Hey guys,

The day has finally come to officially launch our new carbon ceramic disc line: HINZ CARBON.

Post #1 – Surface Transforms Situation
Post #2 – Hinz Carbon Intro
Post #3+ – Hinz Carbon Data

This post covers the current Surface Transforms (ST) situation. Feel free to skip to #2 if you just want to learn about the new product.
----------------------------------------
Why look for an alternative?

We’ve been the North American importer for ST and a leading distributor of carbon ceramic discs for years. They’ve delivered excellent performance and had a strong reputation—many happy customers and proven results at the highest levels.

However, ST has struggled to meet demand. Large OEM contracts (like GM) and development of new products have consumed production capacity, leaving little for the aftermarket. This has also impacted refurbishment services for existing customers.

We still believe ST offers one of the best carbon ceramic products available—backed by real-world use and independent testing. But pricing has increased over time, and tariffs (now up to 25% at times) have pushed costs even higher. Not every customer needs a $20K+ brake setup, especially those primarily looking for weight savings or reduced dust.

We’ll continue to support and sell ST when supply allows, and recent changes (like the loss of the GM contract) may improve availability. That said, a buyout is likely on the horizon, and it's hard to say what's going to become of them at this point, and what that means for us as their US importer.

Furthermore, with 18+ months of inconsistent supply, we needed a solution to meet demand and maintain our service standards. Through our industry relationships, we’ve connected with several manufacturers—and one in particular stood out.

They have deep aerospace/defense roots and years of experience producing carbon discs for automotive applications, with trusted partnerships including companies like RUF.

Hinz Carbon Into Continued in Post #2....

 

Yes, the Hinz Carbon disc is new—but already well proven. It’s not made in China, and while it’s not U.S.-made, we deliberately avoided cheap, mass-market options. If we wouldn’t put our name on these, we wouldn't sell them.

ST set the benchmark, and that was our target. With Hinz Carbon, we aimed to improve on key gaps: availability, communication, and cost—while matching or exceeding performance and longevity.

Our new supplier has significant capacity dedicated to us, meaning consistent production, accurate ETAs, and better communication. Our goal is to stock inventory and minimize lead times. We’re also able to offer these at a more competitive price.

For us, a proper carbon ceramic disc must deliver:

• Surface integrity (no delamination or porosity)
• Structural strength (resistance to chipping/cracking)
• Consistent bite (cold and hot)
• Durability (handles abuse and multiple pad compounds)
• Longevity (track-capable lifespan)
• Thermal performance (runs cool under heavy loads)
• Easier Bed-in characteristics (reduce time taken to properly bed the bads in)

Even for non-track drivers, confidence in braking matters—whether on the street or in more aggressive driving situations.

Many lower-cost discs cut corners in materials and production time. Our discs take ~14 weeks to manufacture, allowing for slower, more controlled silicon infiltration into the carbon fibers. This reduces impurities, improves consistency, and enhances thermal performance.

Thermal control is critical—it impacts braking consistency, pad life, and disc longevity. Compared to many alternatives, we’ve seen temperature differences of several hundred degrees. Excess heat leads to pad fade, inconsistent pedal feel, faster wear, and increased oxidation.

Material quality also matters. Lower-grade carbon (common in cheaper options) oxidizes faster and runs hotter. Some use a ceramic surface layer to compensate, but once the core degrades, delamination follows—and the disc is effectively done.

Shorter production cycles typically mean lower-quality results—it’s that simple.

To validate this product, we benchmarked it against everything: ST, PCCB, and multiple Chinese aftermarket options. Data only matters when it’s comparable, and our third-party testing gives us that context.

Testing Data Continued in Post #3....

 

Introducing Hinz Carbon!

For us, it was imperative that we could properly test our discs, not only against industry standards, but against our competition, as we believe that data in a vacuum is relatively useless. For official testing, we reached out to PFC, whom has been a trusted partner to Porsche Motorsport by offering their brake systems on the Factory Racecars such as the 991 Cup cars, along with the 981/718 GT4/RS Clubsport models. In addition, they are also the official brake supplier for IndyCar, whom are currently running PFC calipers and Carbon/Carbon brake discs. PFC has tested just about every disc out there, iron and carbon ceramic, so we felt they were the perfect 3rd party to test for us.
All of the data presented below was put together by PFC.

For testing, there are several different tests PFC conducts to measure a disc or a brake pad’s performance. The three tests shown below cover a wide range of scenarios.

 

Below are the comparative results from the AK master test. The Hinz Carbon discs were right inline with the factory PCCBs here, and both had better bite than the STs. This could partially explain why some folks who switched to STs didn’t notice an immediate bump in bite compared to stock brakes, as STs take along time to bed in fully.

Please note, all discs and testing below was conducted on the PFC 11 compound, to maintain a control. This doesn’t mean it is the best pad for our specific discs, but will be an option for customers moving forward. Extensive testing will be conducted on many other compounds over the coming months.

AK Master



For this test, we compared Hinz Carbon, to ST, to PCCBs. The discs start at roughly 100°C and the test is run repeatedly to completion. The Hinz Carbon disc shown excellent thermal properties with the lowest pad temps of the group for the Fade Test with the PFC 11 compound.

Porsche Fade

 

RCP Torture


These net two charts show how quickly the Hinz Carbon Rotor was able to bed in compared to the STs, which will help a ton when trying to bed your discs in on the street or during your track day.

 

The higher friction coefficient µ or “mu” displayed by our discs here further illustrates how well they will perform on the street and during moderate track use. Please note that when temperatures are referenced in the charts, these are pad temps taken via an embedded thermal couple. Surface temperatures will typically be 150-200°C hotter. This is important to note especially when we get to the 600°C IBT sections further down, as peaks recorded around 980°C at the pad level are really closer to 1130-1180°C at the surface (2100°F), extremely hot..

Typical for a GT3/GT4/RS street car, pressures can reach a max of 1200-1400 psi, with temperature peaks of 400-650°C. As such, the starting 300°C tests are probably the most applicable to look at for µ values. In all of the other tests @450°C or 600°C, the peak temperatures are getting higher than what you would see during a normal track day.



The STs are now finally fully bedded in here. They also decided to throw in another competitor’s disc (in red), a Chinese-made long-fiber option. This is where the extended production times, better materials, and engineering begin to show their merit. You can see the µ levels just aren’t there with that cheaper option once things start to heat up. Pad temps, which will be displayed further down, are significantly different here as well, as PFC mentions, below 400°C for the Hinz Carbon and ST disc, and over 700°C for the Chinese offering. That’s a 570°F delta.

This test really most closely resembles what you would see during a track day.

For this test, we are beginning to see a slight advantage for the STs at much higher pressures and peak temperatures. Again, these are the embedded thermal couple temps inside the pad, not the Surface temps, which are much hotter. That said, part of this could be due to the way the PFC 11 compound interacts with our disc at higher pressures, and we will be testing a ton of compounds over the coming months and should have this data by the time our 1st batch of discs is delivered to customers.

 

STs show a slight advantage here, but we believe changing to a different compound will bode well for our disc and close the gap, so we are excited to get testing all the other compounds. Again, these temps are starting to approach the extreme end of what one may see during a track day.

For the remaining tests with initial temps starting at 600°C, outside of GT3 race cars, it's going to be extremely hard to get to these temperatures with a track-prepped street car or even a racecar in a track day setting.

What you are seeing in the mu drop is that the pads are too hot and the compound is falling off. The 600 °C sections of this test are not really to look at the pad mu (µ) but to see which rotor is better at dissipating heat and lasting a little longer into that severe portion of the test. The ST discs do show a slight advantage in this department with this compound. Once we get the additional discs and pads, we can run a more appropriate track day script for, say, a Sebring or Road America setup to compare.

 

In summary

Based on the data, we believe that our disc will be the better option for 95% of real-life situations. We achieve faster/easier bed-in, which will be a welcome improvement on both the street and track. We also exhibit a higher friction coefficient (µ) in almost all real-world scenarios compared to our competition. It is not until you get to the very extreme levels of temperature that we see a slight advantage with the STs, a place where most drivers likely won’t reach. That said, we still believe that different compounds will work even better at higher temperatures on our discs and will be testing this in the coming months.

Not only did our discs perform exceptionally well throughout the testing, but they also showed no signs of wear. We believe that our integrated friction layer will enable our discs to exceed the life of an ST rotor while allowing us to run more aggressive compounds, something many of our customers have been asking for.

We will also be using our 991 GT3 Cup car as a product tester this season at our home track, Road America. Here, our cup reaches 150+mph three different times a single lap, braking down to only 50mph in some corners, arguably one of the best tracks in the country to test brakes. We have reached out to Racelogic, which has a 4-wheel brake temperature sensor kit for the VBOX units. This will display rotor temperatures in real time, which can be overlaid on the in-car video. We intend to also test different compounds in this manner. What is great about this is we will be able to test the 11 compound on the factory iron discs, and then swap out our carbon discs and test the 11 compound there for a back-to-back comparison of temps and braking distances on track.

More on this to come.

If you have any questions or are interested in placing an order, our site is now live, and you can submit your orders there.

We already have most Porsche fitments developed, with several others currently in development.

Check it out here: https://hinzmotorsport.com/pages/hin...ic-brake-discs

Happy to answer questions in this thread anymore as well.

Pricing for our kits starts at $12,999. From now until May 15th, we are also offering free pads with your kit.

 

This is pretty exciting to see the partnership with PFC. Is PFC doing the machining of the carbon blanks as well in Clover, SC and going through their quality process? Will you be offering carbon fitment for PFC BBKs as well?
PFC dyno is a very good machine.

 

To clarify, we only worked with PFC for the use of their dyno and feedback. They conducted all of the testing for us since they already have data on virtually every disc out there (iron, carbon ceramic, and even carbon-carbon discs), and they were willing to do it. They have also tested with Porsche before and have their specific scripts for testing, so it only made sense to use them. PFC is not involved in the manufacturing or quality control of the disc. Our supplier is also an aerospace/defense supplier, so they adhere to very strict quality control standards and tracking. We will be developing kits for the PFC BBK (Trackday Kit) applications if the demand is there, and will likely have an offering to work with the AP calipers as well. Our 991 Cup car uses effectively the same brake system, and we will be testing the discs on that car. We actually also already tested our disc with the ZR95 caliper from the Trackday kit on the dyno, and it performed very well!

 

Fitment for GT4RS?

 

Will there be street/light track pads available for these brakes?

Also, curious about fitment and pricing for the GT4RS and SRS.

 

Yes, same discs the 991 GT3 uses. So 410mm front and 390mm rear. PCCB cars will be direct swap front and rear. For factory Iron cars, the fronts are still direct swap, the rears will come with 5mm spacers and PCCB length bolts.

RSC1 will be the go-to pad for street use and light track use. For customers who are heavy into tracking, we think RSC3 is going to be the pad of choice, but more testing on compounds to come over the coming months. Think includes PFC 11 & 331 compounds, as well as Pagid RS29, RSL1, RSC2, and RSC3 (as mentioned).

GT4RS and SRS fitments are the same, so we have both.

 

Great to see these launched Rick @Hinz Motorsport

This is what I call an introduction and excellent that these have been tested against the benchmark references using standardised process with PFC.

I don't think anyone could ask for more validation from performance perspective.

QQ - can these be refinished/refurbished?

 

Thank you for the kind words. I am pleased you see the value in our process and testing methods. It certainly is alot to take in, but I felt it was necessary so folks understand that we didn't just slap our name on some Alibaba specials and begin making baseless claims. I thought this was very important for context on our new offering. We are extremely bullish on this product (even before the latest ST news), and now I think our discs will become the new standard for street and track use moving forward. PFC has been great to work with, and I can't thank them enough for taking the time to help us with testing. That said, we aren't done, as we are going to be conducting alot more compound testing with them and hope to have all the data prior to the first batch of discs arriving.

These can't be refurbished due to the integrated friction layer. That said, the layer is more durable and can't delaminate, so comparatively, they should last longer than an ST and certainly more than anything else on the market. Additionally, if a customer does end up needing a replacement due to damage or wear from extensive track use, we can offer replacements at a much more reasonable cost. We believe the total cost of ownership will be better with our discs, while allowing customers to run a broader range of compounds without detriment.

The integrated friction layer also makes bed-in much easier and yields a higher coefficient of friction than the competition. This will be noticeable on both street and track. And for example, we believe the RSC1 compound will have a bit more bite on our disc, which should help increase its utility as the best all-arounder out there.

We have also found the refurbishment process to be a hassle and unreliable, as customers have been trying to get their STs refurbished for over a year now, in some cases. We believe our process will be much better, as we intend to keep stock of every fitment we can and will simply send out a replacement if a customer ever needs one.