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.
That's what I meant by sh!tty, not that their performance is terrible. I mean, who wants to pay $25,000 every time they have to change out their brakes? Asked in a different way: do any of the pro racing teams use PCCB or CCB? Do Cup cars come with PCCB?
Formula 1 uses carbon ceramic brakes.
But they also have budgets in the 9-figure range. And a van full of engineers to tell the driver what to do.
Quote: Originally Posted by Dr.Bill: Formula 1 uses carbon ceramic brakes. But they also have budgets in the 9-figure range. And a van full of engineers to tell the driver what to do.
Dr.Bill-
I agree with this post by you, but just had to compliment you on your bottom tag: "Of course I talk to myself. Sometimes I need an expert opinion." As a psychiatrist, I am sure to use it at some point in the future, and pre-apologize if I can't remember who to attribute it to... krh
That's what I meant by sh!tty, not that their performance is terrible.
Thanks for clarifying... although it's not what you meant, it's what most people would infer. It was confusing since blanket comments about brakes - good, better, bad, sh!tty - in nearly every conversation are addressing the performance of the brakes.
For nearly 15 years, all of Porsche's record-breaking laps and benchmarking times for road cars have used PCCB. The latest being the GT2 RS setting the production car record at Road Atlanta. The price of PCCB is sh!tty; the performance of PCCB is superior.
Im not sure the braking performance is better but the reduction of unsprung weight and reduced mass to the suspension probably has a measurable advantage at the highest levels. As far as lap times not likely mere mortals would ever find those few tenths of a second.
Thanks for clarifying... although it's not what you meant, it's what most people would infer. It was confusing since blanket comments about brakes - good, better, bad, sh!tty - in nearly every conversation are addressing the performance of the brakes.
For nearly 15 years, all of Porsche's record-breaking laps and benchmarking times for road cars have used PCCB. The latest being the GT2 RS setting the production car record at Road Atlanta. The price of PCCB is sh!tty; the performance of PCCB is superior.
There's no question that they are functionally better. If money is no object then I say go for it. They look really cool and no brake dust would be nice but they are quite a bit of overkill on a street car and you run the risk that a stray pebble will cost a very large repair bill.
As thebishman noted, the carbon brakes currently being used in professional racing are carbon/carbon (abbreviated C/C), which is actually a different material vs. the carbon ceramic discs used on road cars. The carbon ceramic brake discs on road cars are a Carbon Ceramic Matrix (CCM). In recent times many professional racing series (F1, ALMS, IRL, etc.) have switched to carbon/carbon brake discs in an effort to reduce weight. Carbon/Carbon is an outstanding lightweight material for racing, but requires heat before it starts to generate usable friction. As such, they're completely ill-suited to a typical morning commute in a road car!
Carbon Ceramic discs, which is what PCCB are, are not used in professional racing. The primary issue with carbon ceramic discs is that they tend to oxidize at track temperatures, showing rough surface eruptions on the disc face. In some cases the oxidation is terminal (chopped fiber discs), and the discs must be scrapped once it occurs. In other cases (continuous fiber discs), the discs can be resurfaced, but only a limited number of times and at a high cost. Most carbon ceramic discs are measured in terms of minimum mass, rather than the traditional minimum thickness used to measure iron discs. Once the minimum mass is reached, the carbon ceramic disc is trash.
__________________
'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
Im not sure the braking performance is better but the reduction of unsprung weight and reduced mass to the suspension probably has a measurable advantage at the highest levels. As far as lap times not likely mere mortals would ever find those few tenths of a second.
Cheers
Agree 100% with this.....as a side note, on the GT4, cars equipped with Iron brakes had slight better downforce up front compared to PCCB ones....probably dues to the size of the disc and how air moves around that area.Not sure if this applies to GT3 also. I would take the reduction of unsprung weight over this, but not the cost of replacement.
IMO the supposed reduction of unsprung weight, in a 3,000 lb passenger car, is not apparent to anyone but a top level pro. Pure marketing drivel
Disagree. There was a marked improvement in ride quality of my 3600# crossover by shaving 5-10# per corner with the same tires on different wheels.
Whether that would translate to faster lap times, who cares?
As thebishman noted, the carbon brakes currently being used in professional racing are carbon/carbon (abbreviated C/C), which is actually a different material vs. the carbon ceramic discs used on road cars. The carbon ceramic brake discs on road cars are a Carbon Ceramic Matrix (CCM). In recent times many professional racing series (F1, ALMS, IRL, etc.) have switched to carbon/carbon brake discs in an effort to reduce weight. Carbon/Carbon is an outstanding lightweight material for racing, but requires heat before it starts to generate usable friction. As such, they're completely ill-suited to a typical morning commute in a road car!
Carbon Ceramic discs, which is what PCCB are, are not used in professional racing. The primary issue with carbon ceramic discs is that they tend to oxidize at track temperatures, showing rough surface eruptions on the disc face. In some cases the oxidation is terminal (chopped fiber discs), and the discs must be scrapped once it occurs. In other cases (continuous fiber discs), the discs can be resurfaced, but only a limited number of times and at a high cost. Most carbon ceramic discs are measured in terms of minimum mass, rather than the traditional minimum thickness used to measure iron discs. Once the minimum mass is reached, the carbon ceramic disc is trash.
So what's the actual issue with "track temperatures" then, insufficient cooling? You'd think Porsche has worked that out by now. They seem confident enough with equipping track-focused cars like the GT2 RS with PCCBs as standard.
03-30-2019, 08:49 AM
