : ccb20210001@gmail.com
For the PCCB guys who are primarily concerned about brake dust, just buy iron rotors and then swap out the factory pads for Hawk Ceramics. Less than half the dust of factory pads with no appreciable change in braking characteristics, at least for spirited street driving. If you tracking your car, you're not running factory pads anyway. I still cannot figure why Porsche puts such dirty factory pads on its cars. The stock pads aren't suitable for track use and are freaking hideously dusty for the street.
@stout Pete, I'd love to hear more of your thoughts on this. I've always been an Iron guy, thinking that they were just as good on the track as PCCB and much less expensive to maintain for a heavily tracked car (I've put 50+ days on my 981 GT4). Now I'm not so sure - I've heard PCCBs last longer than they used to, are better for trail braking, and maybe the cost gap is not as wide as I once thought. I'm hoping to get The Call about a GT4 RS allocation, and decided to spend the stupid money on the Mg wheels to reduce unsprung weight. There's a part of me that thinks I should go all in and do the PCCBs, too. I plan to track the 4RS just as much as the 981.
@stout Pete, I'd love to hear more of your thoughts on this. I've always been an Iron guy, thinking that they were just as good on the track as PCCB and much less expensive to maintain for a heavily tracked car (I've put 50+ days on my 981 GT4). Now I'm not so sure - I've heard PCCBs last longer than they used to, are better for trail braking, and maybe the cost gap is not as wide as I once thought. I'm hoping to get The Call about a GT4 RS allocation, and decided to spend the stupid money on the Mg wheels to reduce unsprung weight. There's a part of me that thinks I should go all in and do the PCCBs, too. I plan to track the 4RS just as much as the 981.
If you are doing the Mg wheels you should add PCCB also ... you can always downgrade later ...
They are equating repeated stops with track work, and coming up with the exact opposite conclusion to Porsche owners who spec pccb when they DONT go to the track. What the article doesn't do is a handling comparison which could highlight the true value of ceramic brakes by showing the potential value of unsprung weight reduction.. Possibly the only definite area where ceramic rotors excel vs steel.. Straight line test doesn't help here at all.
It's a good attempt at explaining value of ceramics.. Not many magazines have tackled this yet, But article has major flaws it seems.
@stout Pete, I'd love to hear more of your thoughts on this. I've always been an Iron guy, thinking that they were just as good on the track as PCCB and much less expensive to maintain for a heavily tracked car (I've put 50+ days on my 981 GT4). Now I'm not so sure - I've heard PCCBs last longer than they used to, are better for trail braking, and maybe the cost gap is not as wide as I once thought. I'm hoping to get The Call about a GT4 RS allocation, and decided to spend the stupid money on the Mg wheels to reduce unsprung weight. There's a part of me that thinks I should go all in and do the PCCBs, too. I plan to track the 4RS just as much as the 981.
FWIW, I regret not ordering them on my Carrera T. I ended up with a Brembo BBK for the same money. The shop that works on my cars is very track focused and he says the PCCB's are much better and are fine to run on the track. Dont let your pads get too low and weigh them every once and a while to keep track of wear and you will be fine. I recently acquired a GT3 with PCCB's and love how they are on the track. There are also carbon options when it comes to replacements that are less expensive than OEM. And for the love of all that is holy on the track please add the PCCB's to the GT4RS if you get a chance to order it!
I hate to be contentious or controversial, however in all my years on RL I have personally yet to see an actual measured test of the longevity of PCCB on track by an owner, all the reviews I have read in the past are "typically" all anecdotal and I am afraid it appears to me by individuals who have not actually owned and tracked a PCCB equipped car.
We of course know that the replacement cost is high, what we do not know is the frequency of such, particularly in comparison to iron rotors, so we have no data to compare the cost of ownership - the unsprung weight reduction is clear and significant, although how that might translate into lap times has also not been tested AFIAK.
The Evo test, I think illustrated that the braking performance of PCCB vs Iron is comparable, ok, that does not surprise me, but until we have a measured test of durability, all these anecdotes are just that, and as such my anecdote is as good as the next RL'ers ... and my experience with the 997.1 GT3, 997.2 GT3, 991.1 GTS, 991.2 GT3 and 718 Spyder PCCB's on track has been positive,
however I have not (yet) reached the point where I would be able to comment (with data) about their relative longevity.
YMMV, but I think there is a LOT of FUD about... usually created by non-PCCB users
02-27-2015, 06:03 AM
