CCBs on Track - Feedback Collection

[CanAutM3]

Originally Posted by SYT_Shadow

I don't know, but this is TCKline we're talking about, not some random newbie.

The guy was chasing down GTRs, etc. The article was about the TCKline suspension for the F8X which he is developing.

It is just that his feedback is contrary to all the other feedback so far...

[SYT_Shadow]

Originally Posted by CanAutM3

It is just that his feedback is contrary to all the other feedback so far...

I know, which is why I can't say anything for sure. On one side you have someone who says that with OEM pads it can be tracked all day long on steel discs -a feat for any car in the world- and on the other someone who prefers the E9x brake system, which is not very good, to the apparent upgrade BMW did

I don't have a dog in the race, I'll run the Z54/45 BBK for the next few seasons

[FTS]

Originally Posted by CanAutM3

But the resulting increase in unsprung mass would be quite significant. Bigger and heavier calipers plus huge and heavy iron discs. For sure the braking capability would be superior, but if the base irons are sufficient, why pay the penalty of the extra mass?

I suspect the increase in unsprung weight would be 1-2 kg per corner, no more. If we believe we cannot feel the difference of -2 kg for using ceramic rotors vs. standard irons, the same has to be true for +2 kg

I think we beat up on the issue of irons vs. ceramics quite a bit already; my point with the latest post is if someone is worried about ceramic replacement costs, the iron replacements are available

[CanAutM3]

Originally Posted by FTS

I suspect the increase in unsprung weight would be 1-2 kg per corner, no more. If we believe we cannot feel the difference of -2 kg for using ceramic rotors vs. standard irons, the same has to be true for +2 kg

I think we beat up on the issue of irons vs. ceramics quite a bit already; my point with the latest post is if someone is worried about ceramic replacement costs, the iron replacements are available

I am more under the impression that it is well over 5kg (11lb) per corner (comparing the base irons setup versus the CCB calipers with replacement irons).

In previous threads, it was discussed the CCB clipers add about ~13lb total while the CCB rotors themselves are ~28lb lighter than the irons. So 13lb+28lb = 41lb /4 /2.2 = ~5kg per corner. Then, over and above that, factor that the CCB sized irons discs will be quite heavier than the smaller base irons discs.

[FTS]

^^^ you may very well be right , nevertheless I'd still opt in for those than $12K replacement ceramics

[Cloud9blue]

Originally Posted by SYT_Shadow

I don't know, but this is TCKline we're talking about, not some random newbie.

The guy was chasing down GTRs, etc. The article was about the TCKline suspension for the F8X which he is developing.

He was running stock pads with slick tired. Strange setup if you ask me...

[FTS]

Today took a look at the pads more closely first time after the last event, took the calipers out and measured thickness.

The pads look pretty good at this time, no chunking or pad bits falling off. Left and right sides look and measure the same, the rotors are in great shape thus far.

So, car now has 4,900 miles, 3 autoxes, 3 track days (1 by my son, 2 by me). The pads measure 11.5 mm in thickness. I did not check the rears as they look brand new frankly even from the outside.

I also bought a new set of front pads in case I needed to change them, and thankfully I can keep the original ones still. They measure 15 mm in thickness, so I consumed 3.5 mm thus far. Keeping to the target of using pads only up to 50% consumption at the track, I have another 4 to 4.5 mm to go with these pads, however, I am sure wear will accelerate as more pad material is worn out. Once I change to new pads, I can still use these old pads for the street, no issues there.

Another note for those that are worried about dropping the wheel onto the rotors and damage them: I found that to be near impossible. I changed wheels three times thus far and did drop them slightly (heavy suckers, hate gyms ) and the backing plates don't allow the wheels touch the rotors, and similarly the calipers are also in the way. So no problems thus far

[SYT_Shadow]

Originally Posted by FTS

Another note for those that are worried about dropping the wheel onto the rotors and damage them: I found that to be near impossible. I changed wheels three times thus far and did drop them slightly (heavy suckers, hate gyms ) and the backing plates don't allow the wheels touch the rotors, and similarly the calipers are also in the way. So no problems thus far

This is an easy thing to solve: studs. Also makes wheel install a lot easier!

[MatthewDavid]

Someone mentioned there was a wheel guide of sorts, but I don't remember what it's called. It helps you get the wheel off, but it's not studs. Any idea what I'm talking about (haha) and if it's worthwhile to get?

Originally Posted by SYT_Shadow

This is an easy thing to solve: studs. Also makes wheel install a lot easier!

[SYT_Shadow]

Originally Posted by MatthewDavid

Someone mentioned there was a wheel guide of sorts, but I don't remember what it's called. It helps you get the wheel off, but it's not studs. Any idea what I'm talking about (haha) and if it's worthwhile to get?

A wheel guide. I think ECS tuning or EAS sells one

EDIT: here it is
http://www.ecstuning.com/ES2636260/

[FTS]

Originally Posted by SYT_Shadow

A wheel guide. I think ECS tuning or EAS sells one

EDIT: here it is
http://www.ecstuning.com/ES2636260/

Yes ^^^ these would work and help regardless of CCBs, better get two

[RingMeister01]

On Thursday I did a track day at Monticello Motorclub and got to put some heat in the brakes. There is a very long straight and that day I saw 150MPH before slamming down to a right hand second gear corner. THE BRAKES ARE PHENOMENAL. Super powerful and consistent. After one session I pulled off and getting out of my M4 I saw the brakes steaming. Initially worried I went back on track and noticed only that the brakes got better as I felt more comfortable braking deeper.

Worth every penny.

[Tempe Mendoan]

Originally Posted by SYT_Shadow

This is an easy thing to solve: studs. Also makes wheel install a lot easier!

studs...

[FTS]

After a second track event, single day, there is quite a bit of good news and possibly some bad news.

Good news: The brakes performed much better for me this time out, primarily because I was more confident in the brakes and was able to use them more effectively through much less distance than my first outing. The track notes can be found here.

The performance and pedal feel were excellent, remained excellent corner after corner and particularly during prolonged sessions (30 mis). They were so effective in fact that I would close the gap significantly to the cars in front regardless of what they were; 911s, Caymans, BMWs (no F8x), Viper, Mustang, etc. Without a doubt some of it is driver related, but I had so much left in reserve that I was afraid of braking too much and causing problems or heart attack to cars behind. Several times I had to brake too early with only a fraction of pedal engagement because cars in front would brake too early. I just had a lot of reserve left in braking performance. And again, the consistency in feel was very confidence inspiring, particularly considering I am still using the original stock pads.

During my first outing, after each session when parked, fumes would emanate from the pads for couple of minutes, which to me showed that I overused the brakes. This time around, there were no fumes at all even though I was faster, but I think I used the brakes better this time around. And there is plenty of pad life left still



The temp paint again showed that the rotors did reach 950 DegF, but stayed below 1,000, so that is good as well.



Now for the possibly bad news: While at the track, I noticed black dust on the wheels. Back home after changing to street setup, I took a closer look at the dust and it was truly black, not dark grey brake dust that I am used to. And during the first outing I had no dust at all on the wheels. So, this dust may very well be brake dust, the different compound used in pads. Or, and this is a big one and hopefully this is the wrong option, it may be carbon deposits from the rotors core. This dust does not stick to the wheels or is not powdery, just some spray of water and it washes off, which is what actually worries me. I need to do more research on this and I cannot draw any conclusions just yet.



Another observation, not an issue, is that the back label layer of the pads are breaking off, they feel like brittle winter leaves and when you touch them they just shatter and fall off:

[/url]

Some people maybe turned off by this as it may distort the good looks

[LDSM]

This is a great thread FTS, thanks for taking the time to share your data with us.
Hopefully more CCB owners can add to this in the future.

I wonder if this could be crossposted in the brakes forum, it's kind of tucked away in here, and I'm sure a lot of other posters would love to follow this thread

[CanAutM3]

Originally Posted by FTS

As for my experience with CCBs on track, I have thus far put only ~170 track miles on them and have ~7500 street miles. My OEM pads are at about 60-65% at this time, car is showing 140K miles before pad change front and rear. However, I am not one that will trust the car and I do believe it is best to not leave pads that are 50% worn for track duty. I have an 3-day event coming up next week, and new front pads are going in for that.

I picked this up from the other thread and moving it here. The other thread is not about track use and I don't want to stir up any more emotions .

I am quite surprised that you need to replace your pads after only 170 track miles. I easily did well over 600 track miles with my front PF08 on my E92 and around twice that with the rears. I would usually let them wear down to about 20~30% before replacing them, which is a bit later than your threshold, but still. I am at over 400 track miles with the RS29 on my F82 and they are not half worn yet. 170 track miles seems very low, are you sure about that number .

If that is truly the case, that would significantly increase the track operating cost of the CCB vs iron. The RS29 pads for the irons retail at $315 vs $587 for the CCB pads on the Turner site .

[nicknaz]

Originally Posted by FTS

PCCB Feedback, worth the read, things seem to be changing in the Porsche world contrary to popular belief on these boards:

http://rennlist.com/forums/991-gt3/8...ck-thread.html

I read that thread, and it seemed like 997.2 gt3 are getting 8-14 days on the front and 20 days in the rear. Which is $$$ as per the old stereo types and the reason for the switch to steels.

There was some speculation that the 918 brakes (and therefore 991 gt3 and 981 gt4) brakes are much improved from a wear standpoint but no one has data, no not sure if that is the "change" you are referencing or if there is something i missed?

[Cloud9blue]

How's the surface roughness of the rotors? Any significant grooving or wear points?

[FTS]

Originally Posted by CanAutM3

I am quite surprised that you need to replace your pads after only 170 track miles. I easily did well over 600 track miles with my front PF08 on my E92 and around twice that with the rears. I would usually let them wear down to about 20~30% before replacing them, which is a bit later than your threshold, but still. I am at over 400 track miles with the RS29 on my F82 and they are not half worn yet. 170 track miles seems very low, are you sure about that number .

Checking my log book, I am at 203 miles, so I was a little off

That being said, the OEM pads are still street pads, not comparable to 08s or RS29s. Pagid's RSC pads are the equivalent to track pads, which they are few months away still from making the pads for the front CCBs, the rears are available. So, when comparing longevity, we should do so with the OEM irons.

Originally Posted by nicknaz

I read that thread, and it seemed like 997.2 gt3 are getting 8-14 days on the front and 20 days in the rear. Which is $$$ as per the old stereo types and the reason for the switch to steels.

Cost is certainly a factor, but two other factors play into the decision: (1) PCCBs have increase resale value, so keeping originals in box and swapping to iron for track rats make not just economic value, but also increase profit value. (2) the iron setup of Porsche is world-renowned for their effectiveness and performance, they are truly superb, built by Brembo to Porsche's specs, particularly on the GT cars. So, by opting to iron on the Porsches you do not lose much performance. With the ///M the iron caliper specs and design vs. the MCCBs are very different, so the value equation is very different, still a personal choice of course.

Originally Posted by nicknaz

There was some speculation that the 918 brakes (and therefore 991 gt3 and 981 gt4) brakes are much improved from a wear standpoint but no one has data, no not sure if that is the "change" you are referencing or if there is something i missed?

The 991, 918, 987s, etc. now all use the Gen 3 PCCBs, which to my best knowledge is exactly the same to MCCBs, except Porsche dictates the specs to Brembo, but I don't know what ///M guys do, probably the same. At least I can confidently say, I have not been able to find any differences between PCCBs and MCCBs, besides rotors sizes.

Another note I'd like to point out here is that one of the most important benefits of carbon ceramic rotors vs. irons is that when they heat up, due to the metallurgical characteristics of carbon carbide primarily coated with ceramic (vs. iron) the heat is distributed across the rotor very evenly, which is never the case with irons. Will you notice this? I doubt it; however, the braking performance and feel remains more consistent over a longer period of time.

Originally Posted by Cloud9blue

How's the surface roughness of the rotors? Any significant grooving or wear points?

None thus far. There won't be any grooving on these rotors through their life time, that is why they put the wear marks, which becomes the only way to visually tell if the rotors should be weighed for wear.

Originally Posted by CanAutM3

If that is truly the case, that would significantly increase the track operating cost of the CCB vs iron. The RS29 pads for the irons retail at $315 vs $587 for the CCB pads on the Turner site .

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

[nicknaz]

If the longevity of the ccb rotor + track pads proves to be high enough on the track that 24 days / 1 year is equivalent to iron rotor + track pads + incremental cost to use 19" tires i will do the ccb retrofit for sure.

Love the idea and the tech concept.

Thanks for sharing your data

[CanAutM3]

Originally Posted by FTS

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

I would just like to precise that adhesive friction is not exclusive to the CCB. My understanding is that every pad has a different proportion of abrasive and adhesive friction. Where more street-able pads have a stronger abrasive bias and more track oriented pads have a greater adhesive bias. That is why track pads need a proper bedding to operate correctly. A thin layer of pad material is necessary on the disc for the adhesive friction to take effect.

Even the stock pads for the irons have some adhesive friction built in. However, since the pads are not intended for track use, when they see sustained high temperatures, they transfer too much material on the rotors smudging them with uneven pad material which results in brake shudder.

[FTS]

Originally Posted by CanAutM3

I would just like to precise that adhesive friction is not exclusive to the CCB.

That is really not my understanding. Adhesive friction is very small part of iron setups vs. the CC stuff. However, admittedly I have never researched what the chemical and physical interactions of iron setups are; that's what we learned on, and kept using I'll do some research and see how this really works