Carbon Ceramic brakes ?
Discussion
A chap at work has ordered a new Boxster with the carbon brakes, obviously that is his prerogative and its a nice position to be able to do that, I am interested to find out what he makes of them.
Who has a road car with them on and do you notice much difference to the steel alternative in normal or even fast driving, I cant imagine needing more braking power than in my 350Z, if I did I would be wondering about how fast I am driving.
Who has a road car with them on and do you notice much difference to the steel alternative in normal or even fast driving, I cant imagine needing more braking power than in my 350Z, if I did I would be wondering about how fast I am driving.
It doesn't give any extra stopping power, just extra endurance. EVO recently did a comparison test of normal vs carbon on a Jag Ftype R and the brakes were equal until about the 20th hard stop when the normal's began to fade.
What they do give you is reduced unsprung weight and allegedly greater service intervals.
What they do give you is reduced unsprung weight and allegedly greater service intervals.
Last year I was lucky enough to drive a BMW M6 Grande Coupe with carbon ceramic brakes. I can't compare them to the same car with normal brakes but they felt fantastic to me.
Impressive stopping power and a very good feel though the pedal. If I'm ever in the position to spec them on a new car I wouldn't hesitate.
Impressive stopping power and a very good feel though the pedal. If I'm ever in the position to spec them on a new car I wouldn't hesitate.
There's no doubting their fade resistance. I've never driven a car with carbon brakes but have heard they can be quite a pain when cold. No feel and a bit squeely, much like a woman.
The useable life of the discs is reported to be 100,000-150,000 miles but when you get into cheaper barges with them on such as a D3 Audi S8, new discs could mean that the car can be economically written off or alternatively warrant a complete change in brake setup to steels. A clumsy tyre fitter could knock one of the discs and cause cracks on them rendering them useless according to manufacturer guidelines.
The useable life of the discs is reported to be 100,000-150,000 miles but when you get into cheaper barges with them on such as a D3 Audi S8, new discs could mean that the car can be economically written off or alternatively warrant a complete change in brake setup to steels. A clumsy tyre fitter could knock one of the discs and cause cracks on them rendering them useless according to manufacturer guidelines.
Iamnotkloot said:
It doesn't give any extra stopping power, just extra endurance. EVO recently did a comparison test of normal vs carbon on a Jag Ftype R and the brakes were equal until about the 20th hard stop when the normal's began to fade.
What they do give you is reduced unsprung weight and allegedly greater service intervals.
Yep, was very interesting and can be read here: http://api.app.evo.co.uk/editions/uk.co.dennis.evo...What they do give you is reduced unsprung weight and allegedly greater service intervals.
I find it a kind of funny situation now. If CCB are an option which has been spec'ed then it's a relatively good indication of the car not being owned by a true petrolhead (assuming they know the truth, rather than just marketing non-sense).
The reality is if you're going to be using brakes HARD, then you want standard iron rotors so they're cheaper to replace.
That is of course until you get to money no object territory, where huge bills for disc replacements are worth it for being able to do 30 laps per session on a trackday rather than 10-15.
The reality is if you're going to be using brakes HARD, then you want standard iron rotors so they're cheaper to replace.
That is of course until you get to money no object territory, where huge bills for disc replacements are worth it for being able to do 30 laps per session on a trackday rather than 10-15.
mackie1 said:
Seems to be the case now that if you want the good brakes they'll end up being CC ones. F-Type and M3 spring to mind for this. Regular AMG and Porsche brakes are excellent however. I don't think I'd bother on a Boxter.
I think that depends what you mean by "good". I'd challenge anyone to get a modern car's brakes to fade driving sanely on the public road in the UK. There's perhaps a few mountain descents that can manage it if you're pressing on but how often will most cars do that sort of driving? Carbon ceramics on a road car in the UK are largely a vanity item, although I dare say on some of the more... delicate cars they're offered on you can feel the reduction in unsprung mass.
You could argue that CCBs should allow a smaller diameter rotor and hence smaller, lighter wheels; but of course fashion dictates that this isn't what people generally want.
Edited by kambites on Tuesday 17th February 18:52
hufggfg said:
I find it a kind of funny situation now. If CCB are an option which has been spec'ed then it's a relatively good indication of the car not being owned by a true petrolhead (assuming they know the truth, rather than just marketing non-sense).
The reality is if you're going to be using brakes HARD, then you want standard iron rotors so they're cheaper to replace.
That is of course until you get to money no object territory, where huge bills for disc replacements are worth it for being able to do 30 laps per session on a trackday rather than 10-15.
I mostly agree with this. The only exception would be quite a heavy, powerful car which I intended to track. Some of these aren't really designed to take sustained abuse without the carbon ceramic brakes, because of course they're an option for those who want performance. I wouldn't want to be feeling fade, likely at very high speed and only after a few laps, in that kind of car - nor would I fancy changing my pads halfway through the day, I'd get bored of that pretty quickly.The reality is if you're going to be using brakes HARD, then you want standard iron rotors so they're cheaper to replace.
That is of course until you get to money no object territory, where huge bills for disc replacements are worth it for being able to do 30 laps per session on a trackday rather than 10-15.
The idea of carbon ceramics giving "more stopping power" is completely wrong. No modern road car is sold with brakes which can't produce far more force than the tyres are capable of reacting, so fitting bigger/better/more powerful brakes does nothing to your stopping distance. It's purely a durability concern, and then in most cases only for extreme applications such as track days or racing. Not fast road.
McSam said:
mostly agree with this. The only exception would be quite a heavy, powerful car which I intended to track. Some of these aren't really designed to take sustained abuse without the carbon ceramic brakes, because of course they're an option for those who want performance. I wouldn't want to be feeling fade, likely at very high speed and only after a few laps, in that kind of car - nor would I fancy changing my pads halfway through the day, I'd get bored of that pretty quickly.
Yep fair point, that said, such a heavy car would be a strange choice for a track car anyway!kambites said:
I'd challenge anyone to get a modern car's brakes to fade driving sanely on the public road in the UK.
I notice your caveat of 'Modern' .... I recall some quite hilarious brake fade on my old Mk1 Golf GTi, to the extent that full braking amounted to a very gentle reduction in speed! Mind you, the brakes on that car were rubbish anyway, and utterly hopeless compared with anything even slightly modern. Oli.
We're at risk of going Off Topic (!) but I think it's a matter of expectations as well. The Mk1 GTi had bigger disks than the other models in the range but still had a ridiculously crummy linkage from the brake pedal (in the RHD car) to the brake servo and master cylinder in the passenger footwell. This flexed and twisted and made for poor brakes at the best of times, but people didn't expect anything much better in the late 1970's. Add into that the older tech disks and pads, as you say, and a decent bit of heat from a pair of 18-year-olds ragging it at 10/10ths and the word 'brakes' took on a whole new lack of meaning ... 
Oli.
Oli.
zcacogp said:
We're at risk of going Off Topic (!) but I think it's a matter of expectations as well. The Mk1 GTi had bigger disks than the other models in the range but still had a ridiculously crummy linkage from the brake pedal (in the RHD car) to the brake servo and master cylinder in the passenger footwell. This flexed and twisted and made for poor brakes at the best of times, but people didn't expect anything much better in the late 1970's. Add into that the older tech disks and pads, as you say, and a decent bit of heat from a pair of 18-year-olds ragging it at 10/10ths and the word 'brakes' took on a whole new lack of meaning ...
Oli.
I remember that on MK1 GTis, horrific they were, apparently fitting Ford brakes was an upgrade back then.Oli.
The MK2 had perfectly decent brakes for the time.
No brake dust and an odd sound when the car sat out in pouring rain over night once. The odd sound went away once the brakes were warm.
That and being terrified of damage (and the cost) whenever any wheel/tyre work was needed.
I wouldn't choose them but I wouldn't not buy a car just because of it.
That and being terrified of damage (and the cost) whenever any wheel/tyre work was needed.
I wouldn't choose them but I wouldn't not buy a car just because of it.
My dad had them on his California...great stopping power 
I drove the car a few times and agree that they were best when they had some heat in them. In relation to the Boxster for road use I really can't believe that steels won't be up to the job, especially as it is a relatively light car.
I drove the car a few times and agree that they were best when they had some heat in them. In relation to the Boxster for road use I really can't believe that steels won't be up to the job, especially as it is a relatively light car.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff