991 GT3 Prices - 50 cars available!

[EricE]

PorscheGT4 said:

so prob cheaper to spec ceramics now even for track.

I agree that PCCB is slightly more desirable now that they can be refurbished but OEM quality ATE/Bosch steel discs are ~80€ each while 380mm ceramics cost 857€ to restore.
I highly doubt ceramics last 10 times longer than steels.

[rosino]

jackwood said:

Always seemed a strange spec to me.

You have CS if you are going to be doing regular trackdays.

But if you're doing regular trackdays you wouldn't want ceramics.

+1

And yes the Sicom alternative is possible but likely to affect warranty as knowing how anal Porsche is it would mean invalidating extended warranty and I would not want the car outside warranty.

I find my steel set-up truly excellent. So for bragging rights I should have gone for ceramics but can't say the steel are a poor relative as I find them magnificent.

[hornbaek]

I think it really depends on how much you intent to track your car. 3 - 4 days a year with Porsche Club UK is a lot different to every second week end including trips to Spa and The Ring. For the latter steel brakes are probably more economic but for a couple of trips to Goodwood and Castle Coombe I can't see that it is much more wear and tear on PCCBs than taking it up and down the Autobahn and in that case, PCCB are my personal preference because they are lighter, produce no dust and have terrific braking performance.

With the 991 GT3 RS the PCCBs have been further improved and brake feel is perfect.

[RSVP911]

hornbaek said:

I think it really depends on how much you intent to track your car. 3 - 4 days a year with Porsche Club UK is a lot different to every second week end including trips to Spa and The Ring. For the latter steel brakes are probably more economic but for a couple of trips to Goodwood and Castle Coombe I can't see that it is much more wear and tear on PCCBs than taking it up and down the Autobahn and in that case, PCCB are my personal preference because they are lighter, produce no dust and have terrific braking performance.

With the 991 GT3 RS the PCCBs have been further improved and brake feel is perfect.

Agree with the comment on improved ceramics - they felt even better than my 3 - the stopping ability was unbelievable - it may have been in my head , but I don't think so

[mollytherocker]

Have Porsche ever claimed shorter stopping distances with ceramics?

[Mermaid]

mollytherocker said:

Have Porsche ever claimed shorter stopping distances with ceramics?

Are the tyres not the ultimate constraint?

[ttdan]

Mermaid said:

mollytherocker said:

Have Porsche ever claimed shorter stopping distances with ceramics?

Are the tyres not the ultimate constraint?

As is the road surface.

But, lighter car should stop a bit sooner all things being equal.

[RSVP911]

mollytherocker said:

Have Porsche ever claimed shorter stopping distances with ceramics?

Not sure , alI I do know is I drove a 3 with and without , back to back at the PEC to demonstrate the difference and the stopping distance with the ceramics was materialy shorter - this may just be down to the fact they are bigger brakes - I have no idea , but it was very noticeable - also they are yellow , which is their most important characteristic by far

[Fl0pp3r]

RSVP911 said:

Not sure , alI I do know is I drove a 3 with and without , back to back at the PEC to demonstrate the difference and the stopping distance with the ceramics was materialy shorter - this may just be down to the fact they are bigger brakes - I have no idea , but it was very noticeable - also they are yellow , which is their most important characteristic by far

I think the point is ceramics have always been dependably consistent under repeated, hard braking when compared with steel. I don't think Porsche or anyone else has marketed CCB's as offering improved braking over steels in terms of the braking effect itself though (ie stopping distance). However you'd have thought there is more capacity for improvement in ceramic technology, and maybe we are starting to see this with PCCB 3.0?

For me, given PCCB's traditional benefits of complete fade-resistance under 'normal' use (ie non-regular competition!) and the weight you save right where it arguably counts the most - plus the fact you can now mitigate replacement costs through refurbishment - I'd say it makes them more viable/worthwhile than ever.

[Steve Rance]

Ceramics are no quicker on the lap. Although hopefully now drivers do not have to left foot brake before the end of longer straights to pre heat them. I would never run ceramic brakes on a car that I intended to track.

[RSVP911]

Fl0pp3r said:

I think the point is ceramics have always been dependably consistent under repeated, hard braking when compared with steel. I don't think Porsche or anyone else has marketed CCB's as offering improved braking over steels in terms of the braking effect itself though (ie stopping distance). However you'd have thought there is more capacity for improvement in ceramic technology, and maybe we are starting to see this with PCCB 3.0?

For me, given PCCB's traditional benefits of complete fade-resistance under 'normal' use (ie non-regular competition!) and the weight you save right where it arguably counts the most - plus the fact you can now mitigate replacement costs through refurbishment - I'd say it makes them more viable/worthwhile than ever.

Yes and as I said before , most importantly , they are yellow

[EvoBlade]

Steve Rance said:

Ceramics are no quicker on the lap. Although hopefully now drivers do not have to left foot brake before the end of longer straights to pre heat them. I would never run ceramic brakes on a car that I intended to track.

Bloody hell, Mr Rance - long time since the days of chasing each other around Spa (you in your RS, me in my CSL)

Have you tried the latest gen brakes on the 458 Speciale or 991 GT3? They are totally different to what you got on the 997 or 430/360 Ferraris.

They are really, really good. Not as good as my Brembo Type III race setup with Endless pads on my M3 but bloody good all the same. I think they would make a difference over a lap as they present a substantial unsprung weight loss over steels, but whether the average driver could extract the benefit, is another matter.

[sidicks]

EvoBlade said:

Bloody hell, Mr Rance - long time since the days of chasing each other around Spa (you in your RS, me in my CSL)

Have you tried the latest gen brakes on the 458 Speciale or 991 GT3? They are totally different to what you got on the 997 or 430/360 Ferraris.

They are really, really good. Not as good as my Brembo Type III race setup with Endless pads on my M3 but bloody good all the same. I think they would make a difference over a lap as they present a substantial unsprung weight loss over steels, but whether the average driver could extract the benefit, is another matter.

Note that, on the 991 the ceramic discs are larger than the steels, which negates some of the weight saving, so the net difference is not as substantial as you might ordinarily expect.

[Steve Rance]

My Dear old thing! how are you? It was those day's at Spa that woke me up to just how good the CSL was/is as a car. I think that it was an under rated car then and to an extent I think that it still is - especially in the Porsche fraternity.

Yep, have tried modern ceramics. The best back to back was driving a domestic cup car then a super cup car. The domestic cars had steels, the super cup ceramics. Drive them both on the same circuit on the same day and there's nothing in it. On the data traces, you may hold a trail a bit longer on the ceramic but the times are the same. I didn't race a super cup car but I know a few front running drivers. Sean was the best that I ever saw. He would always LFB before a big stop to pre heat them. No big deal because - as you may have experienced in your Brit car days - you often had to tap the brakes before a stop due to pad knock off but no point in managing something that you don't need if there's no gain. The budget implications are another reason. The Super Cup guys have to run ceramics. They are part of the spec of the car. Horror story budgets. If they arn't any quicker on a Cuppie with slicks and wings to make more of them, they won't make any difference in a road car. Oddly, I get why buyers of road cars buy them. Long lasting, cheap as an initial purchase option, no dust etc.. but as a track proposition, they don't make sense to me.

[graeme4130]

EvoBlade said:

I think they would make a difference over a lap as they present a substantial unsprung weight loss over steels, but whether the average driver could extract the benefit, is another matter.

On the track, it's a negligible benefit, but the increased surface tracking as a result of unsprung weight reduction as soon as you leave the smooth surface of a race track and take up some poorly surfaced roads are much more apparent

[EvoBlade]

Steve Rance said:

My Dear old thing! how are you? It was those day's at Spa that woke me up to just how good the CSL was/is as a car. I think that it was an under rated car then and to an extent I think that it still is - especially in the Porsche fraternity.

Yep, have tried modern ceramics. The best back to back was driving a domestic cup car then a super cup car. The domestic cars had steels, the super cup ceramics. Drive them both on the same circuit on the same day and there's nothing in it. On the data traces, you may hold a trail a bit longer on the ceramic but the times are the same. I didn't race a super cup car but I know a few front running drivers. Sean was the best that I ever saw. He would always LFB before a big stop to pre heat them. No big deal because - as you may have experienced in your Brit car days - you often had to tap the brakes before a stop due to pad knock off but no point in managing something that you don't need if there's no gain. The budget implications are another reason. The Super Cup guys have to run ceramics. They are part of the spec of the car. Horror story budgets. If they arn't any quicker on a Cuppie with slicks and wings to make more of them, they won't make any difference in a road car. Oddly, I get why buyers of road cars buy them. Long lasting, cheap as an initial purchase option, no dust etc.. but as a track proposition, they don't make sense to me.

Less of the old!

Funny how it took 10 yrs for me to actually buy a gt3! I love it. I've still got the same CSL, but properly bastardised now.

I am happy with ceramics mostly because I only occasionally track the cars and take turns. The GTS, CSL and Honda are the track cars and they are all on steels.

Interesting now that Surface Transforms are producing much cheaper replacement discs.

[EvoBlade]

sidicks said:

EvoBlade said:

Bloody hell, Mr Rance - long time since the days of chasing each other around Spa (you in your RS, me in my CSL)

Have you tried the latest gen brakes on the 458 Speciale or 991 GT3? They are totally different to what you got on the 997 or 430/360 Ferraris.

They are really, really good. Not as good as my Brembo Type III race setup with Endless pads on my M3 but bloody good all the same. I think they would make a difference over a lap as they present a substantial unsprung weight loss over steels, but whether the average driver could extract the benefit, is another matter.

Note that, on the 991 the ceramic discs are larger than the steels, which negates some of the weight saving, so the net difference is not as substantial as you might ordinarily expect.

It's 18kgs of u sprung weight. That's a lot.

[isaldiri]

graeme4130 said:

EvoBlade said:

I think they would make a difference over a lap as they present a substantial unsprung weight loss over steels, but whether the average driver could extract the benefit, is another matter.

On the track, it's a negligible benefit, but the increased surface tracking as a result of unsprung weight reduction as soon as you leave the smooth surface of a race track and take up some poorly surfaced roads are much more apparent

18kg even unsprung in context of a car that weighs probably almost 1500kg without driver really going to be significant?

[graeme4130]

isaldiri said:

graeme4130 said:

EvoBlade said:

I think they would make a difference over a lap as they present a substantial unsprung weight loss over steels, but whether the average driver could extract the benefit, is another matter.

On the track, it's a negligible benefit, but the increased surface tracking as a result of unsprung weight reduction as soon as you leave the smooth surface of a race track and take up some poorly surfaced roads are much more apparent

18kg even unsprung in context of a car that weighs probably almost 1500kg without driver really going to be significant?

I agree, in the scheme of things, it seems insignificant. But, unsprung weight is is what moves over bumps and surface changes, so on a less than perfect road, that much mass creating less momentum in the way the wheel tracks & follows the surface is pretty large

[EvoBlade]

graeme4130 said:

I agree, in the scheme of things, it seems insignificant. But, unsprung weight is is what moves over bumps and surface changes, so on a less than perfect road, that much mass creating less momentum in the way the wheel tracks & follows the surface is pretty large

Exactly. Having actually fitted ceramics to a GtR, I can tell you the dynamic difference is huge.

Everyone has an opinion, mine is based on before and after comparison.

I will always favour ceramics on a mixed use car. On a high use track car, steels are the way forward as ceramics are too costly in a race type use case.