Carbon Ceramic Brakes & the Track

Ferrari teams toss their factory Ceramic in the trash for racing. Most guys change their ceramics back to steel if they track their Ferrari. Its just too expensive as the ceramics are only more economical in the long run for street use.

IMO in 2 years or less there will be a entirely new braking system that will outperform / outlast the current technology.

 

They are much harder to manufacture, and also are not a volume product. Adding to that, I'm sure the retail markup is just as much if not more than standard brakes.

Yes, as you've noted, an 'off' that lodges debris between the pad and rotor will be quite destructive. You would not need to replace the entire axle though; just the affected wheel. I'd imagine it would be pretty hard to get anything lodged in there. The gap is tiny.

On the track, no. Unless you are babying the car around -- since you mention racing pads I will assume that's not the question you are posing.

For street usage only all current CC brake setups will last the lifetime of the car.

not that i can think of.

Not per se. CC brakes can tolerate much more heat. If you can cool your iron brakes adequately (bigger rotor and/or better ducting) they will be just as good for track use. I'll note that a factory F430 does not have adequate brake cooling. It's only if you can't get enough cooling to your iron brakes where the CC brakes heat tolerance starts to come into play.

If you have any fade, it will be noticeable. My guess is that for someone that is asking questions like this (ie a relative beginner?) you will not get fade with the iron setup.

It's the same. The tires stop the car, not the brakes.

OK, that's slightly inaccurate as the brake balance can be different and the ABS tuning can be different with carbon vs. iron, however I believe at least on the F430 that this is not the case. But in general we can say that there is no difference.

Yes, in the "upper echelon" of drivers, the weight savings and the resultant improvement in handling is noticeable.

 

There are a few different causes of brake fad. One of the more common is the brake fluid boiling, another is the pads outgasing under high heat.

The brake rotor is unsprung rotating mass. It's the type of weight racers want to reduce the most. It not only effects the suspension trying to move the mass up and down but the rotating part also affects accel and decel. In a perfect world why waste HP to get the rotor spinning when it could be used to propel the car faster.

On paper things like ceramic rotors are great but cost, reliability and drivability also come into play. Not only that but sometimes things that make a experienced driver faster may hinder a less experienced or skilled driver. Not saying ceramic rotors are bad but on the other hand just becuase it appears on a F1 car doesn't mean it will work for you. Unless you have an unlimited budget your laptimes might improve more by putting the $20K into the motor?

 

You are better off using the $20k for driving lessons than any performance mods!

 

Hahaha!

Using data acquisition to provide hard numbers, I can assure you that most everyone out there is NOT using their steel OR CC brakes anywhere close to optimum consistency OR capacity...

Agreed that steel deceleration rates and CC deceleration rates are equal, limited mostly by tires and correct driver brake modulation at the threshold of incipient lockup.

 

CCM brakes are expensive largely because production volume is still quite low. No different than when ABS or HID lights first came out, but now ABS and HID are standard equipment on inexpensive cars.

CCM brakes are a lot more resistant to heat induced fade than steel rotors in extreme conditions. And they do last longer as well but on a $/stop basis they are not good IMHO.

I do not believe they are more susceptible to damage than steel rotors, but obviously the cost consequence is more than 20 times compared to steel rotors.

CCM brakes will not necessarily give you shorter stopping distance, because that's a function of initial bite of the brakes, brake pad friction coefficient as function of temperature rise during the braking event, and ultimate grip available from the tires. You also need to keep in mind that with CCM you are probably stuck with OEM CCM pads due to availability, but with conventional steel brakes you can choose from a variety of pad compounds that will give you much better bite, frictional property, and heat resistance performance than OEM pads.

CCM rotors are also not as light as people think. Furthermore the CCM pads on 430 are huge and quite heavy. I never actually weighed stock CCM rotor + pad to compared with 380mm Brembo racing 2pc rotor & pad, but off hand I'd say the difference is minimal. So there is really no unsprung weight advantage for a CCM system. By the way, CCM is NOT the same as carbon carbon brakes on F1 and other high spec race cars. CCM gives same braking characteristic as conventional brakes, which makes them suitable for street cars. Where as carbon carbon race brakes work only when they are up to temperature, and they do have a very different feel to conventional brakes. Therefore, they are suitable only for professional drivers.

If you get in a carbon carbon equipped race car for the first time, I can almost guarantee that you will either lock up and flat spot a good set of tires or you will brake 30 meters early just to be able to slow down in time. That's how difficult they are to get used to. Carbon carbon rotors are lighter than steel or CCM rotors though.

I never quite understood why Ferrari puts tiny 330mm 1pc front steel cast rotors on 360/430 as standard equipment, and then offer huge CCM 398mm 2pc floating front rotors with crappy 6 pot cast aluminum calipers as an expensive option. It would have made more sense to me to have 355mm 2pc floating rotors with cast 4 pot calipers as standard equipment, then offer 380mm 2pc floating rotors with monobloc 6 pot calipers as a performance option.

 

10 pounds difference each on a 911.

$$$

 

May I ask what size Porsche CCM to what size steel? And is that caliper + pads + rotor total weight difference per corner? I'll have to go measure 430 CCM versus steel when I get a chance, but I don't think it's anywhere near 10lb/corner on a 430.

Not too sure I understand what you mean by $$$. Yes, 330mm 1pc rotors will be cheaper than 355mm 2pc floating rotors, but a good 380mm 2pc floating rotor with monobloc caliper should be cheaper than CCM setup.

 

sorry, i'm not sure. a guy on another forum converted his gt3rs from ccm to steel and he said the ccm were 10# lighter (he had the photos of his bathroom scale to prove it).

You said you didn't understand why Ferrari doesn't have a better iron brake setup. The answer is $$$. They make a fortune from the CCMs. It's also why they are standard now.

 

On digital weigh scale 430 Challenge CCM rotor with hat weighs 6.104kg and 360 Challenge steel rotor with hat weighs 7.452kg. That's only a 1.348kg or about 3 pound difference. If we also take into account the weight of calipers and brake pads, then 430 CCM and 360 conventional brake systems will weigh almost the same.

Perhaps this should not be surprising as per McLaren MP4-12C official web site, the standard steel brake system is lighter than the optional CCM system.

On the $$$ issue, I'm not convinced Ferrari is offering CCM so it can make a huge mark up on them. Historically Ferrari has no problem charging us outrageous prices for even plastic parts, so it does not really need to use CCM as an excuse to charge big bucks. I suppose it uses CCM as a marketing tool as one example of Ferrari using leading edge technology on their road cars. IMHO this is one instance where the technology is not quite ready for prime time.

 

I suppose you're right.

 

Ceramics are a bunch of hogwash.

Has anyone ever noticed that no manufacturer offers a comparable steel/carbon setup?

Porsche, Ferrari, and Corvette all go upsize with their ceramic rotors, and also use larger pads/calipers....so of COURSE the ceramic setup will be superior! It's not a fair comparison.

I know many, many people that have switched their ceramic rotors for slotted steel or racing steel rotors (i.e. Cup car rotors on a Porsche) and have gotten better performance than the ceramics.....at a significantly reduced cost.

There's a big reason steel is still the rotor of choice for racing......

 

I am collecting wear data on Movit CER (carbon ceramic) brakes for the Manufacturer (Movit). Here's an excerpt I thought may be of interest on this thread:

"I finally had to change the first set of front Sport pads on the CER rotors. Here’s the data:

New pad thickness = 10mm

Use = 19 track days; 2644.8 miles
(Texas World Speedway, 2.9 miles, average = 4x 24-minute track sessions per day, 12 laps per session, 139.2 miles per day)

Thickness remaining on worn Sport pads:
Rear
Right Rear Inner = 7-8mm*
Right Rear Outer = 8-8.5mm*
Left Rear Inner = 8mm
Left Rear Outer = 8-9mm*

Front
Right Front Inner = 5-6mm*
Right Front Outer = 5-6mm*
Left Front Inner = 5-6mm*
Left Front Outer = 6-7mm*

*pads were tapered at leading edge

No measurable wear on rotors.
I replaced the front pads. I anticipate another 2500 miles of track use from the rear pads. Front Sport pad wear has been significantly better than PCCB pad, which averaged 6 track days per set "

CER rotors are 350mm x 34mm front; 350mm x 28mm rear. Car is 3500 pounds (Porsche 996 Turbo, full wet w/driver). CER rotors are made from same carbon-ceramic material as Ferrari and Porsche PCCB rotors; Panox from Carbon SGL in Germany. But the construction method is different; hence the better wear characteristics.

 

Because we don't know your abilities or driving style, like lap times standalone data is meaningless. What wear did you see on the factory carbon ceramic brakes?

 

No measurable wear on the rotors?? After 19 days/2600 miles of track use? I could understand street use but track use is a different story. I would expect some (however minor) of measurable wear.

 

My lap times avg 2:02 on 2.9 mile track. Key braking zones are entry to T1 (running CCW): 150 mph -> 70 mph; and entry to T15 (running CW): 155 mph -> 60 mph.

Last year I wore out 2 sets of front pads and 1 new set of front PCCB rotors in 12 track days (4 race weekends). The friction surfaces delaminated from the cores to the point they were worthless. That was my second set of worn out PCCB fronts plus one set of worn out rears.

 

Maybe, but I don't have the tools to measure it. My calipers are only good to 0.001". This is not particularly noteworthy, since a 3500# racecar is a mild application for these rotors, so it does not make a good testbed. The pads are supplied by Pagid to Movit, so they are more interested in that data.

 

Do you mean steel rotors and carbon pads? They are not compatible.

Only where cost is a concern.

 

This is due to Racing regulations, not because cast iron are better. FIA prohibits Carbon ceramic brakes.

However, the Porsche SuperCup, Ferrari Challenge and F1 run Carbon brakes.

 

Per a Brembo engineer at SEMA in 2008, CCB rotors lasts 4-6 times longer than same size cast iron rotors.

They have proven to last longer in racing conditions compared to cast iron rotors, and the same in experienced track drivers (porsche GT3, GT3RS,GT2 drivers). I ran CCB in my GT3, GT3 RS and now the Scuderia, around 3,600 track miles in the CCB rotors in the Porsche, and almost 40,000 total miles.

The replacement cost is a rip off from Ferrari ($34k for pads/rotors) and Porsche ($16k for Calipers/rotors/pads). How can Chevrolet offer each ZR1 CCB rotor at a retail of $1600/each, with some on-line retailers offering them for $1,200 each, and they are still making money on them? The ZR1 CCB rotors (a car with a lower production volume than the F430) are made by Brembo as well.

In my Porsche 996 GT3, PCCB saved 42 lbs (350mm/350mm) compared to cast iron (350mm/330mm). I reused these same 996 GT3 CCB rotors in my 997 GT3 RS saving 48 lbs vs. the stock 350mm/350mm cast iron rotors.

The current generation CCB rotors (not used by any street car yet) are half the weight of the existing CCB in most street cars, and our CCB rotors are half the weight of equivalent one piece cast iron rotors.

Rotors:

- Stock 997.1 GT3 RS 350mm x 34mm front rotor: 27 lbs
- Two-piece Brembo floating cast iron rotor with aluminum hub 355mm x 32mm: 18.2 lbs
- Stock 996 GT3 PCCB (Gen I) 350mm front rotor: 13 lbs (direct replacement for a 997 GT3 with iron rotors).
- Brembo Gen III (CCR300) CCB rotors: 355mm x 32mm with hat: 6.8 lbs

Calipers:
- Monobloc Porsche Caliper (made by Brembo for Ferrari, Porsche, etc) for 350mm front rotors, including brake pads: 12.6 lbs
- Brembo GTR Brake caliper for 355mm front rotors with pads: 7.2 lbs

So, a brake system using the front 2007 GT3 RS monobloc calipers with the standard rotors weighs: 39.6 lbs per corner. Using these brakes at all corners, the total unsprung weight elevates to 158.4 lbs.

A brake system using the last generation CCB rotors from Brembo with the matching GTR calipers weighs: 14 lbs per corner. Such system at all corners raises the weight to 56 lbs.

So, with today's technology you can have a brake system that saves over 100 lbs (25 lbs per corner), and that is unsprung weight, very noticeable.

However, the stock CCB in the street cars (including the GT3 Cup and F430 Challenge) are using older generation CCB rotors (heavier) and monobloc calipers (heavier).

For instance, a CCB setup using the figures above (Gen I or II CCB rotors + monobloc calipers): 102.4 lbs total. The Brembo GTR with cast iron two piece rotors: 101.6 lbs. So right here you have a proven and reliable conventional cast iron rotors racing brake system, used in ALMS, FIA-GT2, FIA-GT3, GrandAm, that is as light or lighter than a standard production CCB system. It is hard to justify not to switch to this less expensive Racing system over a standard CCB system.

Cost:
- Brembo GTR with CCR300 rotors and pads: $50k
- Brembo GTR with cast-iron 2-piece rotors and pads: $20k
- Monobloc Calipers from Ferrari + standard cast iron rotors (F430): $7k
- Monobloc Calipers from Ferrari + CCB rotors (F430): $46k

 

The word you are looking for is ductility. Iron/steel have it (especially when hot), ceramics do not.

 

If that's the case...then why does F1 use carbon brakes instead of steel?

as cwwhk has explained, proper carbon brakes are better than the carbon ceramic twaddle, but much harder for the average and perhaps even amateur racer to drive properly.

 

weight savings. in F1, grams matter.

 

well yes, reducing the unsprung weight is one thing but the proper carbon brakes fade less too.