In explaining the long way: I haven't posted this in the other thread as those threads get to be arguments with little factual and usable info, however, what you posted last and how
gthal responded were mostly correct about the kinetic energy to heat conversion, which is valid for all brake systems obviously. There is one very critical point that most either don't understand or omit is that the CCB 'system' works based on adhesive friction and not abrasive friction. What this means is that as heat builds up between pads and rotors, a chemical bonding occurs between the two and with increased heat (up to a point) the chemical bond's strength increases. So, the kinetic to heat conversion is achieved through a different method; adhesive vs. abrasive.
This results in few differences between the brake
systems:
(1) the pads oxidize with heat and be consumed, but also provide increased performance with increased heat (again, up to a point). So, it is possible to exert track duty on the basic street CCB pads, they will not fade as their iron counterparts in similar situations, but their oxidation rate is higher than that of track-oriented CCB pads. As far as I know, comparing RSC pad compounds, there isn't a significant increase the coefficient of friction, but the RSCs are much more durable to oxidation depending on the compound (RSC1, 2, or 3). Those compounds are similar to RS19 vs RS29, etc.
(2) Because the brake system requires very little initial abrasive friction to generate the initial heat, so that adhesive friction takes over, the rotor surface wear is minimal compared to irons. This also means that the compound choice is important for street vs. track duty. The OEM pads are naturally geared towards street duty and designed (by Pagid) to react to minimal heat to start creating adhesive friction. However, because there is minimal abrasive friction, some people not understanding the differences in how brake torque is generated differently get caught by surprise in rainy conditions or after car washes. Water and other chemicals inhibit or delay the creation of the adhesive friction to various degrees, hence varying levels of delays are experienced in braking performance.
At the end, what I am trying to state is that I am not surprised with the pad wear as they are still street pads designed for different operating conditions than the track. I change these pads before reaching 50% wear, because I am told by Pagid and others that as the pad thickness decreases and consequently their heat sink capacity, I would be exchanging the wear with rotor oxidation. It is important to keep the rotors below oxidation temps, 1150 Fdeg in the case of MCCBs. Thus far I have been able to do that. The black dust we see in post 58 is apparently pad material, which tells me that, expectedly, the wear rate on the pads increase (probably exponentially) as they get down on thickness. With PFC08s or RS29s, I would also get down to 15-20% before changing them. In this case, I am not taking the risk, but I'll be swapping pads between street and track to increase use of what is left on the pads, so the 60-65% worn pads are not trashed
As for cost of the pads, I will have a lot more use of the old pads, so jury is still out, and the better comparison will come when we have RSC pads to play with. Until then, your point is valid though
