[romemmy]

Originally Posted by SYT_Shadow

The 991 GT3 RS guy I chased down this weekend has a 991 GT3, 991 GT3 RS and a 488 Challenge car. I think he can afford to change CCBs but has steel brakes. However, if you have more money than he does...

I can't really talk to how much money he has - maybe he bought them cash, maybe he gets it via something like Club Sportiva (I know a few guys who track club exotic cars, and the clubs always switch to steel brakes for cost reasons). Does he even track the Ferrari? The 488 comes with carbon ceramics, so he'd have to have changed them for cost reasons.

Originally Posted by SYT_Shadow

Cost is not the only disadvantage. Feel is significantly worse. Brake feel is a pretty important attribute.

Yeah, they feel different - but you get used to them. They are consistent though, so feel doesn't change much.

Originally Posted by SYT_Shadow

Another issue is fragility. If you whack the rotor with a wheel you have to replace it. With tires being changed every weekend or multiple times per weekend it's tough to never do that.

lol - really? A disadvantage is that you might break them by hitting them? I'm sure the Carbon-Carbon's in F1 are similar in fragility - they seem to do okay.

Originally Posted by SYT_Shadow

Driven hard, CCBs get destroyed faster than steel rotors. They work really well with inexperienced drivers which are of course not fast.

You make a lot of assumptions based on skill... So my 20 years racing I must be an amateur.. How many hundreds of years experience do you have?

Originally Posted by SYT_Shadow

Good BBKs have no performance issues driven hard. You do not need any ducting. So 'more resistance to temperature' can provide zero advantage, much in the same way that after eating ten pounds of beef you have no use for an extra six thousand pounds someone wants to feed you.

So now it has to be a "good BBK"... and it doesn't need ducting?? Yours must be made of unobtainium, not steel/iron.

Originally Posted by SYT_Shadow

The GT2 RS is definitely not the tracki-est car Porsche has. That would be the Cup, but if we ignore the Cup, it's likely the GT3 RS with the NA engine is the most track oriented.
(regular humans cannot handle 700hp, much less at the track)

I must not be a regular human then... As I said already, the GT3(RS) is bought by club racers. They are cash strapped and prefer steel. PCCB is an option and Porsche recommend them for racing, if you can afford them.

Originally Posted by SYT_Shadow

Weight continues to be an advantage, we are aligned. jritt@essex may be able to shed some light on how much their system weighs vs the M4's CCB option.


If your point is that someone exists who has enough money to spend 10k in one weekend on brake rotors and feels this is worth it because of the reduction in weight... well ok, but then they still have to deal with bad feel and fragility. And still have zero brake performance advantage over a proper BBK.


To summarize:
-If you're slow--> CCB is a great option
-If you're fast--> you need a good steel BBK. CCBs would only work for a mythical situation where someone is spending 10k per weekend trying to make a point that they 'can' be used hard
-There is zero 'extra performance' to be had in terms of braking with a CCB over steel

'Can' of course is a relative concept. We 'can' build a bridge out of glass, but doing so would extremely stupid. So yeah, CCBs 'can' be used hard... and perhaps they are... in the same universe where we build glass bridges.

Again, making assumptions that because I'm on CCB's I'm slow... I would love to see one of those Miata's that are quicker than me though, since I can't seem to find them locally...

Originally Posted by Z K

Steel rotors can very much handle more than 800 degrees F. Hell, my brake track pads are designed to handle over 1500 degrees F... "Steel" is kinda a misnomer for brake rotors. "Steel" brake rotors are actually made of cast iron.

I was talking celcius - not farenheit. 800C is 1472F. Also, yeah, you'll see I was putting steel/iron in some places - I know they are made of cast iron typically.

Originally Posted by Z K

Besides weight savings, there is no advantage to a CCB on track even if cost is no object. And Porsche race teams do not use CCBs on their race cars.

Porsche saying it is a "must have" option is pure marketing. They want you to spend $10k+ more to get PCCB so they can make more money off of you. Sure, you get less brake dust and it works a bit better on the street but that's all the PCCB gets you. It's fine to use on the track as well, but offers no advantage.

So I guess Porsche is lying:

https://www.porsche.com/usa/models/9...s/safety/pccb/

Here is what they say (emphasis mine):

Motorsport technology in a car on the road: Porsche Ceramic Composite Brake (PCCB). In numerous race series, including the Porsche Mobil 1 Supercup, it has been proven to withstand the harshest demands of the track.

PCCB enables shorter braking distances in even the toughest road and race conditions. Safety under high-speed braking is also improved thanks to its excellent fade resistance.

Yes, the models they sell to the public have standard steel brakes as the basic offering - again, most small race teams that race almost every weekend cannot afford PCCB. They always have an upgrade option though, and unless they are lying, the Porsche race team use PCCB in the Cup cars during the Supercup.

The weight savings in themselves are significant, but I contest that in every other way they are as good as or better than iron too, except cost. I have yet to be convinced otherwise. You guys have provided zero references too. Claiming that the manufacturer is lying for money reasons doesn't fly - if all they cared about was money then they would put PCCB as standard on the GT3 and claim it was racing technology, right?

Thanks,

Z.