Quote:
Originally Posted by jphughan
Again, you're assuming that people will run performance pads with their steel brakes on the road, and that's just not a fair assumption. The interview clearly indicates that they would be annoying and wasteful to run in that setting, just as any race pads are.
Using M5/6 prices again, if we assume that steel rotors last 50K under street-only driving (not unreasonable, and the rears probably last longer) and that replacing all four steel rotors would cost $2K (probably costs less since rears are smaller), then in order to break even on the $8K CCB option, you'd need to drive the car 250K miles (original factory set plus paying for four new sets of rotors). If the CCB rotors last THAT long (pretty unlikely), then yes I suppose if you will drive your car 250K miles, you can finally say that you broke even. But you'd be waiting a lot longer than 6 years.
As for the rotor chipping, I expect few have had that happen because few M5/6 owners go to the track. But on an M3 where lots of people who track them also have a dedicated set of wheels and tires for the track, it becomes much more likely. But that's also moot because as I just said, the value proposition just isn't there even if that never happens to the owner.
|
I agree with you mostly. But its not about breaking even or a value proposition, its about defraying the initial expenditure to a level where its worth it (different for each individual).
My point is simply that its not an $8k investment over time, its less than that, potentially lots less than that. Maybe its only a $4k investment plus saved time from going to a shop/dealer for each brake job (rotors not pads). Anyway, its not as simple as a flat $8k. For added benefits already mentioned in the article (plus no dust). Again, valued differently for different people. I don't think anyone is saying CCB is cheaper.
