Quote:
Originally Posted by windtendo
I just got back from a 2-day M performance driving school in SC over the weekend and one of the first things I noticed was that all of the M4C's and M5C's that we drove were fitted with CCB's. I asked them why they decided on this, and they said it's actually cheaper to fit them versus steels because the rotors and pads get chewed up way too quick with steels. You may go thru multiple sets of steel rotors and pads before making a big payment towards replacing the CCB's. So while the CCB replacement cost is expensive, the multiple replacement costs for steels adds up. The CCB's apparently last for much longer than people on here are stating when taking to the track.
We were beating the absolute shit out of these cars and not a single hint of brake fade!
|
That is interesting - I totally get the fade resistance, inertia benefit and that a set of ccb pads & rotors will outlive a single set of steels. But when cost is factored into the equation, I have noticed lotsa people on the forum that track their cars saying the opposite perspective (they choose steels). I am guessing you could do 5 or more(?) steel rotor/ pad break changes for the price of one ccb rotor / pad change ( don’t quote me it’s just a guess, I’m sure someone has hard numbers!). I think from BMW NA’s perspective it makes sense to use CCB at the performance centre because it maybe incrementally a bit safer from a fade resistance stand point for the range of driver skill coming through on cars tracked all day.... but no doubt there is also an advertising angle to all of this to tip people into optioning CCBs on their cars.... ie
if the performance centre can leverage tens of thousands in additional brake service costs per year (on their cars) but in turn convince an additional few dozen people to option the CCB when ordering a car then mission accomplished - high fives all around the boardroom table ( cue cynical smile )
