CCB or aftermarket Brembo brakes?

[consolidated]

Originally Posted by absoluteis350

They are now.. Check the new policy/fine print of the maintenance program. There's another thread here about it, but they definitely ARE COVERED now.

Really? If so I'm getting CCBs, I hate brake dust.

[stressdoc]

Originally Posted by gee-m-w

I'm the only guy who's going to buy these brakes, track them, and give the community the results. I appreciate the counterpoints.

It's honestly the best feature of this car. I pity anyone who buys the executive package instead of the CCB. Just get an MB E550 and call it a day if you need all that jazz.

This. I am pretty surprised that this is even a debate. I must first confess that as a former rallye junkie, I am obsessed with unsprung weight. The CCBs are almost 2 kilos lighter each!!! OMG how can anyone contemplate aftermarket BBKs as an alternative to this gift from the M gods???

[Jeff_DML]

Originally Posted by stressdoc

This. I am pretty surprised that this is even a debate. I must first confess that as a former rallye junkie, I am obsessed with unsprung weight. The CCBs are almost 2 kilos lighter each!!! OMG how can anyone contemplate aftermarket BBKs as an alternative to this gift from the M gods???

I remember in the olds day when your only M brake option was single piston brakes

[stressdoc]

I like this thread, some clever folks with reasonable humor. Just wish I had the $ to check the CCB box -- but if I did, I would be getting an i-8 instead of a F80.
Two points:
(1) "mental masturbation" is an old term.
(2) Some of you need to learn when to use "its" and when to use "it's".

[absoluteis350]

Originally Posted by stressdoc

This. I am pretty surprised that this is even a debate. I must first confess that as a former rallye junkie, I am obsessed with unsprung weight. The CCBs are almost 2 kilos lighter each!!! OMG how can anyone contemplate aftermarket BBKs as an alternative to this gift from the M gods???

+2 .. I will also be "one of the (very willing) guinea pigs" that will be more than happy to get CCB, track them, use them in daily driving, and then report back the results.

Originally Posted by stressdoc

(2) Some of you need to learn when to use "its" and when to use "it's".

Its one of those internet conventions where the apostrophe is not used in order to speed up typing and because its irrelevant; we arent writing novels, we are writing barly legibel postz dat ull be lucki if we are able to spell most w0rds c0rr3ctly.

[pb12]

Originally Posted by gee-m-w

I'm the only guy who's going to buy these brakes, track them, and give the community the results. I appreciate the counterpoints.

It's honestly the best feature of this car. I pity anyone who buys the executive package instead of the CCB. Just get an MB E550 and call it a day if you need all that jazz.

You won't be the only one, I'm in too. I have PCCB's on my GT3, and absolutely love them. They have the best brake feel i've ever experienced, and their resistance to fade is remarkable. I have tracked them, and think that is where they really come into their own. As far as noise, i've always been of the opinion that real brakes make noise.

I'll be skipping the executive package, just like you, and ironically...I own an E550 4matic for my daily. Weird....

I just hope BMW is able to match the feel of Porsche's best.

M

[karussell]

there is no tangible difference in brake feel or performance from a pccb equipped gt3 versus steel. the oem pads used on the ceramics is actually not so great for track use as they get chewed up very quickly. replacement is at 50% or equal to width of the backing plate. i have used up pads in a single weekend. if you keep tc/sc on it doubles the wear on the rears.

as the rotors are the same design and from the same company that makes pccb's along with oem ceramics for ferrari and rest of vw group i don't think these will be any different.

with heavy track use the rotors wear much faster. looking forward to your experiements. the porsche group is on their 3rd generation of these brakes and all the way up to the 991 GT3 we would prefer steels for their durability and much more cost effective use.

anyone claiming the pccb's offer a tangible performance benefit show me proof. i doubt it. also there is no street car based racing series ceramics are even allowed to be used on. i'm talking GT2 class cars that cost 350,000 such as the M3 GT2 and 911 GT3 R/RSR. you think that class of cars would be concerned with costs? nope. they don't like using these fragile things. no benefit. the only series i can think of using it is porsche supercup and thats only to keep pushing sales of ceramics to the vast majority of people that buy porsches and never use them.

i checked the pccb box. tracked the car all over europe. still have the car. swapped to steels. am i a single second slower on the ring? nope.

as for bbk or ceramics. i think the oem units are more than adequate for the car once you switch to an endurance pad for track, castrol srf. stainless lines. there is a new aftermarket ceramic brake manufacturer i have been communicating with based out of california. fusionbrakes.com They claim a more realistic 4x life of steel rotors in track conditions and their process allows you to repair chipped rotors. which the ones coming on the M3/M4 will not be able to be repaired. the quoted price for rotors and pads to replace the pccb rotors on a 997.2 GT3 RS was $12K retail versus $16k oem replacement cost (just rotors) at suncoast motors. compare that to a set of PFC steel rotors that last 2x as long as oem steels which cost about $3k for entire car.

no affiliation with fusionbrakes. just thought it was relavant to the thread.

good luck to the 8k giniepigs. been there done that. haha. at least if you have austin yellow or sakhir orange the calipers match better.

[Sedan_Clan]

Originally Posted by karussell

there is no tangible difference in brake feel or performance from a pccb equipped gt3 versus steel. the oem pads used on the ceramics is actually not so great for track use as they get chewed up very quickly. replacement is at 50% or equal to width of the backing plate. i have used up pads in a single weekend. if you keep tc/sc on it doubles the wear on the rears.

as the rotors are the same design and from the same company that makes pccb's along with oem ceramics for ferrari and rest of vw group i don't think these will be any different.

with heavy track use the rotors wear much faster. looking forward to your experiements. the porsche group is on their 3rd generation of these brakes and all the way up to the 991 GT3 we would prefer steels for their durability and much more cost effective use.

anyone claiming the pccb's offer a tangible performance benefit show me proof. i doubt it. also there is no street car based racing series ceramics are even allowed to be used on. i'm talking GT2 class cars that cost 350,000 such as the M3 GT2 and 911 GT3 R/RSR. you think that class of cars would be concerned with costs? nope. they don't like using these fragile things. no benefit. the only series i can think of using it is porsche supercup and thats only to keep pushing sales of ceramics to the vast majority of people that buy porsches and never use them.

i checked the pccb box. tracked the car all over europe. still have the car. swapped to steels. am i a single second slower on the ring? nope.

as for bbk or ceramics. i think the oem units are more than adequate for the car once you switch to an endurance pad for track, castrol srf. stainless lines. there is a new aftermarket ceramic brake manufacturer i have been communicating with based out of california. fusionbrakes.com They claim a more realistic 4x life of steel rotors in track conditions and their process allows you to repair chipped rotors. which the ones coming on the M3/M4 will not be able to be repaired. the quoted price for rotors and pads to replace the pccb rotors on a 997.2 GT3 RS was $12K retail versus $16k oem replacement cost (just rotors) at suncoast motors. compare that to a set of PFC steel rotors that last 2x as long as oem steels which cost about $3k for entire car.

no affiliation with fusionbrakes. just thought it was relavant to the thread.

good luck to the 8k giniepigs. been there done that. haha. at least if you have austin yellow or sakhir orange the calipers match better.

Thanks for that write-up. Most of the Porsche guys who've ordered PCCB's have echoed similar sentiments about the efficacy of the steel rotors. I think some of the BMW forum guys just like to rhapsodize about MCCB's because it's a first for us/BMW. Testing will probably show no real benefit to the MCCB's aside from bragging rights and more aesthetic appeal.

[CanAutM3]

Originally Posted by karussell

there is no tangible difference in brake feel or performance from a pccb equipped gt3 versus steel. the oem pads used on the ceramics is actually not so great for track use as they get chewed up very quickly. replacement is at 50% or equal to width of the backing plate. i have used up pads in a single weekend. if you keep tc/sc on it doubles the wear on the rears.

as the rotors are the same design and from the same company that makes pccb's along with oem ceramics for ferrari and rest of vw group i don't think these will be any different.

with heavy track use the rotors wear much faster. looking forward to your experiements. the porsche group is on their 3rd generation of these brakes and all the way up to the 991 GT3 we would prefer steels for their durability and much more cost effective use.

anyone claiming the pccb's offer a tangible performance benefit show me proof. i doubt it. also there is no street car based racing series ceramics are even allowed to be used on. i'm talking GT2 class cars that cost 350,000 such as the M3 GT2 and 911 GT3 R/RSR. you think that class of cars would be concerned with costs? nope. they don't like using these fragile things. no benefit. the only series i can think of using it is porsche supercup and thats only to keep pushing sales of ceramics to the vast majority of people that buy porsches and never use them.

i checked the pccb box. tracked the car all over europe. still have the car. swapped to steels. am i a single second slower on the ring? nope.

as for bbk or ceramics. i think the oem units are more than adequate for the car once you switch to an endurance pad for track, castrol srf. stainless lines. there is a new aftermarket ceramic brake manufacturer i have been communicating with based out of california. fusionbrakes.com They claim a more realistic 4x life of steel rotors in track conditions and their process allows you to repair chipped rotors. which the ones coming on the M3/M4 will not be able to be repaired. the quoted price for rotors and pads to replace the pccb rotors on a 997.2 GT3 RS was $12K retail versus $16k oem replacement cost (just rotors) at suncoast motors. compare that to a set of PFC steel rotors that last 2x as long as oem steels which cost about $3k for entire car.

no affiliation with fusionbrakes. just thought it was relavant to the thread.

good luck to the 8k giniepigs. been there done that. haha. at least if you have austin yellow or sakhir orange the calipers match better.

Thanks for the write-up, it's the kind of info I am looking for .

It echoes very well the feedback I got from my track buddies with 911s (GT3 and Turbo) that tried the PCCBs.

[signes]

Originally Posted by karussell

there is no tangible difference in brake feel or performance from a pccb equipped gt3 versus steel.

also there is no street car based racing series ceramics are even allowed to be used on. i'm talking GT2 class cars that cost 350,000 such as the M3 GT2 and 911 GT3 R/RSR. you think that class of cars would be concerned with costs? nope. they don't like using these fragile things. no benefit. the only series i can think of using it is porsche supercup and thats only to keep pushing sales of ceramics to the vast majority of people that buy porsches and never use them.

Nice write-up from somebody with experience on the Porsche side. On the first point I included above, when you say there is no tangible difference in feel or performance, you should clarify that is assuming the person with steel brakes uses race/endurance pads. Stock for stock (CCB v. steel) the ceramics will outperform in terms of fade. Whether that is worth the expense is another story.

On the second point, CCBs in the series you mention are banned due to costs, not because the offer no performance benefit or are fragile. Quite the contrary, performance/weight are significant considerations which is why you see them in higher class series up to and including F1.

Personally, I like the idea of having a more durable "stock" braking capability so I don't have to do pad swaps for the ~3 times per year I hit the track. Also need confirmation whether or not they will be covered under maintenance. Not sure that is at all worth the cost at the end of the day, and I am worried about the cost of chipping when changing wheels. That would suck...

[pb12]

Originally Posted by karussell

there is no tangible difference in brake feel or performance from a pccb equipped gt3 versus steel. the oem pads used on the ceramics is actually not so great for track use as they get chewed up very quickly. replacement is at 50% or equal to width of the backing plate. i have used up pads in a single weekend. if you keep tc/sc on it doubles the wear on the rears.

as the rotors are the same design and from the same company that makes pccb's along with oem ceramics for ferrari and rest of vw group i don't think these will be any different.

with heavy track use the rotors wear much faster. looking forward to your experiements. the porsche group is on their 3rd generation of these brakes and all the way up to the 991 GT3 we would prefer steels for their durability and much more cost effective use.

anyone claiming the pccb's offer a tangible performance benefit show me proof. i doubt it. also there is no street car based racing series ceramics are even allowed to be used on. i'm talking GT2 class cars that cost 350,000 such as the M3 GT2 and 911 GT3 R/RSR. you think that class of cars would be concerned with costs? nope. they don't like using these fragile things. no benefit. the only series i can think of using it is porsche supercup and thats only to keep pushing sales of ceramics to the vast majority of people that buy porsches and never use them.

i checked the pccb box. tracked the car all over europe. still have the car. swapped to steels. am i a single second slower on the ring? nope.

as for bbk or ceramics. i think the oem units are more than adequate for the car once you switch to an endurance pad for track, castrol srf. stainless lines. there is a new aftermarket ceramic brake manufacturer i have been communicating with based out of california. fusionbrakes.com They claim a more realistic 4x life of steel rotors in track conditions and their process allows you to repair chipped rotors. which the ones coming on the M3/M4 will not be able to be repaired. the quoted price for rotors and pads to replace the pccb rotors on a 997.2 GT3 RS was $12K retail versus $16k oem replacement cost (just rotors) at suncoast motors. compare that to a set of PFC steel rotors that last 2x as long as oem steels which cost about $3k for entire car.

no affiliation with fusionbrakes. just thought it was relavant to the thread.

good luck to the 8k giniepigs. been there done that. haha. at least if you have austin yellow or sakhir orange the calipers match better.

It's the typical argument we run into on this topic, cost, and measurable difference. In my mind, it's all down to "feel". Sure, there is a big cost disadvantage, and I certainly don't mean to make light of it. For my part, I'm willing to make a sacrafice of other options for the brake upgrade, others won't and that is cool, and this May shock you, I don't care. It is always surprising how upset and snarky people get because some don't agree with them.

Look at it this way, if you follow F1 at all, you will often hear of a driver swapping between Brembo and Akebono or Alcon durring a race weekend. A full brake system swap, not because one system stops them quicker, that's not down to the brakes capability. It's down to "feel". In other words, it's art, not science.

M

[Sedan_Clan]

Originally Posted by pb12

It's the typical argument we run into on this topic, cost, and measurable difference. In my mind, it's all down to "feel". Sure, there is a big cost disadvantage, and I certainly don't mean to make light of it. For my part, I'm willing to make a sacrafice of other options for the brake upgrade, others won't and that is cool, and this May shock you, I don't care. It is always surprising how upset and snarky people get because some don't agree with them.

Look at it this way, if you follow F1 at all, you will often hear of a driver swapping between Brembo and Akebono or Alcon durring a race weekend. A full brake system swap, not because one system stops them quicker, that's not down to the brakes capability. It's down to "feel". In other words, it's art, not science.

M

This would be all fine & dandy if that was the argument that proponents of the MCCB option were making................but it isn't. Many claim to be opting for MCCB's not because of "feel", but because of the perception that the car will stop better because they correlate price with performance. This debate is much like the "HID vs LED" discussions..............discussions where the perception isn't the reality. It remains to be seen if the braking distances between the two systems differ significantly, but if we are to use Porsche as a yard stick and/or a precedent, it would seem unlikely.

[pb12]

Originally Posted by Sedan_Clan

This would be all fine & dandy if that was the argument that proponents of the MCCB option were making................but it isn't. Many claim to be opting for MCCB's not because of "feel", but because of the perception that the car will stop better because they correlate price with performance. This debate is much like the "HID vs LED" discussions..............discussions where the perception isn't the reality. It remains to be seen if the braking distances between the two systems differ significantly, but if we are to use Porsche as a yard stick and/or a precedent, it would seem unlikely.

Well, I'm a MCCB proponent, and I'm advocating feel, so please dont paint us all with the same brush.

There will be no real difference in braking distance. Anyone who makes that argument I would say doesn't fully grasp how brakes work. There may be a difference over several sever stops, but that is, as I'm sure you know, down to heat management. On a GT3 the caliper is the same (997 gen I'm talking) the rotor is slightly smaller for the steel system. On the new M3 there are bigger differences in between the two systems.

Anyway, I can't wait to try them out and see how they "feel"

M

[Sedan_Clan]

Originally Posted by pb12

Well, I'm a MCCB proponent, and I'm advocating feel, so please dont paint us all with the same brush.

I didn't....hence the use of the term 'many' rather than 'all'.

Originally Posted by pb12

There will be no real difference in braking distance. Anyone who makes that argument I would say doesn't fully grasp how brakes work. There may be a difference over several sever stops, but that is, as I'm sure you know, down to heat management. On a GT3 the caliper is the same (997 gen I'm talking) the rotor is slightly smaller for the steel system. On the new M3 there are bigger differences in between the two systems.

Anyway, I can't wait to try them out and see how they "feel"

M

I can't wait to hear the assessments from all of you guys who opt for the MCCB's. Additionally, I can't wait to see what the auto rags say after testing these brakes as well.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by pb12

Well, I'm a MCCB proponent, and I'm advocating feel, so please dont paint us all with the same brush.

Is this subjective or objective? If the latter what is it about the feel that is improved? Less (or more) brake pedal force, availability of brake modulation (that would be a bit odd give that you can't turn ABS off), lack of undesirable pedal feedback, less sponginess, etc.?

Originally Posted by pb12

There will be no real difference in braking distance. Anyone who makes that argument I would say doesn't fully grasp how brakes work. There may be a difference over several sever stops, but that is, as I'm sure you know, down to heat management.

It is yet to be determined if the total thermal capacity (specific heat x mass) is larger or smaller on the M4 CSiC system vs. the cast iron one. That is a big factor in determining fade. In other words, the material alone doesn't guarantee less fade.

[pb12]

[QUOTE=Sedan_Clan;15593507]I didn't....hence the use of the term 'many' rather than 'all'.


You're right, my bad.

[pb12]

Originally Posted by swamp2

Is this subjective or objective? If the latter what is it about the feel that is improved? Less (or more) brake pedal force, availability of brake modulation (that would be a bit odd give that you can't turn ABS off), lack of undesirable pedal feedback, less sponginess, etc.?

I wouldn't say its so much measurable, but it certainly is tangible. The master cylinder in the GT3 is different to the non-motorsport derived 911 line-up. (Its a common upgrade for Boxster and Cayman owners, but curiously I don't see it much in other 911's). Anyway, it requires a bit more pedal effort, a good thing. In F1 there is no assistance, and you often hear about the HUGE pedal effort those guys are putting out. It absolutely does allow better brake modulation, there is head-room before ABS kicks in, but it's also the ability to bring the car back from ABS activation, without having to bailout too much from your braking effort. I had a stock 2009 Carrera with non-PCCB's, which I switched over to Castrol SRF, and better brake lines, and just could not get rid of the spongy pedal, even during the first few laps before the brakes had over-heated. In the GT3, it's just never present. The pedal feels great for the entirety of the session. Now, will the M3's master cylinder be different? Will it have better pedal feel? I am hopeful!


It is yet to be determined if the total thermal capacity (specific heat x mass) is larger or smaller on the M4 CSiC system vs. the cast iron one. That is a big factor in determining fade. In other words, the material alone doesn't guarantee less fade.

I think we do know, don't we? The rotor size for the CCB system is 400 or 410mm isn't it? I believe the cast iron system is 370mm, no?

Even if those are not the exact correct numbers, we do know, that if nothing else the caliper on the ccb is enormous compared to the stock system, requiring 19" wheels. Anyway, I guess you are right, we don't "Know", but I think based on what we have seen, it is a safe assumption.

Anyway, im excited to learn more about the system.

M

[snook]

I'll get the ccb for grins and bling. Hell why not. Car will never see a track, and that's okay.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by pb12

I think we do know, don't we? The rotor size for the CCB system is 400 or 410mm isn't it? I believe the cast iron system is 370mm, no?

Even if those are not the exact correct numbers, we do know, that if nothing else the caliper on the ccb is enormous compared to the stock system, requiring 19" wheels. Anyway, I guess you are right, we don't "Know", but I think based on what we have seen, it is a safe assumption.

No we don't know. There are three basic factors here the density, volume and specific heat. The CSiC rotors are definitely less dense, that hurts total heat capacity, they are a greater volume that helps. Both of those basically determine mass. The specific heat is probably less, although the ability to tune a composites specific heat is probably progressing. This hurts the total thermal mass.

Caliper mass is a smaller second order effect as it does certainly get hot over time but the pad largely insulates the caliper "forcing" most of the heat generated by braking directly into the rotor and pad itself.

[stressdoc]

Originally Posted by absoluteis350

+2 .. I will also be "one of the (very willing) guinea pigs" that will be more than happy to get CCB, track them, use them in daily driving, and then report back the results.



Its one of those internet conventions where the apostrophe is not used in order to speed up typing and because its irrelevant; we arent writing novels, we are writing barly legibel postz dat ull be lucki if we are able to spell most w0rds c0rr3ctly.

Well, the problem is not folks using its. The problem is the misuse of it's when they should use its.

"It's" = It is or it has. E.g, it's time to go.
"Its" = possessive, e.g., the dog wagged its tail.

In regard to CCB, my guess is that the primary benefit is reduction of unsprung weight. I don't think they will substantially reduce stopping distance or fade, given the high performance of the standard metal rotors. Given the cost, I would not get them for the track. But it will be great to hear about your experiences -- "one good experiment is worth a thousand expert opinions."

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by pb12

Well, I'm a MCCB proponent, and I'm advocating feel, so please dont paint us all with the same brush.

No reply?

[M4TW]

Can anyone say whether BMW's technical bulletin on the M5's CCB's is relevant to the M3/4 discussion?

http://f10.m5post.com/forums/attachm...2&d=1365008065

I am still seriously contemplating getting this option and would like to read more opinions about everyday use. So far the debate seems to spin around whether these puppies are worth it for track use. Unfortunately, my M4 isn't likely to ever see a track. This isn't just because I am pusillanimous, it's because there are no tracks in my desolate neck of the woods. Instead I'll be doing whatever spirited driving I can get away with, the odd drag race, and will in the ordinary course of driving need to stop my car repeatedly.

Reading up on the brake system in the bulletin I am getting the the following advantages for everyday folks like me:

- brake disks that will last the service life of the car;

- brake pads that will last twice as long;

- superior corrosion resistance in the winter;

- lighter weight;

- less fade; and

- blingier calipers and discs that don't collect brake dust.

Regarding stopping distance, it seems that there is little advantage due to the braking force in either system exceeding available tire grip. But it will stop better in some circumstances where that isn't the case.

To me the main disadvantages are:

- cost (the same cost of buying a decent secondhand car to use as a winter beater); and

- fragility (the discs chip easy).

The bulletin speaks about using a wheel jack when changing wheels so as to not accidentally chip the discs.

The fragility part from an accident doesn't worry me (but might worry my insurance company) but the wheel change part does. Rather than risk a few thousand dollars changing my winters over, I'll be taking my car into the dealership and let them do it.

The extra cost won't break me, though the missus would quickly put the brakes on the idea if she ever found out. The stopping force that she could apply would shame the best CCBs available.

But she doesn't need to know about it.

Help me out here guys.