PCCB Wear Measurements
#46
Intermediate
![Default](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
![](https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/rennlist.com-vbulletin/2000x1504/brake_rotor_measure_charges_9ed6902927ed795d2870d8cdb16ff0f7f1c30b43.jpg)
Last edited by modernyankee; 12-08-2022 at 08:37 AM.
The following users liked this post:
artongdou (12-13-2022)
#47
Banned
![Default](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
All this (not equal) measurement values are really confusing from technical POV.
What are the measuring device uncertainties?
How will the values differ if a measurement would be repeated three time without changing anything between?
What are the measuring device uncertainties?
How will the values differ if a measurement would be repeated three time without changing anything between?
#48
Intermediate
![Default](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
I agree that while the methods are scientific and tools used are very expensive pieces of precision machinery, the variances don't instill confidence in the results. Interestingly, unlike steel rotors which physically become smaller through use (abrasion), PCCB's stay the same size, but become lighter. If I understand the laws of physics correctly, that means they become less dense through use....which seems to make sense b/c they're giving up carbon. Ultimately, (and in retrospect) I missed the perfect opportunity to WEIGH the rotors...which is actually how one determines when they've 'given up' enough of the carbon that they're no longer suitable for use.
I'll be sure to do that this winter when I have the rotor's measured with the Carboteq tool.
I've read that running the pads below 50% somehow uses up the rotor 'life" (aka carbon content) at a faster rate than if only the first 50% were used. Even if that were true, at $1600 for pads at all 4 corners, I can't see throwing away $800 worth of pads 3x per year to minimize a theoretical incremental increase in rotor wear rate.
Bottom line: I don't know the answers to your questions b/c I haven't done multiple measurements in the same location with the same tool. I will, however, weigh the rotors this winter and will publish the results.
I'll be sure to do that this winter when I have the rotor's measured with the Carboteq tool.
I've read that running the pads below 50% somehow uses up the rotor 'life" (aka carbon content) at a faster rate than if only the first 50% were used. Even if that were true, at $1600 for pads at all 4 corners, I can't see throwing away $800 worth of pads 3x per year to minimize a theoretical incremental increase in rotor wear rate.
Bottom line: I don't know the answers to your questions b/c I haven't done multiple measurements in the same location with the same tool. I will, however, weigh the rotors this winter and will publish the results.
#49
Banned
![Default](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
My questions weren't up to you specifically
but more in general.
I agree, for the cost of the measuring device the results are really "strange".
I also agree not to throw away 50% brake pads since I also do not understand why the second 50% would accelerate wear of the discs.
Does the compound change such much over pad thickness which leads to this?
BTW, I guess weighting will be more or less senseless since you cannot ensure that there is no "dirt" inside the disc which would lead to higher weight readings.
![Wink](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/smilies/wink.gif)
I agree, for the cost of the measuring device the results are really "strange".
I also agree not to throw away 50% brake pads since I also do not understand why the second 50% would accelerate wear of the discs.
Does the compound change such much over pad thickness which leads to this?
BTW, I guess weighting will be more or less senseless since you cannot ensure that there is no "dirt" inside the disc which would lead to higher weight readings.
#50
Intermediate
![Default](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
My questions weren't up to you specifically
but more in general.
I agree, for the cost of the measuring device the results are really "strange".
I also agree not to throw away 50% brake pads since I also do not understand why the second 50% would accelerate wear of the discs.
Does the compound change such much over pad thickness which leads to this?
BTW, I guess weighting will be more or less senseless since you cannot ensure that there is no "dirt" inside the disc which would lead to higher weight readings.
![Wink](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/smilies/wink.gif)
I agree, for the cost of the measuring device the results are really "strange".
I also agree not to throw away 50% brake pads since I also do not understand why the second 50% would accelerate wear of the discs.
Does the compound change such much over pad thickness which leads to this?
BTW, I guess weighting will be more or less senseless since you cannot ensure that there is no "dirt" inside the disc which would lead to higher weight readings.
Good point about the dirt. I hadn't thought of that. I suppose one could blow out the disks or do something else to clean them to the extent possible.
#51
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
![Default](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
I took the rotors off myself (very carefully!) and took them (very carefully!) to my dealer and asked for them to be measured. They charged me about an hour total. IIRC correctly I got back three measurements per disc.
Did this two or three times, can't remember. I've since stopped measuring.
There's a good thread on this in the 991 GT3 forum, too. Swapping to irons is overrated. :-)
Did this two or three times, can't remember. I've since stopped measuring.
There's a good thread on this in the 991 GT3 forum, too. Swapping to irons is overrated. :-)
#52
Intermediate
![Default](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
I took the rotors off myself (very carefully!) and took them (very carefully!) to my dealer and asked for them to be measured. They charged me about an hour total. IIRC correctly I got back three measurements per disc.
Did this two or three times, can't remember. I've since stopped measuring.
There's a good thread on this in the 991 GT3 forum, too. Swapping to irons is overrated. :-)
Did this two or three times, can't remember. I've since stopped measuring.
There's a good thread on this in the 991 GT3 forum, too. Swapping to irons is overrated. :-)
BTW: I think I'm also part of that 911 thread, too. Good tip.
#53
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
![Default](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Check earlier in the thread, I posted two sets of measurements.
#54
Intermediate
![Default](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Sorry, John. I forgot you're the person who got me started on all this :-D (LOL) ...and I'm glad you did. There was a serious lack of good hard info about PCCB wear with track use. I'm sure you've see my data posts...and I'll post again this winter w/ the latest measurements (late Feb or early Mar probably). Last year I drove 13 track days and 1,372 miles. This year it was 23 days and 3,021 miles on track so I'm expecting my readings to have at least doubled and maybe tripled. And let's face it, we're only really talking about track-induced brake wear b/c (clearly) driving on public streets does nothing to cause wear on PCCB's (in one post, a fellow had 10 years and 90k miles on his PCCB's and was on the original brake pads!).
I get that the Carboteq measurements vary a bit...and I'm encouraged that your rotor wear seems to essentially match mine for the first year (but with you driving 50% more track days...so congratulations, you're using your brakes the way I'm attempting to train myself to use them...which is to say, less).
What I don't understand is: even with the inconsistencies inherent with measuring carbon content w/ the Carboteq tool, how do we rationalize effectively no change in your carbon content readings when you've nearly doubled your track days/miles/sessions? I'm going to be even more astounded if my Mar '23 readings show the same pattern. Naturally, I'll be puzzled...and also very pleased indeed! I'm also going to weigh the rotors this year. Stay tuned.
I get that the Carboteq measurements vary a bit...and I'm encouraged that your rotor wear seems to essentially match mine for the first year (but with you driving 50% more track days...so congratulations, you're using your brakes the way I'm attempting to train myself to use them...which is to say, less).
What I don't understand is: even with the inconsistencies inherent with measuring carbon content w/ the Carboteq tool, how do we rationalize effectively no change in your carbon content readings when you've nearly doubled your track days/miles/sessions? I'm going to be even more astounded if my Mar '23 readings show the same pattern. Naturally, I'll be puzzled...and also very pleased indeed! I'm also going to weigh the rotors this year. Stay tuned.
#56
Intermediate
![Default](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
BTW: I posted my brake wear info in the 991 GT3 Forum (b/c that's where I originally got hooked into the PCCB conversation). But just so this thread has a link to my post w/ all the PCCB measurements, here's the link.
https://rennlist.com/forums/991-gt3-...l#post18446576