Hinz Motorsport

Hadn't even thought of regen on top of it. Sounds like a proper mess...

richardbf

I see your thought process here however I think mentioning Tesla is a great endorsement for the brand. Mainly for 2x reasons. Customer brand recognition, not that anyone in market for ST products wouldn't know what a Valkyrie is. Having a big volume seller in your marketing I think has a wider audience outside of the realm of automotive. Maybe some engineer who works on airplanes or ,insert something else that needs heat resistant lightweight braking applications, stumbles upon ST as a company and says "Tesla I've heard of them! Maybe their product can be used in my application." But most importantly I think it shows that a big OEM with volume sales trusts them as a supplier. Regardless of our opinion on tesla having them as a customer at volume rings positive in my mind.......though I suppose ST could just be the lowest bidder lol

daveo4porsche

PCCB's or ST's on a Taycan for example - which is also a heavy regen vehicle - are a questionable investement in my opinion - ceramic brakes (of any kind) super powers are thermal endurance - EV's honestly can't run long enough or hard enough (production vehicles to date) to overwhelm a well designed cast iron brake system - my Taycan can not run full out for much more than 15 min @ Laguna seca before I've overheated the battery and I'm also down to 50% battery capacity - no one needs "thermal endurance" on a vehicle that can't even run a regulation duration sprint race…

PCCB's are for an EV is a huge profit center ;-)

love them on my GT3 - my next Taycan will be $7000 cheaper cause I'm not ordering PCCB's again…

Hinz Motorsport

All valid points, but let's not leave out one of the main reasons so many owners want carbon brakes... less brake dust, and noise, which is still very much valid even on an electric car. Even if the regen is doing most of the braking.

daveo4porsche

yep - but 90% regen (Taycan levels according to Porsche engineering) = 90% less brake dust - noise also is not a factor if the friction brakes are not used (or used lightly)

rotational mass is still a huge savings, but my Taycan is 5,100 lbs ;-)

as I said my next Taycan will not have PCCB's as I believe they are a 100% waste on an EV with modern regen - the recommended service interval for the Taycan's brake pads are time based (6 years) as they are not expected (and to date have not worn) to actual wear in any appreciable manner - this is also born out by 2012 Tesla Model S most of which are still on their original factory brake pads…

TRAKCAR

Had ST on both 991.1RS and 991.2RS 40K and 20K miles, lots track.
Plug and play, refurbish about the same interval as abused steel rotors (Sebring).

cpd1

Not to go too far off topic but ST might have worked with Tesla on their CCB system that is soon to be available for the Plaid so no review yet?
https://shop.tesla.com/product/model...amic-brake-kit
The standard brakes on the Plaid have been described as inadequate given performance/weight so the CCB upgrade should be designed to address these issues. Then again at 20% of the car cost, it could be debatable if worth it besides trying to set Ring records which is likely a small audience
I'm with you on the Taycan though, had a Turbo S w PCCBs, not really necessary given regen (despite Porsche avoiding 1 pedal driving) and cheaper to choose on other models the $3k option (Surface Coated Brakes) if brake dust is a concern

daveo4porsche

well it's also more than "just the brakes" and their materials - high endurance brakes need cooling solutions - air flow - air flow = drag - drag = lower range for EV efficiency - more brakes = more weight = less range - so my assertion is that designing an "adequate" to "better than adequate" braking system for high performance and high endurance actually requires going AGAINST Tesla's main design center which is ruthless EV efficiency - this also for a system that will be under-utilized for 99.9% of their market 99.999999999% of the time for the useful life of the vehicle…designing an adequate braking system requires them to hobble/reduce otherwise achievable efficiency goals which will impact the vehicle for it's entire useful life to achieve capabilities that will most certainly never be used/appreciated during the vehicles entire useful life…a robust braking system is about more than the brake materials - it requires them to compromise their main design goal - range for no appreciable benefit and actually negatively impacts their vehicle for every mile driven in greater consumption - placing greater demand on the battery system per/mile driven and actually lowering the longevity of the battery…it's a vicious cycle 180 degrees away from their "thing"…

for Porsche it makes sense because their thing is "performance" efficiency be dammed - Tesla is about efficiency and flash - but efficiency first - improving their brakes is investing in a system that the rest of the company is working avoid uising as much as possible and is unwilling to compromise other priorities to enhance the braking system…

I see what they are doing - and honestly it's the correct trade off - but it leaves them with adequate street braking systemes, and horrible high performance/endurance brakes…it's all about the trade offs…

so the question is what range penalty are you willing to accept on your entire vehicle fleet for that fleet's entire lifespan that will impact all your customers so that you're not embarassed by 5 guys on youTube attemping ring laps which 99.9999999999999% of your fleet/customers will never ever need?

the collective impact in terms of extra/unnecessary kWh's consumed (and battery longevity impact) across the 8-20 year life space of every vehicle manufactured is probably mind blowing…and Tesla calculates those actual types of numbers when making design decisions…hmmmm

dieselino

Now if ST rotors can get close to the cost of the factory optioned PCCB's, that would be a huge win and I suspect many more people would opt not to order PCCB'S from the factory and get these instead. Sadly most who buy PCCB'S from the factory will never drive the car enough at a track to warrant replacement.

daveo4porsche

I agree with this - my data from my 2018 GT3 indicates:

• PCCB's are basically lifetime rotors for street use
• good for at least 4 pad swaps for heavy track use - possibly more depending on level of track driving
  • start measurements on the 3rd pad swap to confirm "consumption"
• aggressive pad swap before 40% left should elongate the rotor wear
• given 4+ pad swaps per-Ceramic rotor you can compare total replacement costs of cast-iron vs. ceramics for all brake jobs and the PCCB's/ST total costs is favorable vs. cast-iron (but ceramics are still more expensive but the margin is much smaller than most people imagine)
• 100% un-necessary for street use (other than appearance and lower brake dust)
• pointless on any of the current crop of EV's

TRAKCAR

I ordered PCCB for the last few track cars and swap for ST, because ST is half the price of OEM as a replacement cost but the first set that come on the car is only $10K as an option.


I just don’t like the wooden feel when the brakes are cold on street driving. In Florida that’s pretty much always.
My steel brake Cayenne GTS feels nicer then the massive PCCB brakes on my Cayenne TGT. But it was mind bending on track….. TGT is probably the best car I’ve ever driven. Also the most fun car I’ve driven on the Ring :-)

Anyway, street steel, track ST.
I’ll order my ST soon.