CCB Maintenance Costs

[CanAutM3]

Originally Posted by gmarshman

The only caveats to doing this concern how much wear you have on your existing rotors, and determining this to the satisfaction of your buyer. There is a really good thread on this here:

http://f80.bimmerpost.com/forums/sho...cb+maintenance

[Dweezil]

Originally Posted by gmarshman

Yup. It is the ultimate solution. Here's the link to the conversion kit:

http://www.racingbrake.com/RB-2pc-Ro...bmw-irk-11.htm

I have done this conversion. I have roughly 4k miles on the car with the RB street pads with the rotors and have found this to be a good alternative for me as compared to paying another 10k+ for new rotors. I have been using it on track as well with roughly six 2-3 hr track days on the car (Barber MSP and Road Atlanta) although with a track pad and have been pleased there as well. I have appreciated no significant difference in handling with the added unsprung weight. I am pleased so far with the switch. Yes, there is a difference in feel for the street pad with iron disc in comparison to the CCB set up which took some getting used to. But, within a week I was used to the new setup. There is of course more brake dust than before. But, on the flip side I did lose that lack of brake scary moment when the rotors are cold and wet. I would certainly recommend this as an alternative to buying new CCB rotors. Yes, the cost of the conversion is expensive but much cheaper than the OEM alternative.

[lemetier]

Originally Posted by Dweezil

I have done this conversion. I have roughly 4k miles on the car with the RB street pads with the rotors and have found this to be a good alternative for me as compared to paying another 10k+ for new rotors. I have been using it on track as well with roughly six 2-3 hr track days on the car (Barber MSP and Road Atlanta) although with a track pad and have been pleased there as well. I have appreciated no significant difference in handling with the added unsprung weight. I am pleased so far with the switch. Yes, there is a difference in feel for the street pad with iron disc in comparison to the CCB set up which took some getting used to. But, within a week I was used to the new setup. There is of course more brake dust than before. But, on the flip side I did lose that lack of brake scary moment when the rotors are cold and wet. I would certainly recommend this as an alternative to buying new CCB rotors. Yes, the cost of the conversion is expensive but much cheaper than the OEM alternative.

Did you also have the car re-programmed and coded when the conversion was done?

[CSanto]

Originally Posted by Dweezil

I have done this conversion. I have roughly 4k miles on the car with the RB street pads with the rotors and have found this to be a good alternative for me as compared to paying another 10k+ for new rotors. I have been using it on track as well with roughly six 2-3 hr track days on the car (Barber MSP and Road Atlanta) although with a track pad and have been pleased there as well. I have appreciated no significant difference in handling with the added unsprung weight. I am pleased so far with the switch. Yes, there is a difference in feel for the street pad with iron disc in comparison to the CCB set up which took some getting used to. But, within a week I was used to the new setup. There is of course more brake dust than before. But, on the flip side I did lose that lack of brake scary moment when the rotors are cold and wet. I would certainly recommend this as an alternative to buying new CCB rotors. Yes, the cost of the conversion is expensive but much cheaper than the OEM alternative.

Is there any brake noise after the conversion?

[Dweezil]

Originally Posted by lemetier

Did you also have the car re-programmed and coded when the conversion was done?

There is no need to do so as all you are doing with this conversion is removing the CCB rotor and replacing it with the iron disc and replacing the CCB pad with the iron disc pad.

[Dweezil]

Originally Posted by CSanto

Is there any brake noise after the conversion?

I have had no brake noise whatsoever with the street pads. The track pads, of course, is a different story. The track pads are not loud on track but they are noisy on the street as is the case with all track pads on iron

[lemetier]

Originally Posted by Dweezil

There is no need to do so as all you are doing with this conversion is removing the CCB rotor and replacing it with the iron disc and replacing the CCB pad with the iron disc pad.

Sorry but I have to differ on this. The bias and system pressures are different between the two. CCB also have modified pedal feedback due to the effect of cold/wet rotors. ABS and DSC settings are also a bit different to prevent excessive vibration limits.

[Dweezil]

Originally Posted by lemetier

Sorry but I have to differ on this. The bias and system pressures are different between the two. CCB also have modified pedal feedback due to the effect of cold/wet rotors. ABS and DSC settings are also a bit different to prevent excessive vibration limits.

You can certainly recode your car however you desire. I can personally attest that there is only a difference in pedal feel and performance as would be expected when changing pads between a street and track compound with a standard iron setup. I find no necessity in doing this if there is in fact a coding option to change. I have no knowledge of BMW coding a brake pedal setup differently between a blue and gold caliper setup. But, again it is all drive by wire these days and there may be a difference in the coding that I am unaware of. Certainly, no problem with feel or performance that would make me seek out someone to do some coding on my car to change anything however. The brakes are still phenomenal with my setup even t without the CCB rotor. I have appreciated no difference in feel with the DSC (in euro MDM mode) as well as with ABS (and yes I do get into threshold braking on track). My 0.02

[lemetier]

Originally Posted by Dweezil

You can certainly recode your car however you desire. I can personally attest that there is only a difference in pedal feel and performance as would be expected when changing pads between a street and track compound with a standard iron setup. I find no necessity in doing this if there is in fact a coding option to change. I have no knowledge of BMW coding a brake pedal setup differently between a blue and gold caliper setup. But, again it is all drive by wire these days and there may be a difference in the coding that I am unaware of. Certainly, no problem with feel or performance that would make me seek out someone to do some coding on my car to change anything however. The brakes are still phenomenal with my setup even t without the CCB rotor. I have appreciated no difference in feel with the DSC (in euro MDM mode) as well as with ABS (and yes I do get into threshold braking on track). My 0.02

Yes we're all free to do what we each feel appropriate. My car was reprogrammed when converted to Iron M Compound. It goes both ways, if one converts to MCCB, the last step is to Reprogram the car and verify the new FA with the HO Werte is correct and reset the CBS Maintenance settings. Unfortunately, it's often skipped over. Not long after, questions and complains start rolling in.

ISTA-P/+ makes this very easy on the M5/6 for CCB to Iron as its the same process...just reversed. The calipers are 99% identical and brake servo is compatible to the settings. No FDL adjustment necessary. The F8x won't be as straight forward due to the significant differences between MCompound and MCCB, but it's not impossible or overly complex. Hell, just FDL coding the 29lb weight increase to the front axle will change the behavior of MDM Mode by a decent amount. No ones twist your arm and if you're ok with it that's all that matters. If you'd like to go to Barber and try a session with it done, I'd be more than happy to do if for you.

Several dozen people, including myself, have spent a significant amount of time trying to sort this out and provide factual information for those who don't have the personal knowledge or resources of their own. I even went as far as putting an F80 front corner on our test rig and ran it until it was dead. That along with all the others who have contributed so far is allowing what may be the most comprehensive enthusiast and HPDE guide ever created. There are still a few more people I will be communicating with and willl start getting the docs up in the forum ASAP.

[evanevery]

I finally got my Carboteq instrument and the first thing I wanted to do was to compare the findings/estimates from weighing the rotors (as previously posted) to the precise measurements as obtained from the Carboteq.

Note that these are the front Rotors which were originally removed based on the state of the "wear indicators". It also appears that the wear indicators might change appearance as they come off the track (from hot/heavy use) and then after running up some local neighborhood miles (general use). I'm wondering if we will actually pick up some more pad transfer material in the wear indicators as the rotors/pads see less stressful use. (IOW - My wear indicators seem to look better after the rotors were removed (after driving around town a bit) than when I was watching them at the track). Anyway, the Carboteq instrument is supposed to be the definitive measurement. At the price for the tool ($6500.00), it better be!

It should also be noted, for folks not familiar with the Carboteq or the info stamped on the rotors, that there are three pairs of measurement points stamped onto each rotor. Each of these measurement points contains an upper value (new), and a lower value (done). These Max/Min numbers are separated by a line which is used to align the laser on the Carboteq instrument for a precise measurement at each designated point. These min/max numbers and the Carboteq instrument are all calibrated to work together for precise measurements. The Carboteq can also be used without having to remove the rotors from the vehicle (although the ones I have on hand had already been removed and preserved)

The Carboteq instrument is very quick and easy to use and it should be quite precise.

*** The first table is the rotor usage as calculated/estimated by the weight of each rotor.

*** The second table is the rotor usage as calculated by the values as indicated by the Carbgoteq.

[SNO]

Apologies for hijacking this thread but it would not let me post a new thread!

I'm about to pull the trigger on a year old M4. I've wanted this car since I first saw one a couple of years ago so I'm excited to say the least! I've now found the perfect one at the perfect price but my only concern is that it is specced with CCB. Before I sign the paperwork I'm going to have them check the wear of the pads and rotors as I do not want to be bitten with a large bill down the road! My questions are, if the fronts or rears needed replacing, how much would it be? Also if necessary could I retrofit the steel brakes and how much would this save me? I am not planning to track the car and it has done approx 7000 miles, I have no idea if it was tracked. Thanks for your help!

[schnell325]

Originally Posted by SNO

Apologies for hijacking this thread but it would not let me post a new thread!

I'm about to pull the trigger on a year old M4. I've wanted this car since I first saw one a couple of years ago so I'm excited to say the least! I've now found the perfect one at the perfect price but my only concern is that it is specced with CCB. Before I sign the paperwork I'm going to have them check the wear of the pads and rotors as I do not want to be bitten with a large bill down the road! My questions are, if the fronts or rears needed replacing, how much would it be? Also if necessary could I retrofit the steel brakes and how much would this save me? I am not planning to track the car and it has done approx 7000 miles, I have no idea if it was tracked. Thanks for your help!

Here's a good price guide for the conversion:

http://f80.bimmerpost.com/forums/sho....php?t=1257330

At 7k I highly doubt the CCBs are anywhere near gone.

Good luck and don't let a car with CCBs deter you. I love mine ✔️

[IB M]

After cleaning my wheels three times in car's first 1200 miles I wish I had CCBs.

[evanevery]

If the car was NOT used for track events then the CCB's should virtually last forever (almost).

The irony is that they burn off pretty fast if used on a track car, but seemingly last forever on a street car.

I purchased a Carboteq instrument ($6000.00!) to monitor the wear on my CCB rotors. Let me know if you want to RENT it! ;-)

[Flying Ace]

Originally Posted by evanevery

I finally got my Carboteq instrument and the first thing I wanted to do was to compare the findings/estimates from weighing the rotors (as previously posted) to the precise measurements as obtained from the Carboteq.

Note that these are the front Rotors which were originally removed based on the state of the "wear indicators". It also appears that the wear indicators might change appearance as they come off the track (from hot/heavy use) and then after running up some local neighborhood miles (general use). I'm wondering if we will actually pick up some more pad transfer material in the wear indicators as the rotors/pads see less stressful use. (IOW - My wear indicators seem to look better after the rotors were removed (after driving around town a bit) than when I was watching them at the track). Anyway, the Carboteq instrument is supposed to be the definitive measurement. At the price for the tool ($6500.00), it better be!

It should also be noted, for folks not familiar with the Carboteq or the info stamped on the rotors, that there are three pairs of measurement points stamped onto each rotor. Each of these measurement points contains an upper value (new), and a lower value (done). These Max/Min numbers are separated by a line which is used to align the laser on the Carboteq instrument for a precise measurement at each designated point. These min/max numbers and the Carboteq instrument are all calibrated to work together for precise measurements. The Carboteq can also be used without having to remove the rotors from the vehicle (although the ones I have on hand had already been removed and preserved)

The Carboteq instrument is very quick and easy to use and it should be quite precise.

*** The first table is the rotor usage as calculated/estimated by the weight of each rotor.

*** The second table is the rotor usage as calculated by the values as indicated by the Carbgoteq.

hey! Quick question, will the stock weights be the same for the CCB rotors on a M6?

I think the CCBs are the same rotors for all BMW, correct?

[evanevery]

Yes but No...

Yes - I believe the M5 and M6 use the same rotors/calipers/pads. Might want to make sure the M5/M6 are the same model years or generation though...

No - Not all BMW's use the same CCB hardware. My M4 is different than my M6.

All the numbers you see in my posts are for M4 CCB hardware. The M4 is my track car so those are the brakes I need to keep an eye on. I have not weighed the rotors on my M6 or used the Carboteq on them. I don't specifically know what their min weight range is or how much "meat" is on them when new. (I don't track the M6 so there is little worry that they will ever wear out).

Again, you don't typically have to worry about CCB Brake wear UNLESS you track the car. They last virtually forever on the street.

[Liquid2.0T]

Originally Posted by evanevery

I finally got my Carboteq instrument and the first thing I wanted to do was to compare the findings/estimates from weighing the rotors (as previously posted) to the precise measurements as obtained from the Carboteq.

Note that these are the front Rotors which were originally removed based on the state of the "wear indicators". It also appears that the wear indicators might change appearance as they come off the track (from hot/heavy use) and then after running up some local neighborhood miles (general use). I'm wondering if we will actually pick up some more pad transfer material in the wear indicators as the rotors/pads see less stressful use. (IOW - My wear indicators seem to look better after the rotors were removed (after driving around town a bit) than when I was watching them at the track). Anyway, the Carboteq instrument is supposed to be the definitive measurement. At the price for the tool ($6500.00), it better be!

It should also be noted, for folks not familiar with the Carboteq or the info stamped on the rotors, that there are three pairs of measurement points stamped onto each rotor. Each of these measurement points contains an upper value (new), and a lower value (done). These Max/Min numbers are separated by a line which is used to align the laser on the Carboteq instrument for a precise measurement at each designated point. These min/max numbers and the Carboteq instrument are all calibrated to work together for precise measurements. The Carboteq can also be used without having to remove the rotors from the vehicle (although the ones I have on hand had already been removed and preserved)

The Carboteq instrument is very quick and easy to use and it should be quite precise.

*** The first table is the rotor usage as calculated/estimated by the weight of each rotor.

*** The second table is the rotor usage as calculated by the values as indicated by the Carbgoteq.

Do you have the Max/Min values transposed on your spreadsheet?

[whitefrs]

Im about to hit the 50k Mile mark for maintenance and dealer said my CCB are good for other 167k miles

How can i make them to weight my rotors?

[TTR]

Originally Posted by IB M

This is what I was hoping to find - that the CCBs are not costly to run on a daily driver. For those out there running CCBs daily post your current mileage here and any additional comments. Appreciate all the feedback guys.

10k miles, no problems

rotors and pads from the factory

i don't use cark on the track, but i drive fast (250km/h+ every trip), car is tuned (700hp)

If i would go to track - i would change the brakes to AP racing and tires to 18, it much cheaper kill CCB on the track

[chili cheese]

Originally Posted by evanevery

I finally got my Carboteq instrument and the first thing I wanted to do was to compare the findings/estimates from weighing the rotors (as previously posted) to the precise measurements as obtained from the Carboteq.

Note that these are the front Rotors which were originally removed based on the state of the "wear indicators". It also appears that the wear indicators might change appearance as they come off the track (from hot/heavy use) and then after running up some local neighborhood miles (general use). I'm wondering if we will actually pick up some more pad transfer material in the wear indicators as the rotors/pads see less stressful use. (IOW - My wear indicators seem to look better after the rotors were removed (after driving around town a bit) than when I was watching them at the track). Anyway, the Carboteq instrument is supposed to be the definitive measurement. At the price for the tool ($6500.00), it better be!

It should also be noted, for folks not familiar with the Carboteq or the info stamped on the rotors, that there are three pairs of measurement points stamped onto each rotor. Each of these measurement points contains an upper value (new), and a lower value (done). These Max/Min numbers are separated by a line which is used to align the laser on the Carboteq instrument for a precise measurement at each designated point. These min/max numbers and the Carboteq instrument are all calibrated to work together for precise measurements. The Carboteq can also be used without having to remove the rotors from the vehicle (although the ones I have on hand had already been removed and preserved)

The Carboteq instrument is very quick and easy to use and it should be quite precise.

*** The first table is the rotor usage as calculated/estimated by the weight of each rotor.

*** The second table is the rotor usage as calculated by the values as indicated by the Carbgoteq.

This really is great work. I appreciate the time and effort. Thanks!

[RandyC54]

I have a Porsche with PCCB carbon brakes. The shop has a Carboteq.

They tell me not to weigh the rotors, not to Carboteq the rotors. Their considerable advice is to track the rotors until they really begin to visibly look bad, meaning no longer glossy looking. Until then, as long as they have good brake feel, they are fine. At the markups Porsche and BMW are putting on these rotors, it's just morally corrupt. Corvette ceramic rotors are also made by Brembo, and they only cost $1200 each, versus $7000 to $9000 each for Porsche and BMW.

[IB M]

Originally Posted by RandyC54

I have a Porsche with PCCB carbon brakes. The shop has a Carboteq.

They tell me not to weigh the rotors, not to Carboteq the rotors. Their considerable advice is to track the rotors until they really begin to visibly look bad, meaning no longer glossy looking. Until then, as long as they have good brake feel, they are fine. At the markups Porsche and BMW are putting on these rotors, it's just morally corrupt. Corvette ceramic rotors are also made by Brembo, and they only cost $1200 each, versus $7000 to $9000 each for Porsche and BMW.

Has anyone tried this strategy at the track? Basically run em until they look like the end is near or until they actually fail?

In order to avoid a total failure at speed, which would be dangerous on track or street, you'd have to be confident in the combination of pedal feel and visual inspection.

Also keep the data coming - any one have a high mileage street CCB car at this point?