599/430 Prices Crashing

pretty much.

 

I guess neither of you guys has a Z06, or you would know this is patently false. In fact, the F430 is more sensitive to cooking the brakes than the Z06. In addition, the Z06 is easily modified to add addt'l brake cooling.

 

That is patently absurb.
Carbon brakes are the de facto standard in top tier racing therefore Ferrari, as a manufacturer of top tier sports cars will have carbon brakes on their cars. If steel brakes were so good F1 would use them.

On the one hand hand Ferrari is criticized for "diluting" their brand with a mass market sensibility in the California and on the other hand they are accused of "sticking it" to their customers because they offer the pinnacle of braking technology in their cars.

Make up your minds people!

Even Cadillac now offer Carbon Brakes in their new V series. Cadillacs with CCB and Ferraris with steel brakes - doesn't quite add up, does it?

 

From your lips to god's ears: Drive the money changers from the temple.

 

This one: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/23/realestate/23wczo.html?ref=connecticut ?

 

In terms of fundamental braking performance, there is little difference between a properly setup and designed steel brake system and a carbon brake system. The general "mu" characteristics are fairly similar (and more controlled by the pad material). The advantage of the carbon rotors are more due to the reduced weight compared to steel brakes and a bit better high temperature abilities. (And this is debatable.) And steel brakes still have a bit better initial bit (again controlled a lot by the pad material.) but maybe a little less averaged "mu". One misunderstanding about carbon rotors is that the do not need as much cooling as steel brakes and do not fade, both of which is completely untrue.

For a race car the lower weight is the major advantage and ironically they tend to last a little longer, as the steel rotors will crack from thermal stressing. For a street car they are a nice feature (but very expensive.) and do cut unsprung weight.

I have a set of 6 pot AP calipers on my 360 with steel rotors (also AP) and I stop every bit as quick as any 360 CS or 430 with carbon brakes.

 

First of all, F1 uses Carbon-Carbon, not Carbon Ceramic. The main reason they use them is weight savings, not braking performance. (not to say their braking performance is not a factor ... of course it is.)

If iron brakes were so underperforming, how do the ALMS GT2 Ferraris get away with winning long 3-4 hour races on them? For a street car, on street tires, iron brakes are more than good enough.

bling. most performance oriented cars come with drilled rotors and pointless "ground effects" as well.

on a street car it is a complete ripoff. one issue is that the iron implementation on the street F430 isn't what i would call superb. this isn't due to iron not being up to the task, however.

 

Yep. All brakes do is convert kinetic energy into heat.

Great explanation, Brian. Thanks.

 

Thanks!

 

So Jim.... to get back on topic... its been over a month since your first post... have prices gone lower?

 

I must disagree with you - the carbon brakes have much better stopping power - it has all to do with the carbon brakes not the weight of the car - assuming the tires and car weights are identical. Yes, I meant the breaking point, the turn in point, apex, turn out, steady throttle, power out etc etc. Have you ever noticed the difference in size of rotors on the ceramics, much larger then steel on the Ferraris. Also, since you mentioned GT2, I do realize they are steel. Since you brought it up, I assume you also realize they have blowers on the brakes, are better ducted and change rotors and pads during the race. I believe one of the reasons they are not carbon is because of cost. When I am on the track for sport, I do not have to be concerned about saving brakes for a whole race. Thus I can put the hammer on the car and the 430 does not take a lot of laps before they start to fad. The Stadale with the ceramics, however, do not fad when pushing them to the max.

 

Sorry John, but you are wrong on just about all your statements.

1.) GT2 cars do not have use blowers.

2.) GT2 cars do not change rotors/pads during races. Not even for Sebring or LeMans anymore-Save rare problems.

The ultimate "g"' deceleration produced by a an F1 car has been about the same, whether carbon or steel rotors. The ultimate factor is the Mu characteristics between the pad and rotor and the tire and the ground. The single biggest advantage of carbon rotors is unsprung weight.

I have back to back tests with iron rotors and PFC "Carbon Metallic" pads and Carbone Industries Carbon/Carbon brakes (and Hitco) on GT2, GT1 (FIA), LMP1 and Champcars (I kind of design all of these cars for a living.) and have never found a fundamentally better retardation rate with Carbon brakes over steel brakes. Steel just weigh a bunch more. Carbon need more cooling and need to work at a higher overall temp-which is why people assume that they are fade free but i can assure you I can fade a set of carbon rotors as fast as a steel set, if I screw up on my cooling design. Please notice that one of the biggest areas of aero development on F1 cars is in brake ducting. Why? Because they need proper brake cooling to make sure the brakes don't fade?

As an aside- the best deceleration rates achieved by F1 cars was a number of years ago when power brakes were legal. So the limiting factor at high speed (where you have so much downforce that tire grip is not the issue) was clamping effort applied to the rotor.

As i said I run 6 Pot AP Racing calipers (CP 5575) and 355 x 32 mm steel rotors (cp 3581) on my 360 and can brake with any CS or 430 out there.I have zero fade. I run a variety of pad types-PFC Hawk and Ferodo and find good/bad about all of them.

 

CCBs on track day cars, and race cars for most (maybe all) US series, make little sense at all IMO, and in fact have more to do with marketing and image than anything else. Most drivers (especially at the track day level) can't extract the improved performance, if any, of CCBs; in any event, I don't see how the greatly increased cost can be justified. Like air jacks on a 430 Challenge car, sexy but at the same time silly.

 

Why do you think so?

 

Plus your rims stay cleaner

 

I don't mean to be curt, but I'm sorry, you don't understand how brakes work. Ultimate stopping power is determined by available traction of the tires. Iron brakes have enough friction or torque or whatever the terminology is, to overcome the tire's traction (as witnessed by your ability to lock the wheels up on a dry track with good tires) and therefore have just as much effect on braking distance as carbon or carbon ceramic brakes.

Excuse me for bringing up weight, as indeed to my understanding it is not a major significant factor. As the weight of the car increases, so does the traction (tires have larger contact patch). Likewise, as the weight of the car decreases, so does the traction (tires have less contact patch). All other factors equal, lighter weight does however give the brakes less work to do and increases their lifetime.

Also, I don't understand it at the level of Lmpdesigner's knowledge, but as he says, carbon brakes don't exert any more torque than standard iron brakes. It is commonly held that carbon or carbon ceramic material dissipates heat much better, and also the materials operate well at a higher temperature and at a wider range of temperature.

 

If I may: because they don't make pit stops during their races.

 

"If I may: because they don't make pit stops during their races."

Yes.

 

Judging by the cooling setups I've seen on DP cars ... which I should have but didn't consider as odd given my previous (until now) thoughts about carbon cooling requirements ... I guess I would agree. But I thought carbon/ceramic dissipated heat a lot better? Therefore even just in ambient conditions they can shed heat better than iron and therefore need less addt'l cooling.

Too bad so much good information on this topic is buried in a thread about market pricing conditions!

 

"I think you're going to see them become standard on luxury/exotics for a strange reason. Their lighter weight helps gas mileage and the MFG's are desperately trying to raise that any way they can.

I think Porsche is already going that route."



I hadn't thought of that, but it makes sense, very interesting! Also, I think some owners (like me) just like the way they look and the idea of having an advanced technology. Truth be told, my favorite feature of the CCBs is the lack of brake dust!

 

hmmmm... looks like I'll wait a little while longer before I break out the checkbook