When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
I should have added a bit more detail in the initial post. Let me try and address some of your concerns.
RETAIL price on these rotors are $1200 front (pair) and $1300 rear (pair), these high performance custom Raybestos race pads are $475 front and $269 rear.
Replacement rings retail for about $800 per pair. Ferrari guys get 25+ days out of these rings, I got 11 out of the CCM's. So from a price perspective, you're looking at an up front cost slightly under 50% the price, a replacement price of 75% less, and they last twice as long.
If you add more brake cooling, sure you'll get more life out of your CCM's, but also out of these irons which BTW have FAR superior internal venting to a the factory CCM rotors.
Regarding weight, these rotors have LESS surface area than the CCM's. The reason for this is to reduce weight. I don't have the exact weights of each, but it's right around a 10lb delta. Again, nobody is saying that's insignificant, but all I can say is that even with that weight penalty you will be faster, and run cheaper.
As for an AP to Girodisc comparison, first of all we do sell AP, they make a great product. But I can tell you this much. In last month's head to head comparison for the radiator I went up against a Z06 with the front and rear AP racing kit. The CCM's outperformed that AP kit, and the Girodisc outperform the CCM's. I don't have a scientific 100-0 brake test or anything, this is based on where both advanced drivers would brake for corner entry, I was always able to brake later, and brake later still with this new setup. Also, the AP racing rotor weighs within 1lb of these Girodisc's if I recall correctly.
Thank you for posting pricing. Based off of what you posted:
****
"RETAIL price on these rotors are $1200 front (pair) and $1300 rear (pair), these high performance custom Raybestos race pads are $475 front and $269 rear.
Replacement rings retail for about $800 per pair. Ferrari guys get 25+ days out of these rings, I got 11 out of the CCM's. So from a price perspective, you're looking at an up front cost slightly under 50% the price, a replacement price of 75% less, and they last twice as long."
*****
ZR1 CCM rotors run in the range of $700-$1100 for fronts including hats. Rears run in the range of $750-$1300 including hats.
So arguably the initial purchase price of that iron rotor set up is just as expensive to more expensive than CCM's. Pads run around $6-$700 a set so for sake of simplicity lets call that a wash with your Raybestos pads. Once you go through your first set of rings the replacemen iron rings will represent a savings of about $3-$400 per corner on average lets say.
Now based on my last 4 years or running CCM's pretty much exclusively on track I get an average of about 30 days out of a set of front rotors (running spindle ducts for additional cooling) and about 45 days out of a set of rears which skews the value perspective greatly in favour of CCM over iron.
As CCM rotors which are basically diamond hard they do not wear through abrasive friction (like iron rotors) or have issue with cracking (again like iron rotors) but exclusively wear through oxidation which only occurs when the rotors exceeding 700c so the wear factor on them is solely dictated by heat. So additional brake cooling is going to benefit them considerable more than iron rotors. And I would also add that the Ferrari guys that you are quoting 25 track day life on with the iron rotos are more than likely Challenge cars and they run significant brake cooling set up's on those stock. So expect the life that you see out of your iron rotors to be less than what they are seeing!
Me and my track buddy have been doing brake development testing for a company for well over a year and that included testing iron rotor replacements as well as developing CCM specific pads. The one area that iron is superior over CCM is in modulation, specifically in the ability to modulte brake force and that stems from the lack of available pad compounds for CCM use. Something that will change in the future. For the rest we were able to find zero benefit to switching over to iron especially when factoring in the significant increase in weight and the lack of rotor life that we noticed due to rotor cracking. Maybe your experience will differ but I doubt it. I will say though that after only one or two track outings you have no where near a complete picture of things and any judgment and/or recommendations that you make should honestly be withheld until you have done a lot more testing and have a more thorough picture of what actual consumable life is going to be like. At this point I do not think that you can even reliably comment on how long a set of front pads is going to last.
Originally Posted by jimmyb
I don't have dog in the fight, it's pretty simple to me. There are 2 guys in this thread that have made the switch (one is a vendor) who say this setup is better than the stock CC brakes, based on their EXPERIENCE, not their OPINION. Since I don't have a Z06, I am going on what they say. There is NO doubt that iron rotors are considerably cheaper. The down side is the weight.
Jimmy
Based on my experience and not opinion the axact opposite is true and I've been tracking these brakes for 4 years now (doing 25+ trakc days per year) on a car that makes nearly 100hp more than a stock C7Z and has full aero and slicks. JVP and others also have years or track experience with these brakes. If they only lasted us 11 days I would be completely broke from replacing CCM rotors (I would have used 9 sets of front rotors or $18k+ worth lol!) and would have switched to iron my self long ago. As far as iron being considerably cheaper again that depends on how long they actually last. Based on what I have seen before in testing if they get more than 15 track days out of a set of iron front rotors without needing to replace them due to cracking I'll be surprised.
Originally Posted by rsalco
Deja vu all over again..... Most who track a C6 Z07 car at a fast pace have found the need to improve cooling to the CCB's. Once done they are superior to iron in every way. Clearly the same is true for the C7 car. No surprise here.
Agreed. I think that if you go to a track and look around you will find that anyone that seriously tracks any brand of car will have done work on improving cooling to their brakes. For some reason a few C7Z guys do not feel that they need to do that and are trying to create work arounds that cost considerably more than that just fixing the issue. The bottom line though is that iron or CCM, the C7Z seems to have a brake cooling issue. If you run one and plan on tracking it this is one area that you need to spend time improving as it will benefit you if you are running iron or CCM rotors. Spend the $150-$200 to fix that first, afterwards if you feel a problem still exists then consider possibly swapping rotors and what not but "don't put the cart before the horse" as the saying goes!
ZR1 CCM rotors run in the range of $700-$1100 for fronts including hats. Rears run in the range of $750-$1300 including hats.
So arguably the initial purchase price of that iron rotor set up is just as expensive to more expensive than CCM's. Pads run around $6-$700 a set so for sake of simplicity lets call that a wash with your Raybestos pads. Once you go through your first set of rings the replacemen iron rings will represent a savings of about $3-$400 per corner on average lets say.
Now based on my last 4 years or running CCM's pretty much exclusively on track I get an average of about 30 days out of a set of front rotors (running spindle ducts for additional cooling) and about 45 days out of a set of rears which skews the value perspective greatly in favour of CCM over iron.
As CCM rotors which are basically diamond hard they do not wear through abrasive friction (like iron rotors) or have issue with cracking (again like iron rotors) but exclusively wear through oxidation which only occurs when the rotors exceeding 700c so the wear factor on them is solely dictated by heat. So additional brake cooling is going to benefit them considerable more than iron rotors. And I would also add that the Ferrari guys that you are quoting 25 track day life on with the iron rotos are more than likely Challenge cars and they run significant brake cooling set up's on those stock. So expect the life that you see out of your iron rotors to be less than what they are seeing!
Me and my track buddy have been doing brake development testing for a company for well over a year and that included testing iron rotor replacements as well as developing CCM specific pads. The one area that iron is superior over CCM is in modulation, specifically in the ability to modulte brake force and that stems from the lack of available pad compounds for CCM use. Something that will change in the future. For the rest we were able to find zero benefit to switching over to iron especially when factoring in the significant increase in weight and the lack of rotor life that we noticed due to rotor cracking. Maybe your experience will differ but I doubt it. I will say though that after only one or two track outings you have no where near a complete picture of things and any judgment and/or recommendations that you make should honestly be withheld until you have done a lot more testing and have a more thorough picture of what actual consumable life is going to be like. At this point I do not think that you can even reliably comment on how long a set of front pads is going to last.
Based on my experience and not opinion the axact opposite is true and I've been tracking these brakes for 4 years now (doing 25+ trakc days per year) on a car that makes nearly 100hp more than a stock C7Z and has full aero and slicks. JVP and others also have years or track experience with these brakes. If they only lasted us 11 days I would be completely broke from replacing CCM rotors (I would have used 9 sets of front rotors or $18k+ worth lol!) and would have switched to iron my self long ago. As far as iron being considerably cheaper again that depends on how long they actually last. Based on what I have seen before in testing if they get more than 15 track days out of a set of iron front rotors without needing to replace them due to cracking I'll be surprised.
Agreed. I think that if you go to a track and look around you will find that anyone that seriously tracks any brand of car will have done work on improving cooling to their brakes. For some reason a few C7Z guys do not feel that they need to do that and are trying to create work arounds that cost considerably more than that just fixing the issue. The bottom line though is that iron or CCM, the C7Z seems to have a brake cooling issue. If you run one and plan on tracking it this is one area that you need to spend time improving as it will benefit you if you are running iron or CCM rotors. Spend the $150-$200 to fix that first, afterwards if you feel a problem still exists then consider possibly swapping rotors and what not but "don't put the cart before the horse" as the saying goes!
Werks I'm sure you got that much time out of your ZR1 or C6Z brakes. I was shocked mine only lasted 11 days. In fact a search when we bought the car brought up many ZR1 customers saying they were getting as much as 45 days out of the CCM's. To get 25% that was surprising to say the least. Of course it's hard to compare apples to apples. I may not drive as fast or as slow as some of those other drivers, on different tracks, with different temps and driving styles. I personally threshold brake as deep as I can, and I drive full slicks. There are certainly faster drivers on the forum and you may be one of them, all I can say is I'm top 5% on any given track day.
I'm not sure when the last time you tried to buy Z07 rotors was. They're currently right around $5,000 for a set of 4 on Amazon which was historically the cheapest place to buy (even cheaper than our dealer cost!). And typical over the counter dealer cost is around $8,000 for a set of 4 today. But even at the cheapest price you've ever bought CCM's, $1400 for the front PAIR, that's more than the $1200 RETAIL these go for a PAIR. I emphasize the word retail, because we don't typically sell at retail to our customers (hint).
To each his own, I'm not stating that these rotors are better for every driver all the time. But I personally am far faster with this brake setup than the CCMs. I'll be out at tracks most of the remaining weekends this month, most of which I have been to before and of course have PDR data for so we can continue to compare.
Autoplicity isn't here for high pressured sales of any given product. I just personally happen to be a dedicated Vette track enthusiast that takes advantage of our company size and reputation to try and bring creative new products and offerings to the public. If I get someone to fab up some spindle ducts that work and find the CCM's to work better that these, I'll be the first to mention it and offer it for sale.
I do this stuff to make myself faster, and share the real time R&D and product with you guys as a fan.
Last edited by Autoplicity; 10-06-2015 at 10:33 PM.
It's definitely a debatable issue here, but if you ask me...if you're going to track **** the car, then sell it...I say save the money and beat the **** out of the iron and keep the ccm's in the box for resale time.
Couple comparison videos of CCM vs Girodisc on track. I noticed that I was driving almost 10 MPH on corner entry for the big turn 1/2 so probably leaving an extra few seconds on the track there alone.
But even at the cheapest price you've ever bought CCM's, $1400 for the front PAIR, that's more than the $1200 RETAIL these go for a PAIR. I emphasize the word retail, because we don't typically sell at retail to our customers (hint).
That sounds like a good price to me.
I'll see how far the CCBs take me, and then do the math.
I'm all for vendors trying new things and selling products to the community. Don't take this as a slam because I like that you are trying to make improvements to the car and make money doing it, but as a technical person I think the results are suspect. You have less swept area, remove advanced braking technology (the exotic rotor material) and get better braking. How does that make logical sense? Even with the rotor aside, you have a reduced swept area?
doh, I didn't realize this thread was an old thread. After re-reading it the braking improvement vs factory was probably from the brake pad compound change.
1. What TC setting is your car on when you drive?
2. If you don't mind me asking, how much do you weigh and what's your physical condition? I want to know if you have a lot of body weight/muscle behind your brake input... (we look at brake pressure, psi, in the race cars, this will give me idea on how much power you are putting on that brake pedal).
3. How many sets of pads did you use on the stock CC rotor and were they stock pads?
Half the battle with braking properly is "brake release" "time on brake"... for example, my fastest lap at COTA, I'm only 12% on brakes and that track has 3 high speed brake zones.
Here is what my rotors look like after 15-20 track sessions.
I'm not trying to knock Girodisc but based on my experience with them is that the rotor material is fairly cheap (hence the cost) and does not last long at all, actually, they typically crack. My buddies McLaren MP4 with Girodisc's cracked, cracked as in broken...after 1 weekend at COTA.
Adding 10lbs per corner is clearly not ideal, Mike P.'s car with the Finspeed wheels/M Slicks has a 22lbs rotating mass decrease PER CORNER... talk about a game changer. I'm sure the iron disc with the aftermarket pad has some amazing clamping force, which is why you dropped 3 seconds. That being said, at this rate of clamping force, I'm curious how long your rotors will last. Can you post a picture of the rotors now that you have used them on track? I want to see them, pleaseeee.
Your calipers look pretty spotless. Ever had fluid leaks?
I put a thick coat of wax on them when I got the car and keep them clean, and NOPE. No leaks but I've had the brake system fail on me after 3 laps at COTA, with Motul. BUT with SRF they just keep on going and going and going...
Or are you talking to the OP? If so, sorry
Last edited by SilveradoSS500; 12-21-2016 at 09:45 AM.
I put a thick coat of wax on them when I got the car and keep them clean, and NOPE. No leaks but I've had the brake system fail on me after 3 laps at COTA, with Motul. BUT with SRF they just keep on going and going and going...
Or are you talking to the OP? If so, sorry
Thanks, I was asking you. I've had two failures with SRF.
2020 Corvette of the Year Finalist (track prepared)
C3 of Year Winner (track prepared) 2019
Originally Posted by SilveradoSS500
I'm not trying to knock Girodisc but based on my experience with them is that the rotor material is fairly cheap (hence the cost) and does not last long at all, actually, they typically crack. My buddies McLaren MP4 with Girodisc's cracked, cracked as in broken...after 1 weekend at COTA.
Adding 10lbs per corner is clearly not ideal, Mike P.'s car with the Finspeed wheels/M Slicks has a 22lbs rotating mass decrease PER CORNER... talk about a game changer. I'm sure the iron disc with the aftermarket pad has some amazing clamping force, which is why you dropped 3 seconds. That being said, at this rate of clamping force, I'm curious how long your rotors will last. Can you post a picture of the rotors now that you have used them on track? I want to see them, pleaseeee.
-Adam
I've recently run Girodisc rotors and Raybestos pads in place of my CCBs and am very happy with the performance thus far. On a high speed track with really hard braking zones, the OEM pads do not instill confidence. This is not just my opinion but that of a few others who run Road Atlanta at a race pace with CCBs. The Raybestos pad and Girodisc combination has a much better initial bite that does not fade.
Pad life is also significantly improved over the stock ACDelco pads. I ran Road Atlanta and another track day at Savannah Harbor and the pad material still looks new. My rotors show heat checking, as is normal on any rotor that gets raced, but no cracks or other abnormalities leading me to believe they will need replaced any time soon. I can include more details and analysis later when I have more time, but wanted to throw that out there.
1. What TC setting is your car on when you drive?
2. If you don't mind me asking, how much do you weigh and what's your physical condition? I want to know if you have a lot of body weight/muscle behind your brake input... (we look at brake pressure, psi, in the race cars, this will give me idea on how much power you are putting on that brake pedal).
3. How many sets of pads did you use on the stock CC rotor and were they stock pads?
Half the battle with braking properly is "brake release" "time on brake"... for example, my fastest lap at COTA, I'm only 12% on brakes and that track has 3 high speed brake zones.
Here is what my rotors look like after 15-20 track sessions.
I'm not trying to knock Girodisc but based on my experience with them is that the rotor material is fairly cheap (hence the cost) and does not last long at all, actually, they typically crack. My buddies McLaren MP4 with Girodisc's cracked, cracked as in broken...after 1 weekend at COTA.
Adding 10lbs per corner is clearly not ideal, Mike P.'s car with the Finspeed wheels/M Slicks has a 22lbs rotating mass decrease PER CORNER... talk about a game changer. I'm sure the iron disc with the aftermarket pad has some amazing clamping force, which is why you dropped 3 seconds. That being said, at this rate of clamping force, I'm curious how long your rotors will last. Can you post a picture of the rotors now that you have used them on track? I want to see them, pleaseeee.
-Adam
Your question is probably not aimed at the masses but I have some experience tracking this car on both OEM CCB and the the Girodisc.
Fundamentally Girodisc are much cheaper to run, that is the major differentiation. Performance wise I believe both systems are very capable, I wasn't able to overheat either, and to me pedal bite is not a factor when determining performance. For a quick lap, or for sprints I believe the CCB is faster (by some fraction of a second per lap) simply because it's lighter. For an endurance race I believe Girodisc would be faster simply due to the lower frequency of pad changes.
Details
a. The OEM CCB rotor lasted 8 track days until going below weight spec. The Girodisc lasted 10 track days until it cracked. Advantage Girodisc, lasting 20% longer.
b. The pad wear is 3 sets of pads to a set of OEM CCB rotors, that is 3 sets for a rotor that lasts 8 days. The Girodisc pad wear is one to one, 10 days on the pads and 10 days on the rotors. That is, the Girodisc pads last ~400% longer. This is huge! The advantage with Girodisc is that the disc surface remains smooth with iron whereas with CCB the rotor gets pitted. Pad life drops 50% per set as the pits develop on the rotor surface.
c. The bite is too strong the first two track days with Girodisc. It is far too easy to activate ABS and the car is touchy. After the first two track days the bite is perfect. OEM CCB bite is soft but linear throughout, and therefore predictable. A good driver will adapt to both systems, although the Girodisc bite inspires more confidence for some drivers. I don't see what the big deal is about pad bite. Just adjust to it, there is no performance differential.
Personally I'm a big fan of Girodisc. I replaced my cracked rotors with a fresh set of discs reusing the aluminum hats. I did so spending a very reasonable ~700 bucks. Girodisc allows us to run a massive well built 15.5" rotor and track with only 1/4 of the cost the OEM CCB. Unfortunately the C7 Z07 is far too heavy to run CCB. Unlike the C6 Z07 cars, this one is unreasonably expensive to run on carbon. CCB is however faster for HPDEs and quick laps but to me the slightly lower performance is worth the cost savings.
1. no TC, no AH
2. 175 lbs, pump iron a few times a week
3. stock CCB pads on stock CCB rotor: 1 set lasted 5 days, 2nd set lasted 2 days, I removed CCB rotor with 1 track day remaining, but I project the 3rd set would last only one track day due to sever rotor pitting.
There is no having your cake and eating it too with brakes. Buy the right brake for the right application.
Last edited by SBC_and_a_stick; 12-21-2016 at 03:12 PM.
2020 Corvette of the Year Finalist (track prepared)
C3 of Year Winner (track prepared) 2019
Originally Posted by SBC_and_a_stick
c. The bite is too strong the first two track days with Girodisc. It is far too easy to activate ABS and the car is touchy. After the first two track days the bite is perfect. OEM CCB bite is soft but linear throughout, and therefore predictable. A good driver will adapt to both systems, although the Girodisc bite inspires more confidence for some drivers. I don't see what the big deal is about pad bite. Just adjust to it, there is no performance differential.
My experience resulted in being able to brake at a higher speed and deeper with the Girodisc than I could with the CCBs, mainly due to the stock pads. There was more than one occasion with the stock brakes where I would come down turn 10a at Road Atlanta, passing on the inside, and I thought I was going to end up in the slower car's door, or straight off into the gravel pit. I got the car up to 166 mph on the back straight multiple times at Rd.Atl in November and not once did I allow myself to find the braking point as I couldn't believe how deep I could brake and still slow the car. It was incredible how much better it felt. Maybe this is just a personal opinion but I believe the Raybestos pads are much more predictable,allowing me to drive significantly harder. The rotors are just a necessary variable to run the pad so I don't attribute much between the two.
I've recently run Girodisc rotors and Raybestos pads in place of my CCBs and am very happy with the performance thus far. On a high speed track with really hard braking zones, the OEM pads do not instill confidence. This is not just my opinion but that of a few others who run Road Atlanta at a race pace with CCBs. The Raybestos pad and Girodisc combination has a much better initial bite that does not fade.
Pad life is also significantly improved over the stock ACDelco pads. I ran Road Atlanta and another track day at Savannah Harbor and the pad material still looks new. My rotors show heat checking, as is normal on any rotor that gets raced, but no cracks or other abnormalities leading me to believe they will need replaced any time soon. I can include more details and analysis later when I have more time, but wanted to throw that out there.
Originally Posted by SBC_and_a_stick
Your question is probably not aimed at the masses but I have some experience tracking this car on both OEM CCB and the the Girodisc.
Fundamentally Girodisc are much cheaper to run, that is the major differentiation. Performance wise I believe both systems are very capable, I wasn't able to overheat either, and to me pedal bite is not a factor when determining performance. For a quick lap, or for sprints I believe the CCB is faster (by some fraction of a second per lap) simply because it's lighter. For an endurance race I believe Girodisc would be faster simply due to the lower frequency of pad changes.
Details
a. The OEM CCB rotor lasted 8 track days until going below weight spec. The Girodisc lasted 10 track days until it cracked. Advantage Girodisc, lasting 20% longer.
b. The pad wear is 3 sets of pads to a set of OEM CCB rotors, that is 3 sets for a rotor that lasts 8 days. The Girodisc pad wear is one to one, 10 days on the pads and 10 days on the rotors. That is, the Girodisc pads last ~400% longer. This is huge! The advantage with Girodisc is that the disc surface remains smooth with iron whereas with CCB the rotor gets pitted. Pad life drops 50% per set as the pits develop on the rotor surface.
c. The bite is too strong the first two track days with Girodisc. It is far too easy to activate ABS and the car is touchy. After the first two track days the bite is perfect. OEM CCB bite is soft but linear throughout, and therefore predictable. A good driver will adapt to both systems, although the Girodisc bite inspires more confidence for some drivers. I don't see what the big deal is about pad bite. Just adjust to it, there is no performance differential.
Personally I'm a big fan of Girodisc. I replaced my cracked rotors with a fresh set of discs reusing the aluminum hats. I did so spending a very reasonable ~700 bucks. Girodisc allows us to run a massive well built 15.5" rotor and track with only 1/4 of the cost the OEM CCB. Unfortunately the C7 Z07 is far too heavy to run CCB. Unlike the C6 Z07 cars, this one is unreasonably expensive to run on carbon. CCB is however faster for HPDEs and quick laps but to me the slightly lower performance is worth the cost savings.
1. no TC, no AH
2. 175 lbs, pump iron a few times a week
3. stock CCB pads on stock CCB rotor: 1 set lasted 5 days, 2nd set lasted 2 days, I removed CCB rotor with 1 track day remaining, but I project the 3rd set would last only one track day due to sever rotor pitting.
There is no having your cake and eating it too with brakes. Buy the right brake for the right application.
That's good stuff guys, great break down. I agree on the attractiveness of the costs. More I think about it and look at the size of the rotors, it would be harder for them to premature crack compared to the tiny ones on my buddies MP4. Girodisc replaced them and they are fine, I drove his car and the brakes were great.
I've actually been waiting for something like this, I might get my hands on a pair and torture test them myself and report back.
That's good stuff guys, great break down. I agree on the attractiveness of the costs. More I think about it and look at the size of the rotors, it would be harder for them to premature crack compared to the tiny ones on my buddies MP4. Girodisc replaced them and they are fine, I drove his car and the brakes were great.
I've actually been waiting for something like this, I might get my hands on a pair and torture test them myself and report back.
The size of the rotor should be matched to the type of use. If you want to win a best lap time race go with a small rotor or CCB. I do HPDEs and I'd rather save the money, no one is giving me cash to win anything. If the CCBs would last 4 times longer they'd be worth using.
FYI Mike at Girodisc said he improved the machining on the rotors since the first model. The new set I'm using has different pattern in heat checking than the last one so I'm hopeful they'll work better than older models.
Originally Posted by fleming23
My experience resulted in being able to brake at a higher speed and deeper with the Girodisc than I could with the CCBs, mainly due to the stock pads. There was more than one occasion with the stock brakes where I would come down turn 10a at Road Atlanta, passing on the inside, and I thought I was going to end up in the slower car's door, or straight off into the gravel pit. I got the car up to 166 mph on the back straight multiple times at Rd.Atl in November and not once did I allow myself to find the braking point as I couldn't believe how deep I could brake and still slow the car. It was incredible how much better it felt. Maybe this is just a personal opinion but I believe the Raybestos pads are much more predictable,allowing me to drive significantly harder. The rotors are just a necessary variable to run the pad so I don't attribute much between the two.
The highest vmax I hit is 140 mph on my tracks, and I only have to slow down to only 90 mph for the turn. RA might be tougher on brakes than any of the tracks I go to.
Some of the variance in OEM brake feel is going to come from the fluid having large swings in temps. The CCB rotor reflects most of the heat back in the caliper, through the pad, and into the fluid. Unlike iron where the rotor takes some of the load off, the caliper system has to figure out how to dissipate all the heat in a CCB arrangement. I find it best to look at the pad and rotor as a system.
I found the CCB brakes did well stopping from high speeds at both VIR and Watkins Glen. At VIR there would be a little softer pedal at Oak Tree after coming up through the upper Esses but going into the top of Roller Coaster at 150+ or into T1 at ~150 I never felt a problem. Once I understood the pedal feel was repeatable I stopped worrying about it. At the Glen they worked great at every turn.
My front rotors lasted 13 track days with an average of 3 20 minute sessions per day. I believe they would have lasted longer if I hadn't used Carbotech XP10 pads on them for 6 days. The Carbo's didn't last any longer than the stock pads but I believe they accelerated the rotor wear. None of my rotors look like the ones pictured in the beginning post. Even the ones that I took off when I went with the Essex Kit didn't look that bad and they were just a few tenths of a mm above minimum thickness across most of the pad area. Both front rotors developed deep grooves just outside of the rotor hat which concerned me enough that I was going to replace them. The grooves also ruined a new set of pads I put on while at the Glen. A day and a half on the track and the pads had a ridge that matched the grooves in the rotors. I couldn't use them on a new set of rotors or they would have ruined the rotors. Thus, I went with Essex.
The rear rotors are holding up well with 17 track days on them. They are starting to get thin but are still pretty shiny with no pitting or crumbling. I am on my second set of OEM pads in the rear. The first set lasted 11.5 half track days before coming close to the backing plate. The current rear pads have been on the car for 5.5 track days plus whatever street driving I am doing. I suspect I will get another 3 to 5 track days out of the rotors.
If the stock front rotors and pads would have been half the price I would have stayed with the stock setup which worked very well for me. If I could have purchased just the front Girodiscs instead of being forced to buy all 4 I probably would have gone with them. However, when I ordered the fronts through Amazon the vendor called and told me they wouldn't honor the order unless I ordered the rears.
Bill
Last edited by Bill Dearborn; 12-22-2016 at 12:35 AM.
1. What TC setting is your car on when you drive?
2. If you don't mind me asking, how much do you weigh and what's your physical condition? I want to know if you have a lot of body weight/muscle behind your brake input... (we look at brake pressure, psi, in the race cars, this will give me idea on how much power you are putting on that brake pedal).
3. How many sets of pads did you use on the stock CC rotor and were they stock pads?
Half the battle with braking properly is "brake release" "time on brake"... for example, my fastest lap at COTA, I'm only 12% on brakes and that track has 3 high speed brake zones.
Here is what my rotors look like after 15-20 track sessions.
-Adam
Adam, it looks like you have the same groove that I had on my rotors. Have you measured to see how deep it is or checked to see if the pads have corresponding ridges on them?
When you say the rotors pictured have 15-20 sessions do you really mean sessions or do you mean days?
I found the CCB brakes did well stopping from high speeds at both VIR and Watkins Glen. At VIR there would be a little softer pedal at Oak Tree after coming up through the upper Esses but going into the top of Roller Coaster at 150+ or into T1 at ~150 I never felt a problem. Once I understood the pedal feel was repeatable I stopped worrying about it. At the Glen they worked great at every turn.
My front rotors lasted 13 track days with an average of 3 20 minute sessions per day. I believe they would have lasted longer if I hadn't used Carbotech XP10 pads on them for 6 days. The Carbo's didn't last any longer than the stock pads but I believe they accelerated the rotor wear. None of my rotors look like the ones pictured in the beginning post. Even the ones that I took off when I went with the Essex Kit didn't look that bad and they were just a few tenths of a mm above minimum thickness across most of the pad area. Both front rotors developed deep grooves just outside of the rotor hat which concerned me enough that I was going to replace them. The grooves also ruined a new set of pads I put on while at the Glen. A day and a half on the track and the pads had a ridge that matched the grooves in the rotors. I couldn't use them on a new set of rotors or they would have ruined the rotors. Thus, I went with Essex.
The rear rotors are holding up well with 17 track days on them. They are starting to get thin but are still pretty shiny with no pitting or crumbling. I am on my second set of OEM pads in the rear. The first set lasted 11.5 half track days before coming close to the backing plate. The current rear pads have been on the car for 5.5 track days plus whatever street driving I am doing. I suspect I will get another 3 to 5 track days out of the rotors.
If the stock front rotors and pads would have been half the price I would have stayed with the stock setup which worked very well for me. If I could have purchased just the front Girodiscs instead of being forced to buy all 4 I probably would have gone with them. However, when I ordered the fronts through Amazon the vendor called and told me they wouldn't honor the order unless I ordered the rears.
Bill
Bill,
Are you running in Sport 1 much on track? I ask because I've got very little wear on the rear pads and the rotors look pristine with quite a few track sessions on them. But I run in Sport 2 or Race almost all the time, so ESP not an issue.
The size of the rotor should be matched to the type of use. If you want to win a best lap time race go with a small rotor or CCB. I do HPDEs and I'd rather save the money, no one is giving me cash to win anything. If the CCBs would last 4 times longer they'd be worth using.
FYI Mike at Girodisc said he improved the machining on the rotors since the first model. The new set I'm using has different pattern in heat checking than the last one so I'm hopeful they'll work better than older models.
The highest vmax I hit is 140 mph on my tracks, and I only have to slow down to only 90 mph for the turn. RA might be tougher on brakes than any of the tracks I go to.
Some of the variance in OEM brake feel is going to come from the fluid having large swings in temps. The CCB rotor reflects most of the heat back in the caliper, through the pad, and into the fluid. Unlike iron where the rotor takes some of the load off, the caliper system has to figure out how to dissipate all the heat in a CCB arrangement. I find it best to look at the pad and rotor as a system.
I hear ya... I can tell you after driving my car with a 6lbs increase per corner in the rears and then Operations car with 22lbs decrease per corner, these cars at the limit are sensitive to rotating mass increase. Obviously you adapt as a driver... at the end of the day, I agree about the cost/track day. I will most likely get a set of these rotors and do my own testing.
Originally Posted by Bill Dearborn
Adam, it looks like you have the same groove that I had on my rotors. Have you measured to see how deep it is or checked to see if the pads have corresponding ridges on them?
When you say the rotors pictured have 15-20 sessions do you really mean sessions or do you mean days?
Bill
I thought about it, more like 20-30 sessions at MSR and COTA. I'm pretty hard on the brakes in the clamping force side of things but I'm not on the brakes much. My rotors are toast ha, any idea of the minimal weight specs? Maybe I'll weigh them next weekend...
10-06-2015, 03:55 PM
