Braking Distance CCB vs Stock

[MasterP]

If you consider Brakes to be rotating heatsinks you'll get a better picture of CCB's vs std. brakes. CCB has a higher heat threshold, but it also means since they are absorbing more friction they are absorbing and radiating more heat. Heat which effects the fluid, and the wear of the pads. As pads get hotter they wear faster and become thinner, thus losing their ability to manage thermal loads. Also the Caliper has to absorb and hold a lot of heat from the pads.

Yes, if all the equipment being new or newish the performance should be equal to steel brakes given 7-10 laps. CCB's advantage to fade resistance is dependent on the pads being able to utilize the extra heat capacity, and proper cooling to manage the increased heat holding capacity of the carbon rotors. Not to mention upgrading the fluid. As it comes off the showroom the car is not suited for agressive or extended track use.

Loss of brake feel/pedal travel on CCB's is likely a byproduct of increased radiant heat effecting the brake fluid.

I've tracked a F10 M5 with CCB's while instructing a DE. The pedal travel was 70 percent gone after three corners. Should have known since stock fluid is rated to 475F. Switched to RBF 600 in the paddock and lost a session. It still wasn't perfect as there was increasing fade on the 10th plus laps. This was likely the Fluid heating up from the radiant heat. The pad life indicators on the idrive started @ 70,000 miles and by the time I was done for the day it was already alerting for service with pads 3,000 miles remaining. This was after 6, 20 minute sessions on a brake abusive track. This as I mentioned before is very different from how most pressers will ever experience the vehicles so anything they say should be taken with a grain of salt.

CCB's won't have much ROI from a upkeep cost perspective. I figure each Steel rotor is $380 each like the E92. So how many steel rotors can you go through to equal the initial cost of the CCB's? I don't think the cost will be recouped in resale either. How many second hand owners will see that as a plus? "Aw crap I may have to shell out $XXXX for brakes.

I'm not knocking CCB's - I have them ordered for mine. I just think they're neat, and they'll look great on YMB. I'm excited to run an F8X hard as almost everyone is praising how much sharper it is. With less mass up front, I can believe it. I just know better and will prep accordingly when taking this car to the track. Race Pads, Ti Backing plates, some form of brake ducting, and High High Temp Fluid.

CCB's for the ///M division is as much a marketing decision as it is a performance and engineering decision. The Tech is not new by any means and it's not as if BMW engineers are boneheads and don't see the merits of less 10+ pounds reduced mass per corner. Their cars are competing with P cars for customers - which have had CCB's as options forever. Now even 'Vettes have them and those are technologically dinosaurs in comparison.

[Dalko43]

Originally Posted by CanAutM3

You however, are on the other side of the spectrum trying to justify the CCB no matter what.

If you read my many posts in the various threads on the topic, I have always recognized the benefits of the CCB. However, it is important to be realistic on what those benefits are. I have always argued that those benefits are not worth the cost TO ME.

I have discussed all aspects of brake performance here. Starting with braking distances, resistance to fade and then feel and consistency. I was only responding to your arguments trying to justify the CCB.

I want reviewers to conduct more long-term tests of the m4's CCB option to see how they compare to the stock setup...I don't think that's trying to justify the CCB brake setup, but if you disagree whatever.

Also much of your discussion on Carbon ceramics have been focused on past performance by Prosches' PCCB option. Like I said before, I'm sure it shares similar performance aspects with BMW, but I'd prefer to see BMW's CCB option tested and evaluated on its own merits.

[Dalko43]

Originally Posted by CanAutM3

Car & Driver did a brake comparo test a little while back. Both, a 911 with the PCCB and one with the base iron discs were included in the test. See here.

Originally Posted by M4TW

He posted the link above.

www.caranddriver.com/features/the-power-to-stop

Yeah, I was able to bring up the Car & Driver article just fine. But the article did not have that comparison chart that @CanAutM3 posted (or at least I couldn't find it on the article). I am wondering where that chart came from.

The article itself only talked about stopping distances when comparing the stock brakes to the PCCB option for the Porsche. Where did @CanAutM3 get the chart which showed fade progression?

I do have a problem with Car&Driver's conclusion.

The average stopping distances of the two 911s were within a foot of each other (305 feet), not surprising since both cars were wearing the same tires. The Corvette averaged 326 feet. The conclusion: PCCB buyers enjoy a 37-pound weight savings but not necessarily more robust brakes.

That argument above really ignores the true strengths of a carbon ceramic brake setup: consistent stopping power over long-term tracking. I think most of us here understand that a PCCB-optioned Porsche won't necessarily stop any quicker than a stock-brake Porsche.

The real question is how does the performance of the 2 setup's for a BMW compare over the course of a 30-40 minute track session?

[CanAutM3]

Originally Posted by Dalko43

Yeah, I was able to bring up the Car & Driver article just fine. But the article did not have that comparison chart that @CanAutM3 posted (or at least I couldn't find it on the article). I am wondering where that chart came from.

The article itself only talked about stopping distances when comparing the stock brakes to the PCCB option for the Porsche. Where did @CanAutM3 get the chart which showed fade progression?

If you go on the page of the article, on the right you will see a "Downloads" section. The graphs are there.

Originally Posted by Dalko43

I do have a problem with Car&Driver's conclusion.

That argument above really ignores the true strengths of a carbon ceramic brake setup: consistent stopping power over long-term tracking. I think most of us here understand that a PCCB-optioned Porsche won't necessarily stop any quicker than a stock-brake Porsche.

The real question is how does the performance of the 2 setup's for a BMW compare over the course of a 30-40 minute track session?

You are pretty stubborn on this one, I keep repeating that the PCCB did not show any better resistance to fading compared to the iron rotors in the C&D article. Thier conclusion is accurate, look at the graphs. Feels like ground hog day .

Again, as was discussed more than once, stock for stock, the CCB will likely have better fade resitance at the track, I am not disputing this. However, anyone that seriously itends to track their car with the iron rotors will very likely use track pads. And with track pads, the irons will perform as needed at a much lower cost than the CCB. For street use, the iron rotors with the stock pads will likely never reach their fade limit. So it is sort of a useless discussion to compare the two stock setups at the rack.

I also doubt we will have such a detailed review on the F8X CCB vs iron rotors in any publication. We will need to rely on different sources of information, such as owner feedback, to draw any conclusions.

[CanAutM3]

Originally Posted by TrakBch

If you consider Brakes to be rotating heatsinks you'll get a better picture of CCB's vs std. brakes. CCB has a higher heat threshold, but it also means since they are absorbing more friction they are absorbing and radiating more heat. Heat which effects the fluid, and the wear of the pads. As pads get hotter they wear faster and become thinner, thus losing their ability to manage thermal loads. Also the Caliper has to absorb and hold a lot of heat from the pads.

Yes, if all the equipment being new or newish the performance should be equal to steel brakes given 7-10 laps. CCB's advantage to fade resistance is dependent on the pads being able to utilize the extra heat capacity, and proper cooling to manage the increased heat holding capacity of the carbon rotors. Not to mention upgrading the fluid. As it comes off the showroom the car is not suited for agressive or extended track use.

Loss of brake feel/pedal travel on CCB's is likely a byproduct of increased radiant heat effecting the brake fluid.

I've tracked a F10 M5 with CCB's while instructing a DE. The pedal travel was 70 percent gone after three corners. Should have known since stock fluid is rated to 475F. Switched to RBF 600 in the paddock and lost a session. It still wasn't perfect as there was increasing fade on the 10th plus laps. This was likely the Fluid heating up from the radiant heat. The pad life indicators on the idrive started @ 70,000 miles and by the time I was done for the day it was already alerting for service with pads 3,000 miles remaining. This was after 6, 20 minute sessions on a brake abusive track. This as I mentioned before is very different from how most pressers will ever experience the vehicles so anything they say should be taken with a grain of salt.

CCB's won't have much ROI from a upkeep cost perspective. I figure each Steel rotor is $380 each like the E92. So how many steel rotors can you go through to equal the initial cost of the CCB's? I don't think the cost will be recouped in resale either. How many second hand owners will see that as a plus? "Aw crap I may have to shell out $XXXX for brakes.

I'm not knocking CCB's - I have them ordered for mine. I just think they're neat, and they'll look great on YMB. I'm excited to run an F8X hard as almost everyone is praising how much sharper it is. With less mass up front, I can believe it. I just know better and will prep accordingly when taking this car to the track. Race Pads, Ti Backing plates, some form of brake ducting, and High High Temp Fluid.

CCB's for the ///M division is as much a marketing decision as it is a performance and engineering decision. The Tech is not new by any means and it's not as if BMW engineers are boneheads and don't see the merits of less 10+ pounds reduced mass per corner. Their cars are competing with P cars for customers - which have had CCB's as options forever. Now even 'Vettes have them and those are technologically dinosaurs in comparison.

Excellent post

[Black Gold]

Originally Posted by TrakBch

If you consider Brakes to be rotating heatsinks you'll get a better picture of CCB's vs std. brakes. CCB has a higher heat threshold, but it also means since they are absorbing more friction they are absorbing and radiating more heat. Heat which effects the fluid, and the wear of the pads. As pads get hotter they wear faster and become thinner, thus losing their ability to manage thermal loads. Also the Caliper has to absorb and hold a lot of heat from the pads.

Yes, if all the equipment being new or newish the performance should be equal to steel brakes given 7-10 laps. CCB's advantage to fade resistance is dependent on the pads being able to utilize the extra heat capacity, and proper cooling to manage the increased heat holding capacity of the carbon rotors. Not to mention upgrading the fluid. As it comes off the showroom the car is not suited for agressive or extended track use.

Loss of brake feel/pedal travel on CCB's is likely a byproduct of increased radiant heat effecting the brake fluid.

I've tracked a F10 M5 with CCB's while instructing a DE. The pedal travel was 70 percent gone after three corners. Should have known since stock fluid is rated to 475F. Switched to RBF 600 in the paddock and lost a session. It still wasn't perfect as there was increasing fade on the 10th plus laps. This was likely the Fluid heating up from the radiant heat. The pad life indicators on the idrive started @ 70,000 miles and by the time I was done for the day it was already alerting for service with pads 3,000 miles remaining. This was after 6, 20 minute sessions on a brake abusive track. This as I mentioned before is very different from how most pressers will ever experience the vehicles so anything they say should be taken with a grain of salt.

CCB's won't have much ROI from a upkeep cost perspective. I figure each Steel rotor is $380 each like the E92. So how many steel rotors can you go through to equal the initial cost of the CCB's? I don't think the cost will be recouped in resale either. How many second hand owners will see that as a plus? "Aw crap I may have to shell out $XXXX for brakes.

I'm not knocking CCB's - I have them ordered for mine. I just think they're neat, and they'll look great on YMB. I'm excited to run an F8X hard as almost everyone is praising how much sharper it is. With less mass up front, I can believe it. I just know better and will prep accordingly when taking this car to the track. Race Pads, Ti Backing plates, some form of brake ducting, and High High Temp Fluid.

CCB's for the ///M division is as much a marketing decision as it is a performance and engineering decision. The Tech is not new by any means and it's not as if BMW engineers are boneheads and don't see the merits of less 10+ pounds reduced mass per corner. Their cars are competing with P cars for customers - which have had CCB's as options forever. Now even 'Vettes have them and those are technologically dinosaurs in comparison.

excellent post, thank you for sharing. great knowledge combined with real world experience

[Dalko43]

Originally Posted by CanAutM3

You are pretty stubborn on this one, I keep repeating that the PCCB did not show any better resistance to fading compared to the iron rotors in the C&D article. Thier conclusion is accurate, look at the graphs. Feels like ground hog day .

And I keep repeating that we need to see BMW's CCB performance tested rather than rely on past tests of Porsche's PCCB option before we jump to conclusions.

I have also repeated that testing CCB vs stock brakes over repeated lap sessions, rather than arbitrary 100mph to 0 stop trials would yield a much more accurate reflection of the CCB's track performance, or lack thereof.

Originally Posted by CanAutM3

I also doubt we will have such a detailed review on the F8X CCB vs iron rotors in any publication. We will need to rely on different sources of information, such as owner feedback, to draw any conclusions.

There is no reason for such doubt. The car hasn't even been out for a few months yet and there are plenty of professional journalists and owners who are willing and able to share their experiences. This is the age of youtube and google, where sharing such info is easier than it was in years past.

[Dalko43]

@TrakBch, I had some questions regarding your post.

Originally Posted by TrakBch

If you consider Brakes to be rotating heatsinks you'll get a better picture of CCB's vs std. brakes. CCB has a higher heat threshold, but it also means since they are absorbing more friction they are absorbing and radiating more heat. Heat which effects the fluid, and the wear of the pads. As pads get hotter they wear faster and become thinner, thus losing their ability to manage thermal loads. Also the Caliper has to absorb and hold a lot of heat from the pads.

1) Why do Carbon Ceramics absorb more friction than a similarly sized iron rotor setup?

Edit: Don't Carbon Ceramics inherently have a greater ability to absorb heat and act somewhat as heat insulators? Obviously there is still heat transfer between the rotors/pads/fluids, but there is much more heat dissipation than with iron rotors right? And the key thing to remember is that though carbon ceramic brakes may experience a higher heat threshold than iron rotors, it doesn't necessarily mean they will. Put another way, on a 30 minute track session, iron rotors will experience x% of their heat capacity, but carbon ceramics, by their nature should experience some % of their heat capacity less than x, right? Thus you have an ability to drive longer before you experience an unsustainable heat buildup.


2)Does not the increased heating of fluids and calipers and increased wear of the pads also affect iron rotors/steel brakes in a similar way?

Edit:The issue with the pad wear, caliper and fluid heating seems to equally apply to both Carbon Ceramic and regular steel brakes. The additional heat will only occur on the Carbon Ceramic setup if you are driving and braking that much harder than you are with the steel setup. So while you might cook steel brakes after a certain amount of hard driving, carbon ceramics should be able continue provide stopping power because of their higher heat dissipation right? Pads and fluids will be limiting factors for both setups, but how much more of a lifespan do carbon ceramic rotors offer over iron ones under similar conditions?

Originally Posted by TrakBch

Yes, if all the equipment being new or newish the performance should be equal to steel brakes given 7-10 laps. CCB's advantage to fade resistance is dependent on the pads being able to utilize the extra heat capacity, and proper cooling to manage the increased heat holding capacity of the carbon rotors. Not to mention upgrading the fluid.

3) Doesn't CCB's dependency on the pads' heat capacity also apply to steel brakes?

Originally Posted by TrakBch

Loss of brake feel/pedal travel on CCB's is likely a byproduct of increased radiant heat effecting the brake fluid.

I've tracked a F10 M5 with CCB's while instructing a DE. The pedal travel was 70 percent gone after three corners. Should have known since stock fluid is rated to 475F. Switched to RBF 600 in the paddock and lost a session. It still wasn't perfect as there was increasing fade on the 10th plus laps. This was likely the Fluid heating up from the radiant heat. The pad life indicators on the idrive started @ 70,000 miles and by the time I was done for the day it was already alerting for service with pads 3,000 miles remaining. This was after 6, 20 minute sessions on a brake abusive track. This as I mentioned before is very different from how most pressers will ever experience the vehicles so anything they say should be taken with a grain of salt.

4) You say in your track experience with the F10 M5 CCB, you lost significant pedal feel over the course of the session. My question is how much braking performance (stopping consistency) did you lose? Many people erroneously confuse the pedal feel with actual stopping power, but the two aren't always related. The fluids may have overheated, but the brakes could still be providing the same stopping power.

5) You said you pretty much burned through a set of pads after (6) 20 minute track sessions. Is that not normal? Pads, I'd imagine, will get eaten up quickly, even if they are track-specific ones..that just seems to be the cost of pushing the car hard, regardless of your brake setup.
The real question is how much life was left on the Carbon Ceramic rotors?

[CanAutM3]

Originally Posted by Dalko43

And I keep repeating that we need to see BMW's CCB performance tested rather than rely on past tests of Porsche's PCCB option before we jump to conclusions.

I have also repeated that testing CCB vs stock brakes over repeated lap sessions, rather than arbitrary 100mph to 0 stop trials would yield a much more accurate reflection of the CCB's track performance, or lack thereof.



There is no reason for such doubt. The car hasn't even been out for a few months yet and there are plenty of professional journalists and owners who are willing and able to share their experiences. This is the age of youtube and google, where sharing such info is easier than it was in years past.

I give up

[Dalko43]

Originally Posted by CanAutM3

I give up

I am asking questions about the performance characteristics of Carbon Ceramic Brakes (which is the main topic of this thread). If you don't want to add something useful to this conversation, you are welcome to go elsewhere...it's a big enough forum for that.

[Dalko43]

Originally Posted by TrakBch

Their cars are competing with P cars for customers - which have had CCB's as options forever. Now even 'Vettes have them and those are technologically dinosaurs in comparison.

How did I miss that part in bold earlier? That statement is wrong in so many ways.

[CanAutM3]

Originally Posted by Dalko43

I am asking questions about the performance characteristics of Carbon Ceramic Brakes (which is the main topic of this thread). If you don't want to add something useful to this conversation, you are welcome to go elsewhere...it's a big enough forum for that.

And I have replied to your questions with available facts.

You keep misquoting my responses, that is trolling.

If you consider a formal test between the BMW CCB and iron rotors as the only valid source of information, let's just stop the discussion right here and wait for such a test to be available .

[M4TW]

Originally Posted by TrakBch

If you consider Brakes to be rotating heatsinks you'll get a better picture of CCB's vs std. brakes. CCB has a higher heat threshold, but it also means since they are absorbing more friction they are absorbing and radiating more heat. Heat which effects the fluid, and the wear of the pads. As pads get hotter they wear faster and become thinner, thus losing their ability to manage thermal loads. Also the Caliper has to absorb and hold a lot of heat from the pads.

Yes, if all the equipment being new or newish the performance should be equal to steel brakes given 7-10 laps. CCB's advantage to fade resistance is dependent on the pads being able to utilize the extra heat capacity, and proper cooling to manage the increased heat holding capacity of the carbon rotors. Not to mention upgrading the fluid. As it comes off the showroom the car is not suited for agressive or extended track use.

Loss of brake feel/pedal travel on CCB's is likely a byproduct of increased radiant heat effecting the brake fluid.

I've tracked a F10 M5 with CCB's while instructing a DE. The pedal travel was 70 percent gone after three corners. Should have known since stock fluid is rated to 475F. Switched to RBF 600 in the paddock and lost a session. It still wasn't perfect as there was increasing fade on the 10th plus laps. This was likely the Fluid heating up from the radiant heat. The pad life indicators on the idrive started @ 70,000 miles and by the time I was done for the day it was already alerting for service with pads 3,000 miles remaining. This was after 6, 20 minute sessions on a brake abusive track. This as I mentioned before is very different from how most pressers will ever experience the vehicles so anything they say should be taken with a grain of salt.

CCB's won't have much ROI from a upkeep cost perspective. I figure each Steel rotor is $380 each like the E92. So how many steel rotors can you go through to equal the initial cost of the CCB's? I don't think the cost will be recouped in resale either. How many second hand owners will see that as a plus? "Aw crap I may have to shell out $XXXX for brakes.

I'm not knocking CCB's - I have them ordered for mine. I just think they're neat, and they'll look great on YMB. I'm excited to run an F8X hard as almost everyone is praising how much sharper it is. With less mass up front, I can believe it. I just know better and will prep accordingly when taking this car to the track. Race Pads, Ti Backing plates, some form of brake ducting, and High High Temp Fluid.

CCB's for the ///M division is as much a marketing decision as it is a performance and engineering decision. The Tech is not new by any means and it's not as if BMW engineers are boneheads and don't see the merits of less 10+ pounds reduced mass per corner. Their cars are competing with P cars for customers - which have had CCB's as options forever. Now even 'Vettes have them and those are technologically dinosaurs in comparison.

Mighty fine TrkBch!

I look forward to your driving impressions. Meanwhile, do you see any differences between the set up in the M3/4 vs. the M5 that you drove that might affect your conclusions?

Also on resale, the same coolness factor will be there that persuaded you to buy them even if a decent ROI case can't be made out. "Ahhhh .... I see you got the ceramics!!!!" your purchaser will exclaim.

The goldilocks bling will live on.

[Dalko43]

Originally Posted by CanAutM3

And I have replied to your questions with available facts.

Facts that relate to the performance characteristics of Porsche's PCCB option, not BMW's CCB option.

Originally Posted by CanAutM3

You keep misquoting my responses, that is trolling.

Not sure which of your posts I misquoted.

As I said before, I am interested in discussing discussing carbon ceramic brake performance....you obviously are only interested in calling me a troll. There are plenty of other threads where you can express your views...please feel free to do so.

[FTS]

Originally Posted by CanAutM3

I give up

If I may...

You obviously have track experience; however, I am not sure you visit tracks other than Mont Tremblant. That circuit, although I have not driven it personally, probably has 1 or 2 hard braking zone, and 2-3 moderate braking zones. So, you having such great time with E92 stock brakes is not necessarily an indication of the braking performance/endurance and I am confident the F8x brakes will work just as fine or better there as well.

At the end, it just does not matter really. You made a choice and others made another choice. What you may not be realizing is that your posts are coming across as defensive as the rest of us, hence invites the responses you call trolling. Adding the phrase "...to me" is not helping either frankly, because of the general tone of your posts

Also, we all tend to view information as facts from the lenses we each wear. The example of the Porsche brakes you put forth is for gen 2 PCCBs, and you are forgetting about the other factors that come to play. For example, Porsche rotors have very specific cooling vanes (very similar to Brembo SGL), we do not know the vane design of the BMW iron rotors. More importantly, the calipers used on that test are practically the same between iron and PCCB versions, the brake booster I believe is different, the master cylinder is different between the models. The F8x calipers between the two version are of highly different design; one is a BMW design and the other Brembo SGL design, not to mention the number of pistons; I don't know about you, but I trust Brembo a lot more than BMW when it is about brakes. Equally importantly, Porsche has specific cooling both for front and rear brakes, BMW does not.

So, you are evaluating the difference through your lenses and that is OK, but keep in mind that you (and all of us) maybe missing some information and we have to keep in mind that it is not just the rotor that you should be evaluating. So, for example, through the lenses I am wearing, the base brakes will not be adequate. In case the base brakes are not adequate, upgrading them to any aftermarket or BMW CCB will be more costly and technically more difficult. So, if I get CCBs now, I can always easily downgrade, for what ever reason, to iron version by just changing the rotors and not give up the 'superb' SGL calipers. So, to me, the CCBs are a no brainer, but not for the reasons that the rotors are carbon ceramic

Be safe and have fun with your new car, looks very nice.

[CanAutM3]

Originally Posted by FTS

If I may...

You obviously have track experience; however, I am not sure you visit tracks other than Mont Tremblant. That circuit, although I have not driven it personally, probably has 1 or 2 hard braking zone, and 2-3 moderate braking zones. So, you having such great time with E92 stock brakes is not necessarily an indication of the braking performance/endurance and I am confident the F8x brakes will work just as fine or better there as well.

At the end, it just does not matter really. You made a choice and others made another choice. What you may not be realizing is that your posts are coming across as defensive as the rest of us, hence invites the responses you call trolling. Adding the phrase "...to me" is not helping either frankly, because of the general tone of your posts

Also, we all tend to view information as facts from the lenses we each wear. The example of the Porsche brakes you put forth is for gen 2 PCCBs, and you are forgetting about the other factors that come to play. For example, Porsche rotors have very specific cooling vanes (very similar to Brembo SGL), we do not know the vane design of the BMW iron rotors. More importantly, the calipers used on that test are practically the same between iron and PCCB versions, the brake booster I believe is different, the master cylinder is different between the models. The F8x calipers between the two version are of highly different design; one is a BMW design and the other Brembo SGL design, not to mention the number of pistons; I don't know about you, but I trust Brembo a lot more than BMW when it is about brakes. Equally importantly, Porsche has specific cooling both for front and rear brakes, BMW does not.

So, you are evaluating the difference through your lenses and that is OK, but keep in mind that you (and all of us) maybe missing some information and we have to keep in mind that it is not just the rotor that you should be evaluating. So, for example, through the lenses I am wearing, the base brakes will not be adequate. In case the base brakes are not adequate, upgrading them to any aftermarket or BMW CCB will be more costly and technically more difficult. So, if I get CCBs now, I can always easily downgrade, for what ever reason, to iron version by just changing the rotors and not give up the 'superb' SGL calipers. So, to me, the CCBs are a no brainer, but not for the reasons that the rotors are carbon ceramic

Be safe and have fun with your new car, looks very nice.

The reason I called "trolling" is because the other poster kept mis-quoting my responses, which led the discussion into circles. Not because we dissagree.

I am sorry if my posts came out as defensive, that was not the intention. This is a public forum and I see a discussion between two posters as being information to other readers (otherwise the exchange should be done through PMs). I just want to ensure that other readers get the counterpoint.

When ordering my M4, I did seriously consider the CCB option since my car serves the dual purpose of a Daily Driver and track car. I wanted the best performance for the dollar, so I looked at it with a very open mind (I actually really wanted the CCBs). Since a side-by-side comparisons of the BMW CCB vs irons was not available (still is not today), I had to use information that was available when taking this decision and the C&D article was one source of input (not the only one). After anaylizing the available information, I came to the conclusion that the CCB were likely to be too costly for my use (also considering that the CCB forces the use of costlier 19" tires).

I did post that the stress on a brake system is track dependent. I have also learnt from expereince that the stress on a bake system is also very driver dependent. When I started tracking, I used to constantly cook my brakes. I enventually learned (through input from experienced trackers) how to better manage my brakes and it made a huge difference. A difference that can be felt in the wallet too .

While Mont-Tremblant is my home track, my experience is far from limited to that track. I go to other track such as Calabogie, Mosport, WGI, St-Eustache and Sanair each year. They are all quite different and I never sufferd from brake issues. But I did witness plenty of folks that cooked their brakes at any of these tracks (as I did mylsef in my early years). That being said, I am sure there are tracks that are much tougher on brakes out there.

I did post more than once that which option different buyers will select remains a personal choice, there is no right or wrong answer. I find it very nice that BMW offers us the option to choose. If in your evaluation the CCB are worth it to you, than I will not dispute it. It is personal.

The CCB setup is a higher performing option than the iron setup. I am not debating this. There is however a crowd that swears only by CCBs (have a read in the various other threads). I just want to highlight that there is a cost to that performance and, IMO, that it certainly is not a "must have" option, even for the avid trackers.

[FTS]

I do believe we are all on the same page frankly. Yes, proper braking requires experienced technique, and I do also agree that CCBs are not going to solve all problems or that they are the 'ultimate' solution for tracking. As TrackBitch () eloquently pointed out, there are many other dependencies. At the end, we are making choices with limited information, and although I love discussion technical issues, sometimes our posts go overboard and become a race in itself about who is right or wrong.

Cheers, and happy and safe tracking

[gsrbri]

If I recall correctly, the BMW CCB package offers a larger rotor than the cast iron disc set-up, therefore, it will generate more braking torque...all other factors being equal. However, tires, driving style, etc. contribute to stopping distances and may limit the benefit of this additional torque.

Bottom-line - it is a more advanced, lighter-weight, and costlier set-up than the standard brakes. I decided on the standard brakes due to my usual heavy (about 10 events/year) track use. If I wasn't concerned w/high replacement cost, I'd have gone w/the CCB set-up. The unsprung weight alone is a very significant advantage.

Heated discussion. I like it.

-Brian

[FTS]

I hope this is not a repeat, but as I was just reading the Top Gear test article (25 different vehicles), I think you all saw that already in which they were not very complementary of the M4, I noticed the instrumented testing table at the end. Here is a condensed version of those results, although this was not a test focusing solely on brakes, it presents some data points:

[CanAutM3]

Originally Posted by FTS

I hope this is not a repeat, but as I was just reading the Top Gear test article (25 different vehicles), I think you all saw that already in which they were not very complementary of the M4, I noticed the instrumented testing table at the end. Here is a condensed version of those results, although this was not a test focusing solely on brakes, it presents some data points:

Interesting data points. While this is not not the most scientific conclusion, the table seems to indicate that the CCB do not offer any braking distance advantage over a single stop .

[gthal]

Originally Posted by CanAutM3

Interesting data points. While this is not not the most scientific conclusion, the table seems to indicate that the CCB do not offer any braking distance advantage over a single stop .

Wasn't that a prediction made earlier?

[BhamDavid]

A story: A year or so ago I did a major overhaul of my braking system: new high quality disks, Akabono pads, SS lines, meticulously bled the lines with new fluid.

I can't say my stopping distances improved, but now I can feel what's going on at the tires under braking like I never could before. I think I just hit a great combo of components. In fact, I now enjoying braking as much as accelerating.

The point is that stopping distances are a very small part of evaluating braking systems. I'm not saying CCB's are better than the steel discs, although at least one reviewer stated that the CCB's were the best part of the car, but rather than don't get so hung up on braking distance as a measure of the quality of the system.