Test drove an F80 today...

[SYT_Shadow]

Originally Posted by DSilk

I have absolutely no idea what you mean when you say Audi pioneered AWD and Quattro.

Audi brought AWD to the forefront in rallying, dethroning the Lancia Stratos with a coupe that they named the "Audi Quattro". Is it clear to you now?

Yes. They built an actual AWD system which is fine and then built the Haldex one and slapped the same badge on it, hoping to fool people.

Based on this thread their strategy works

[Bartledoo]

Originally Posted by romemmy

As for torque vectoring, why all the hate? Yes, it is brake-based torque vectoring, but it's technology that is either there or it isn't - and I'd prefer that it was. Anything to get around that corner quicker.

It all depends upon whether you prefer driving experience and feel. You are still going to feel that pushy awful chassis before the gimmicks kick in to get you around the corner. The best way to compare the cars from that perspective is to drive both hard with traction and stability controls off and experience the "natural" form of both without even contemplating the speed of one vs the other.

[SYT_Shadow]

Originally Posted by romemmy

Wow, so much venom? I know how the Haldex system works, but thought they had made a change to it. Other transverse cars can do it, so thought maybe they had changed it - this is based on articles like this:

https://arstechnica.com/cars/2017/09...ifferent-cars/

Saying things like "The Haldex all-wheel drive system is now quite happy to throw 100 percent of the engine's torque at the rear wheels", which makes it sound like it's something new. Audi themselves claim that 100% torque can be made to the back. Maybe "bias" was the wrong word - as it has no preset bias. On audiusa.com (their own site), they say about the new TTRS:

"The Audi TT RS employs permanent quattro® all-wheel drive with no set torque distribution. The all-wheel drive system adjusts and fine-tunes to help maximize grip and overall control, sending as much power to the rear wheels as possible."

That sounds like it prefers to send power to the rear when it can. Maybe Audi and the journalists are lying, I don't know - but it does get good reviews on track.

As for torque vectoring, why all the hate? Yes, it is brake-based torque vectoring, but it's technology that is either there or it isn't - and I'd prefer that it was. Anything to get around that corner quicker.

As for my "think of it like an M3", I meant it in the order of things - not that I was comparing it directly to an M3 performance or drivetrain wise - we were talking about cost, so the TTRS is the equivalent of the M3 in Audi's TT range (like the RS3 is to the M3 as the A3 is to a 320i).

Thanks,

S.

Ford also produced an impressive amount of marketing crap when they released the Focus RS about how it was almost a RWD car. Well, RWD cars do not roast their inside front tire at the track. That said, at least Ford actually tried. And they didn't add a wider front tire to make anyone with eyes know that they are full of it.

The TT RS, RS3, etc all fall apart when driven hard. If your intention is to drive it to the supermarket then it is perfectly fine. If you expected to buy something that works like a proper performance car you're wrong.

It is upsetting to see the misconceptions running around M3 forums. I want to leave the record straight, lest some poor soul is reading the forum and believes the TT RS is not FWD.

[DSilk]

Originally Posted by SYT_Shadow

Ford also produced an impressive amount of marketing crap when they released the Focus RS about how it was almost a RWD car. Well, RWD cars do not roast their inside front tire at the track. That said, at least Ford actually tried. And they didn't add a wider front tire to make anyone with eyes know that they are full of it.

The TT RS, RS3, etc all fall apart when driven hard. If your intention is to drive it to the supermarket then it is perfectly fine. If you expected to buy something that works like a proper performance car you're wrong.

It is upsetting to see the misconceptions running around M3 forums. I want to leave the record straight, lest some poor soul is reading the forum and believes the TT RS is not FWD.

It isn't FWD, any more than a Porsche Carrera 4 is RWD. I have a question for you. You criticize the TT RS vehemently. Have you ever actually driven one? Please be honest!

[SYT_Shadow]

Originally Posted by DSilk

It isn't FWD, any more than a Porsche Carrera 4 is RWD. I have a question for you. You criticize the TT RS vehemently. Have you ever actually driven one? Please be honest!

No need to lie. I haven't. I also haven't eaten cow dung though but know it tastes bad.

I did drive a TT-S years ago. It's clear the AWD doesn't engage until the front has slipped.

One does not need to drive every car on the planet to understand fundamental qualities of drivetrain choices.

When the Focus RS came out there was lots of 'info' about RWD feel and other retardedness. In the end, go see one at a track day and look at the front tires vs the rear. That answers whatever questions you may have. The TT-RS and RS3 do not even go that far in creating a pseudo-RWD feel.

The Carrera 4 (also an aberration, but less so) is RWD based AWD.
The TTRS and RS3 are FWD based but the Haldex transmits essentially nothing to the rear of the car under regular use.
The Carrera 4 at least is always AWD

I hope the difference is clear

[DSilk]

Originally Posted by SYT_Shadow

No need to lie. I haven't. I also haven't eaten cow dung though but know it tastes bad.

I did drive a TT-S years ago. It's clear the AWD doesn't engage until the front has slipped.

One does not need to drive every car on the planet to understand fundamental qualities of drivetrain choices.

When the Focus RS came out there was lots of 'info' about RWD feel and other retardedness. In the end, go see one at a track day and look at the front tires vs the rear. That answers whatever questions you may have. The TT-RS and RS3 do not even go that far in creating a pseudo-RWD feel.

The Carrera 4 (also an aberration, but less so) is RWD based AWD.
The TTRS and RS3 are FWD based but the Haldex transmits essentially nothing to the rear of the car under regular use.
The Carrera 4 at least is always AWD

I hope the difference is clear

So you feel that you are qualified to make judgements concerning the handling and stability at the limits of a car that you have never driven based upon the fact that its power distribution is "on demand" rather than always either rear biased or equally split. When you are actually pushing the car to its limits the power is split, can be sent 100% to the rear, and employs side to side torque vectoring. You sound like the snobs who used to criticize BMW for using "cheap" MacPherson struts up front rather than a more sophisticated double wishbone setup. You need to actually drive the car before you are qualified to levy criticisms at it regarding its handling or feel.

For what it's worth, the TT RS was faster around the Nurburgring than was the M4...

[Biirdman50]

I test drove a 12' ttrs before picking up my M. That car is outrageously fast on the street/highway and maintains traction through out each gear. I can only imagine the newer ttrs that are out (3200 lbs 0-60 3.4 secs)The deal breaker was only 2 seats and lack of feel of rwd. Even though it seem like a fun car, nothing beats the screaming v8 with the boost of a supercharger from my M. Definitely one of the most fun cars I've ever driven

[neilum]

Originally Posted by DSilk

So you feel that you are qualified to make judgements concerning the handling and stability at the limits of a car that you have never driven based upon the fact that its power distribution is "on demand" rather than always either rear biased or equally split. When you are actually pushing the car to its limits the power is split, can be sent 100% to the rear, and employs side to side torqu vectoring. You sound like the snobs who used to criticize BMW for using "cheap" MacPherson struts up front rather than a more sophisticated double wishbone setup. You need to actually drive the car before you are qualified to levy criticisms at it.

You are buying into marketing and its important to separate reality vs that stuff. The haldex system cannot send 100% to the rear unless the front tires have 0 traction. That will never happen on a racetrack or any real world performance scenario.

So, yes it can send 100% to the rear but its a moot point because it never will.

I also have never driven one but I don't need to. Physics are at play. You have a 60/40 weight distribution car, with most of the power going to the fronts, most of the time.

Truth is you can look at specs and draw fairly accurate conclusions based on where the weight is and where the power is going. That general concept is not guess work.

Just like I can look at a Corvette or an Acura NSX and have a good general idea of how they drive based on the layout alone. I don't think its unfair to claim you get the jist without driving it. We're talking about driving dynamics, its not really subjective.

I'd also say that Haldex is a viable solution, but nowhere near an ideal layout ideal for pure handling/performance.


People get so fuzzy on buzzwords like AWD/Quattro and seem to ignore the real technical stuff that really matters.

[SYT_Shadow]

Originally Posted by DSilk

So you feel that you are qualified to make judgements concerning the handling and stability at the limits of a car that you have never driven based upon the fact that its power distribution is "on demand" rather than always either rear biased or equally split. When you are actually pushing the car to its limits the power is split, can be sent 100% to the rear, and employs side to side torque vectoring. You sound like the snobs who used to criticize BMW for using "cheap" MacPherson struts up front rather than a more sophisticated double wishbone setup. You need to actually drive the car before you are qualified to levy criticisms at it regarding its handling or feel.

For what it's worth, the TT RS was faster around the Nurburgring than was the M4...

Of course. Engineers make informed assessments all the time about things.

Haldex is a piece of crap, end of story. Car mags with decent drivers also coincide with my opinion although they use prettier words

[romemmy]

Originally Posted by SYT_Shadow

Stopping power of all sorts of cheap brake systems, including the one piston sliders of the E92 M3, easily overwhelms the tires. People have absolutely no clue what they're talking about.

Carbon ceramics are great to reduce brake dust. Other uses, like tracking, are not intelligent.

For the record, I have tracked the M4 GTS and the Cayman GT4 and would immediately remove those brakes in favor of the PFC BBK. Unsurprisingly, the M4 GTS owner also prefers my PFC BBK (he used to have one)

People that actually know how to drive on the track have destroyed CCBs in a few track days. Obviously if you're doing 3 minute laps around a 2 min 20 second track then you can rave about how they 'transform the car' and 'nothing brakes like this'. Meanwhile Miatas with $30 autozone rotors will be passing you

You're actually telling me that carbon ceramics are so terrible that steel brakes OUTPERFORM them? Yes, people like steel/iron brakes for COST reasons, but now you're telling me that steel brakes are technologically better. Wow, that is news to me. So top of the line sports cars (Ferrari, McLaren, Lamborghini, Porsche and even Corvette ZR) just put it on there for fun? Formula 1 are just having a laugh (I know they use Carbon-Carbon, but same idea, not steel)? The pros and cons as I see it:

1) Heat. Carbon ceramics handle high heat better and thus do not fade nearly as much on track (less heat transference to the brake fluid reduces boil leading to mushiness and/or failure, and higher heat capacity reduces brake pad smear/melting). I don't know what tracks you go to where your standard brakes were better than CCB, but tracks like Laguna Seca are very hard on brakes if you are doing quick laps (and as we all know, the secret to a quick lap is braking hard and fast as late as possible, and CCB lets you brake much deeper consistently all day long). Yes, the initial bite and performance can be similar, but the issue is running corner after corner, lap after lap. Especially in higher horsepower cars where your average speed is much higher. High temp fluid and race pads help, but cannot entirely overcome the inherent heat capacity issues of steel/iron.

2) Unsprung weight. CCB's are considerably lighter than steel in exactly the right place, improving performance considerably. There's a reason we try to remove unsprung weight. As they say in motorsport, lose 1lb in unsprung weight is like losing 5 lbs of chassis weight.

3) Longevity. CCB will outlast steel/iron, especially on a car that is not at the track much. I have a lot of cars, and most I track, so this one I wasn't planning on doing heavy track work with - if I did a couple track days a year on them, I could probably go 50,000 miles without touching the brakes (the average they say on a street car is 90K-100K miles if it's only on the street, so I'm guesstimating). I know some Porsche people that spec PCCB on all their cars, including SUV's, just for the longevity. I'm actually sad we didn't get it on the Porsche Macan Turbo PP we ordered and received last week.

4) Cost. Yeah, CCB's are more expensive. This can be a factor for people, of course. However, when deciding which performs better, I don't consider cost a factor of performance. Steel is cheaper than aluminium which is cheaper than carbon fiber - yet many still choose CF or aluminium. Same with brakes, yes you can save some money by compromising, but I feel the high cost is justified in this case with the weight and fade resistance being so much better IMO. Also, if you plan to keep a new car for only 50-60K miles, the CCB could save you money over that time (or at least hassle in changing brakes/pads).

Every article I read, as well as my own experience 20+ years racing, CCB's are better than steel on track, so I'm just not sure where you are getting the idea that steel is better and that Miata's will be passing you by because you have CCB and they have steel. Expensive yes, but definitely outperforms steel at the track in every department except cost. Miata's are lightweight low horsepower "momentum" cars so their brakes probably don't get too overheated (I owned a Eunos Roadster (Japanese name for Miata/MX-5) about 18 years ago and didn't really have much brake issues), but I can assure you my CCB-equipped car will be flying past that Miata at 150+MPH and still braking later at T1 (or T2 in the case of Laguna)!

Anyway, while I was really considering the TTRS and thought I'd decided, I might actually go a different way again here.

Still, thanks everyone for the comments on F8x vs E9x - seems that spec and personal preference is the biggest decider, with most thinking the F8x interior isn't really inferior to the E9x. I guess if you got a real upgraded interior on the E9x and compared it against the basic interior on F8x, that could account for the differences I feel I'm seeing.

Thanks!

S.

[Bartledoo]

Originally Posted by romemmy

Every article I read, as well as my own experience 20+ years racing, CCB's are better than steel on track, so I'm just not sure where you are getting the idea that steel is better and that Miata's will be passing you by because you have CCB and they have steel. Expensive yes, but definitely outperforms steel at the track in every department except cost. Miata's are lightweight low horsepower "momentum" cars so their brakes probably don't get too overheated (I owned a Eunos Roadster (Japanese name for Miata/MX-5) about 18 years ago and didn't really have much brake issues), but I can assure you my CCB-equipped car will be flying past that Miata at 150+MPH and still braking later at T1 (or T2 in the case of Laguna)!

Don't forget about all of those beefed up LS swapped Miatas out there though!

[Z K]

Audi Quattro is just marketing. It refers to anything that has Audi AWD no matter what system that is.

I bought an Audi A4 Quattro, S line, Sports package, B&O audio, Nav etc. pretty much as loaded a A4 you can get... I didn't get it for the performance. It is a nice every day car and seemed more refined for DD duty than the M3. I have tried to take it up some fun roads but always found the car lacking in fun. It understeers so much and I have no feeling of connection to the car. It just doesn't have the smile factor of even a regular 3 series. But cruising on the highway, it's great - much more comfortable and relaxing than a 3 series.

For fun driving, I take the M3.

[SYT_Shadow]

Originally Posted by romemmy

You're actually telling me that carbon ceramics are so terrible that steel brakes OUTPERFORM them? Yes, people like steel/iron brakes for COST reasons, but now you're telling me that steel brakes are technologically better. Wow, that is news to me. So top of the line sports cars (Ferrari, McLaren, Lamborghini, Porsche and even Corvette ZR) just put it on there for fun? Formula 1 are just having a laugh (I know they use Carbon-Carbon, but same idea, not steel)? The pros and cons as I see it:

I'm not sure where you read that steel brakes outperform CCBs.
Also, please quote where I said anything about technological superiority.

I wrote I *prefer* the PFC BBK. And so does the M4 GTS owner. They have better feel, a pretty important difference.

Top of the line sport cars manufacturers put CCBs in their sports cars because people are idiots.
Porsche is actually serious about building track cars and the GT3/GT3 RS come with steel with CCBs optional for idiots.
The Porsche Cup car comes with... drum roll... steel brakes!

Carbon-carbon brakes are completely different than carbon ceramics. It's like saying a potato is a pumpkin because they're both vegetables.

Originally Posted by romemmy

1) Heat. Carbon ceramics handle high heat better and thus do not fade nearly as much on track (less heat transference to the brake fluid reduces boil leading to mushiness and/or failure, and higher heat capacity reduces brake pad smear/melting). I don't know what tracks you go to where your standard brakes were better than CCB, but tracks like Laguna Seca are very hard on brakes if you are doing quick laps (and as we all know, the secret to a quick lap is braking hard and fast as late as possible, and CCB lets you brake much deeper consistently all day long). Yes, the initial bite and performance can be similar, but the issue is running corner after corner, lap after lap. Especially in higher horsepower cars where your average speed is much higher. High temp fluid and race pads help, but cannot entirely overcome the inherent heat capacity issues of steel/iron.

Anyone with a high level BBK, like PFC or the AP RadiCal, has zero issues with heat capacity and zero fade.

Initial bite and modulation are completely different in CCB and steel brakes.

Originally Posted by romemmy

2) Unsprung weight. CCB's are considerably lighter than steel in exactly the right place, improving performance considerably. There's a reason we try to remove unsprung weight. As they say in motorsport, lose 1lb in unsprung weight is like losing 5 lbs of chassis weight.

I am unsure what the PFC or AP RadiCal brakes weigh compared to the CCBs in the M4 for example.

Generally, CCBs are lighter. This is an advantage.

Originally Posted by romemmy

3) Longevity. CCB will outlast steel/iron, especially on a car that is not at the track much. I have a lot of cars, and most I track, so this one I wasn't planning on doing heavy track work with - if I did a couple track days a year on them, I could probably go 50,000 miles without touching the brakes (the average they say on a street car is 90K-100K miles if it's only on the street, so I'm guesstimating). I know some Porsche people that spec PCCB on all their cars, including SUV's, just for the longevity. I'm actually sad we didn't get it on the Porsche Macan Turbo PP we ordered and received last week.

Not sure where anyone challenged the longevity of CCBs when driven only on the street.

CCBs are a great option when you hate brake dust and only drive on the street or if you do an occasional track day

Originally Posted by romemmy

Every article I read, as well as my own experience 20+ years racing, CCB's are better than steel on track, so I'm just not sure where you are getting the idea that steel is better and that Miata's will be passing you by because you have CCB and they have steel. Expensive yes, but definitely outperforms steel at the track in every department except cost. Miata's are lightweight low horsepower "momentum" cars so their brakes probably don't get too overheated (I owned a Eunos Roadster (Japanese name for Miata/MX-5) about 18 years ago and didn't really have much brake issues), but I can assure you my CCB-equipped car will be flying past that Miata at 150+MPH and still braking later at T1 (or T2 in the case of Laguna)!

Miatas will be passing you because if you think CCBs work for heavy track use you are mistaken, don't drive fast, and are hence slower than Miatas.

[Z K]

Originally Posted by SYT_Shadow

CCBs are a great option when you hate brake dust and only drive on the street or if you do an occasional track day

Miatas will be passing you because if you think CCBs work for heavy track use you are mistaken, don't drive fast, and are hence slower than Miatas.

^ this

I rarely see CCBs on track. If it is, it is usually a car that doesn't regularly run track days.

CCB are great for street use - superior I would say to steel in every aspect besides replacement cost... even that is very low as you won't be going through brakes often in street driving. This is exactly why they market these for people as the "performance" option on street cars.

But on track - the kind of abuse that brakes go through and the high replacement costs of CCB - steel has a huge advantage over CCB. If cost is no object - you can run CCBs on track all the time. But they offer no braking advantage over a good steel brake set up.

[Scharbag]

Originally Posted by Z K

^ this

I rarely see CCBs on track. If it is, it is usually a car that doesn't regularly run track days.

CCB are great for street use - superior I would say to steel in every aspect besides replacement cost... even that is very low as you won't be going through brakes often in street driving. This is exactly why they market these for people as the "performance" option on street cars.

But on track - the kind of abuse that brakes go through and the high replacement costs of CCB - steel has a huge advantage over CCB. If cost is no object - you can run CCBs on track all the time. But they offer no braking advantage over a good steel brake set up.

I saw an Audi RS7's bill for 2 new CCB front rotors... $7,500CAD for each rotor plus labour and pads. So, unless CCBs last >>15 times longer than the steel option, they are not worth it on the RS7...

There is no reason, except for the dust, that CCBs should be used. CCBs are a useless gimmick for people with too much money to burn. I would put any good steel rotor BBK up against any factory CCB for street and track use any day.

And this thread is officially

[DerEisbaer]

Have driven the current Audi TT (standard 2.0 Quattro) of a colleague.

Heck, it is a lot of fun as well - it performs very well for what it is.

Not as breathtaking and astonishing as my M3 or a Z3 Coupe, but still, it is a very fun car to drive. In rainy conditions or snow, it performs even better - what a surprise

The RS4 B7 of a friend of mine though, this is a different scenario. Even on the passenger seat, I could feel the front pushing and the whole car understeered to the point where it started to slide.

But again, with all the computers, even the Haldex system has come a long way. It is not an RWD car, but it can be fun

[romemmy]

Originally Posted by SYT_Shadow

I'm not sure where you read that steel brakes outperform CCBs.
Also, please quote where I said anything about technological superiority.

I wrote I *prefer* the PFC BBK. And so does the M4 GTS owner. They have better feel, a pretty important difference.

Top of the line sport cars manufacturers put CCBs in their sports cars because people are idiots.
Porsche is actually serious about building track cars and the GT3/GT3 RS come with steel with CCBs optional for idiots.
The Porsche Cup car comes with... drum roll... steel brakes!

Carbon-carbon brakes are completely different than carbon ceramics. It's like saying a potato is a pumpkin because they're both vegetables.



Anyone with a high level BBK, like PFC or the AP RadiCal, has zero issues with heat capacity and zero fade.

Initial bite and modulation are completely different in CCB and steel brakes.




I am unsure what the PFC or AP RadiCal brakes weigh compared to the CCBs in the M4 for example.

Generally, CCBs are lighter. This is an advantage.



Not sure where anyone challenged the longevity of CCBs when driven only on the street.

CCBs are a great option when you hate brake dust and only drive on the street or if you do an occasional track day



Miatas will be passing you because if you think CCBs work for heavy track use you are mistaken, don't drive fast, and are hence slower than Miatas.

I may have inferred your assertions (from the tone of your entire post), but saying that CCB’s don’t work for heavy track use is insane. Again, COST is the only disadvantage. The reason you see cars at track days running BBK’s and steel rotors is because of COST. The average track day user cannot afford to replace CCB’s, and thus do not run them. Saying I am unintelligent for running CCB’s at the track is making the assumption that I cannot afford to change CCB’s.

Please, get specific. I want to know why you think CCB’s do not work for heavy track use OTHER than cost. I don’t agree that BBK’s have the same heat capacity as CCB’s - a CCB rotor can handle 1200-1400 degrees, a steel rotor (stock, BBK or made on Mars) can only handle around 800 degrees. We’ve already agreed that weight is an advantage (Porsche claim a 50% drop in unsprung weight). And - drum roll - the Porsche GT2RS comes with PCCB (I couldn’t even find an option to downgrade them)!! A $300K track car that they assume people that own it can afford the brake changes - when the best is needed and cost is not a factor, carbon ceramics are spec’d. All McLarens comes with CCB’s, as does the Ferrari 488 (including racing versions). Oh, and Andreas Preuninger, the man behind the GT3, has been quoted saying that the PCCB option is a must-have on the GT3 and GT3RS. I suspect it was omitted from these as the standard option due to most small race teams not having the money to replace CCB’s every couple of races, and the GT3RS is very popular at the club racer level as a relatively cheap ready-to-go race car. It’s called compromise - those drivers I’m sure would love to have PCCB’s for the extra margin of safety, consistency and fade resistance in an endurance racing environment.

Your view that CCB’s cannot handle hard track use is puzzling, and flies in the face of reality I feel. Unless you are specifically talking about cost. Yes, with very hard use they will need changing as often as steel (typically as good as or better on replacement times as steel), but they are more consistent, handle the heat better, are lighter, and as such are typically better in every way to steel - except cost - which I agree with. However, you cannot call me or others “idiots” or “unintelligent” because we are willing to pay for that extra performance. If you want to compromise because something in your mind is not worth it financially, then okay - but we all have different thresholds as to what is worth it and what we can afford.

Thanks!

Z.

[DSilk]

Originally Posted by neilum

You are buying into marketing and its important to separate reality vs that stuff. The haldex system cannot send 100% to the rear unless the front tires have 0 traction. That will never happen on a racetrack or any real world performance scenario.

So, yes it can send 100% to the rear but its a moot point because it never will.

I also have never driven one but I don't need to. Physics are at play. You have a 60/40 weight distribution car, with most of the power going to the fronts, most of the time.

Truth is you can look at specs and draw fairly accurate conclusions based on where the weight is and where the power is going. That general concept is not guess work.

Just like I can look at a Corvette or an Acura NSX and have a good general idea of how they drive based on the layout alone. I don't think its unfair to claim you get the jist without driving it. We're talking about driving dynamics, its not really subjective.

I'd also say that Haldex is a viable solution, but nowhere near an ideal layout ideal for pure handling/performance.


People get so fuzzy on buzzwords like AWD/Quattro and seem to ignore the real technical stuff that really matters.

This is true, but this is a consequence of having an AWD system. When pushing the car in corners in the TT Rs, power is split between front and rear axles, with the bias being fluid. Even the Porsche 911 Carrera 4 sends over 30% of its power to the front, and is never a true RWD car.

My personal preference is RWD over either AWD or FWD, but I have driven plenty of FWD cars that were a hoot to drive and I think that the citicism of the Haldex system is misplaced. My gripe about AWD has less to do with chassis balance than it has to do with the loss of steering feel (something that happens with most, but not all, FWD systems as well). But then, again, that is my primary gripe with the new BMWs.

[DSilk]

With respect to the criticism of carbon ceramic brakes for track use, I would just point out that both Formula 1 and LMP class LeMans race cars use carbon ceramic brakes.

[DeafM5]

Im new on this forum but not stranger to other forums.

In my opinion, I think E9x M3 is more of a proper M3 car. F80 is a great car but it is stupid fast and you cant use the power anywhere on street without getting into trouble.

[nightkrawler]

Originally Posted by romemmy

Hi all,

First I know I could have posted this on the F80 forum, but I want the opinion of E9x owners who have looked at F80 as a possible replacement. I test drove an F80 today and I’m a little puzzled... I looked at an f80 last week and thought the interior felt cheap, but tried again today, and again I’m puzzled as to why I feel like the interior feels cheap compared to my E90. I looked at M2 and M4 as well, and they felt the same! I closed the hood on the M2 and it felt/sounded like a cheap Japanese car, and it was a brand new M2.

The F80 I test drove was a 2015 (competition, supposedly), but still pretty much identical to the new one, and I wasn’t impressed by the drive either. The DCT was the real reason I was testing it (to see if I wanted to go to DCT from my current manual), and that wasn’t bad, but maybe it was because this car had 45Kmiles on it, and maybe had been beat to death that the handling felt off. It looked clean enough though.

I’ve seen comparisons in other threads, mostly talking about performance or preference, but I’ve seen reviews saying the F80 is more luxury than the E90, though I don’t see it! Maybe mine was spec’d up, and those on the dealer forecourts are spec’d down?

Anyone else feel like quality has fallen to increase profits (or mass sell more), or was it just a spec mismatch. The E90 I have now is my first BMW (as I was never really interested in BMW’s before but eventually had to try the M3!) so maybe I just got one that had a higher spec than normal and the ones I saw at the dealer are average?

Just trying to do a sanity check...

Thanks!

S.

You’re not wrong about the quality of the current junk BMW is producing. I’ve worked on these for the last 10 Years and have seen the quality steadily decline. The older cars like the E39 were put together much better. If you look at an F30 from underneath it looks like a Chevy, little undercoating compared to the older cars. Twice now I’ve taken a F30 door panel off and the right side of it just about broke in half. They honestly feel like they are made of cardboard. It’s not just that, every day it’s a new problem with these cars. Malfunction lights, cel, etc it’s terrible. The M cars seem to be a little better but not by much.

[SYT_Shadow]

Originally Posted by romemmy

I may have inferred your assertions (from the tone of your entire post), but saying that CCB’s don’t work for heavy track use is insane. Again, COST is the only disadvantage. The reason you see cars at track days running BBK’s and steel rotors is because of COST. The average track day user cannot afford to replace CCB’s, and thus do not run them. Saying I am unintelligent for running CCB’s at the track is making the assumption that I cannot afford to change CCB’s.

Please, get specific. I want to know why you think CCB’s do not work for heavy track use OTHER than cost. I don’t agree that BBK’s have the same heat capacity as CCB’s - a CCB rotor can handle 1200-1400 degrees, a steel rotor (stock, BBK or made on Mars) can only handle around 800 degrees. We’ve already agreed that weight is an advantage (Porsche claim a 50% drop in unsprung weight). And - drum roll - the Porsche GT2RS comes with PCCB (I couldn’t even find an option to downgrade them)!! A $300K track car that they assume people that own it can afford the brake changes - when the best is needed and cost is not a factor, carbon ceramics are spec’d. All McLarens comes with CCB’s, as does the Ferrari 488 (including racing versions). Oh, and Andreas Preuninger, the man behind the GT3, has been quoted saying that the PCCB option is a must-have on the GT3 and GT3RS. I suspect it was omitted from these as the standard option due to most small race teams not having the money to replace CCB’s every couple of races, and the GT3RS is very popular at the club racer level as a relatively cheap ready-to-go race car. It’s called compromise - those drivers I’m sure would love to have PCCB’s for the extra margin of safety, consistency and fade resistance in an endurance racing environment.

Your view that CCB’s cannot handle hard track use is puzzling, and flies in the face of reality I feel. Unless you are specifically talking about cost. Yes, with very hard use they will need changing as often as steel (typically as good as or better on replacement times as steel), but they are more consistent, handle the heat better, are lighter, and as such are typically better in every way to steel - except cost - which I agree with. However, you cannot call me or others “idiots” or “unintelligent” because we are willing to pay for that extra performance. If you want to compromise because something in your mind is not worth it financially, then okay - but we all have different thresholds as to what is worth it and what we can afford.

Thanks!

Z.

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...

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

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.

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

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.

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)

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.