Originally Posted by JRitt@essex

. . . Disc material choice in racing is defined by the rule set. Carbon-carbon is used when budget isn't of much concern, and iron is the clear choice when the series is trying to keep prices out of the stratosphere. 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!

In our opinion carbon ceramic discs (which is what PCCB discs are) are not well-suited for racetrack use. There is no doubt in my mind that alternative materials are the future of brake disc design. Based on all of our testing however, carbon ceramic discs in their current state of development cannot perform at the same level and offer all of the benefits of iron discs. Even though their development has come a long way, they still have a laundry list of pitfalls when taken on the track. The biggest problem is that they tend to oxidize at track temperatures, showing rough surface eruptions on the disc face. They also tend to run considerably hotter than iron when all else is held equal, they are horribly expensive to replace or resurface, they can only be run with an expensive and limited range of pads, they have poor feel, and they are more damage-prone than iron.

Personally, I have no idea why anyone tracking their car would want carbon ceramic discs. While I was working at StopTech over ten years ago, we tested continuous strand carbon ceramic discs on my C5 Z06 from an aftermarket manufacturer that is currently being touted on this forum. I destroyed them in a single afternoon at Buttonwillow. We therefore decided not to offer them to our customers as a viable, track-capable solution, because they weren't. Ever since, I have been extremely skeptical of the CCM technology for racetrack use. Based on what we see in other markets, that situation hasn't changed. The newer discs are better, but still not on par with iron for track use. We see it in a slew of other markets...Ferrari, Lambo, Corvette, Camaro, BMW M, Audi RS, etc. The very first thing our exotic fleet customers do when they obtain a new car is convert the carbon ceramic discs to AP Racing iron, and save themselves a small fortune in the process.

I think the problem with the "buying the best" concept is that people are misguided. They simply don't know any better, and frankly, it's really not their fault. The manufacturer does everything possible to align their road car with their race cars, and they sell carbon ceramic as 'race-derived technology.' The person sees carbon-carbon discs on the racecar variant of their chassis, and they believe it's the same thing that is on their car, and that it's the best possible option. Unfortunately, it's not.

Iron discs have been proven over and over for decades to be capable of winning races like Le Mans. They just did it again, so why would you need or want anything different? The key benefits of carbon ceramic discs are 1) unsprung weight savings, and 2) that they last for an incredibly long time when driven around on the street. They [carbon ceramics] are inferior in just about every other way for how our customers actually use them...as noted above, they cost more, they run hotter, they're more fragile, offer less pad compatibility, etc. Since our iron system offers a similar weight savings as carbon ceramic discs mated to stock calipers, there is no significant weight advantage to the carbon ceramics. If you're planning to track the car, then the 'lasting forever on the street' benefit is essentially meaningless as well. Therefore, iron makes a whole lot of sense.

If you want cutting-edge technology and exclusivity, the Radi-CAL is far more in that vein than CCM discs. No other manufacturer offers a similar caliper, and they are truly race-proven parts, not 'race-inspired.' We're offering something that is incredibly similar to what just won Le Mans, and the Radi-CAL owner club is far more exclusive than the carbon ceramic club these days. Every major manufacturer seems to be offering carbon ceramics on their road cars. I think I saw a Kia with them on my lunch break yesterday!

Originally Posted by Archimedes

You do realize that the guy writing that is selling the competitive product, so he isn’t actually unbiased, right?

If they don’t perform as well or offer better feel than the stock iron brakes, why do manufacturers like Porsche always run a PCCB car when they want to set a lap time? And why do tests show they fade way less than the stock iron rotors?

I buy his cost argument but I don’t buy his performance argument.

Originally Posted by Archimedes

You do realize that the guy writing that is selling the competitive product, so he isn’t actually unbiased, right?

If they don’t perform as well or offer better feel than the stock iron brakes, why do manufacturers like Porsche always run a PCCB car when they want to set a lap time? And why do tests show they fade way less than the stock iron rotors?

I buy his cost argument but I don’t buy his performance argument.

Originally Posted by IPSA

Weight and they get the parts for free.

PCCB's don't survive long on the track.

Originally Posted by Archimedes

You do realize that the guy writing that is selling the competitive product, so he isn’t actually unbiased, right?

If they don’t perform as well or offer better feel than the stock iron brakes, why do manufacturers like Porsche always run a PCCB car when they want to set a lap time? And why do tests show they fade way less than the stock iron rotors?

I buy his cost argument but I don’t buy his performance argument.

Originally Posted by Underblu

i have a friend who owns a Porsche dealership. I bought my first new Porsche from him in 1998. Almost every time I’ve ordered a car from him he’s talked me out of PCCBs. I kinda had a suspicion they are more street performance jewelry than serious race tech.

While the guy who wrote the article may not be unbiased, there have been many unbiased posts on this very forum that concur with many of his assessments. Once you mitigate the weight savings of PCCBs, all the other advantages skew heavily in favor of Iron rotors for competitive driving.

Originally Posted by Flacht6MT

d) because they're better than iron brakes on the daily? but apparently above they're not...and we all know 380mm irons for a Cayman level car are more than adequate.

Originally Posted by IPSA

Weight and they get the parts for free.

PCCB's don't survive long on the track.

Originally Posted by Flacht6MT

@Underblu great post, PCCB fanbois butts will be hurt though...see them come out of the wood work on this one

I do think this guy is biased as he sells a competitive product, but his rationale seems logical and could verify with some footwork. Any pro driver / race engineer on this forum would be able to pick it apart if it wasn't true - where did you find the original post? Would be a great read as a whole.

I don't know anyone who uses PCCBs for frequent/regular track use, even if that's the intended reason to buy these...

So let me get this right, people buy PCCBs because:
a) money is no object (great, mazel tov!)...and you hate brake dust so $8k premium is worth it!

b) they think PCCBs are the 'best' but want to pay another $3k on top for Girodiscs to run at track (not waste the Carbon Cerams) for a grand total of $11k? I'm sure it helps in resale, but you're not getting $8k back...so people are banking in $11k for the next owner to enjoy them?
Hmmmm...but hey if that floats one's boat, by all means...the second hand GT4 crowd will thank you for it.

c) oh, because it's so much lighter and you feel that all the time? hmmmm...doubt that. It's definitely lighter, but doubt the avg. person can feel or appreciate it.

d) because they're better than iron brakes on the daily? but apparently above they're not...and we all know 380mm irons for a Cayman level car are more than adequate.

Originally Posted by Underblu

i have a friend who owns a Porsche dealership. I bought my first new Porsche from him in 1998. Almost every time I’ve ordered a car from him he’s talked me out of PCCBs. I kinda had a suspicion they are more street performance jewelry than serious race tech.

While the guy who wrote the article may not be unbiased, there have been many unbiased posts on this very forum that concur with many of his assessments. Once you mitigate the weight savings of PCCBs, all the other advantages skew heavily in favor of Iron rotors for competitive driving.

So i guess Porsche is unbiased and wouldn’t run their cars with their most premium options. Lol.
y.

Originally Posted by Flacht6MT

@Underblu great post, PCCB fanbois butts will be hurt though...see them come out of the wood work on this one

I do think this guy is biased as he sells a competitive product, but his rationale seems logical and could verify with some footwork. Any pro driver / race engineer on this forum would be able to pick it apart if it wasn't true - where did you find the original post? Would be a great read as a whole.

I don't know anyone who uses PCCBs for frequent/regular track use, even if that's the intended reason to buy these...

So let me get this right, people buy PCCBs because:
a) money is no object (great, mazel tov!)...and you hate brake dust so $8k premium is worth it!

b) they think PCCBs are the 'best' but want to pay another $3k on top for Girodiscs to run at track (not waste the Carbon Cerams) for a grand total of $11k? I'm sure it helps in resale, but you're not getting $8k back...so people are banking in $11k for the next owner to enjoy them?
Hmmmm...but hey if that floats one's boat, by all means...the second hand GT4 crowd will thank you for it.

c) oh, because it's so much lighter and you feel that all the time? hmmmm...doubt that. It's definitely lighter, but doubt the avg. person can feel or appreciate it.

d) because they're better than iron brakes on the daily? but apparently above they're not...and we all know 380mm irons for a Cayman level car are more than adequate.

Originally Posted by Larry Cable

Do you think using pejorative language like this is really called for on a forum where we are supposed to be sharing an interest in Porsche cars ...

I'm going to stop here ... because I might say something you might find personally offensive.