Comprehensive and thorough response, I congratulate you. Admirable these days.
This is a compatibility art between the rotor and pad. It's normal that friction materials wear but shall be at an "acceptable" rate. You like CCM rotor but the pad wear rate seems to be disappointing, just like someone like "full metallic" (sintered) pad but
it can accelerate the rotor wear. So the rotor and pad must be considered together for an optimal brake package.
Excellent point. And, you are fully correct. The original Pagid's that came with the CCM's were GREAT, just expensive. Carbotech and now Hawk's since have been very very very good, but wear quickly. Considering they are less than 1/2 price, that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make. I am strongly considering the sintered pads as a next several pad alternative, and I am certainly open to suggestions from you. I have tried Pagids, then Carbotech XP10's, Carbotech XP12's, and now Hawk DTC-70's. All have been good, but since the Pagid's, it's been very hard to get a full "deposit layer" on the CCM's, so there's some brake judder on track. Certainly tolerable (and maybe no worse than the less than perfect street tires I'm using may be causing in and of themselves). Do you have a pad you'd suggest?
According to CCM rotor supplier's claim their rotors are "
ridiculously hard", so unless you are using "full metallic" pad I can imagine it's difficult to dent the rotor.
Even the backing pates and rivets from the Pagids and Carbotechs have failed to leave a score on the CCM's. They successfully "removed" the bedding layer of the pad, but then deposited backing plate on the rotor. The backing plates brake quite well, actually.
I overheard that GT-R has brake issues so I have been following on this forum and we like to take the challenge and work with GT-R community for a solution.
An admirable goal. i think this is a good idea, honestly.
Understand GT-R stock cooling vanes are not curved, so the cooling efficiency is the same as EVO rotors (1 or 2 pc) and if Nissan uses same standard rotor material and "drill" them, you can understand their performance can be worse if not any better than EVO rotors (EVO rotors are not drilled)
Something that nearly killed me at VIR, actually. When I still was driving my EVO, the stock EVO rotors, as you point out, have no capacity to outgas. Between Saturday and Sunday, I had to switch pads. Despite bedding the pads well (but not getting them to full hot temp, which is hard to do on the street), on lap THREE I had no brakes AT ALL. Thank God I was on VIR Grand East when this happened. Grand East has a turn, which is blocked off from "Full" course. Fortunately, I could go straight onto the full course. It was a thin layer of gas from a pad that had finally hit full temp, with no slots, dimples, or drills to escape. It took me a while to clean the EVO's seat. Thank goodness they were black.
At the same token rotors on EVO are much smaller and lighter: 320x32 (8/9), and 350x32 (10) vs. GT-R's 380x34 (=Porsche 997 GT2/GT3). Can mfgrs already factored in their brake design (rotor size) to the car/horsepower which is usually more than sufficient for most of their customers-street driving (97%?) and only very few that are heavily tracking have issues and need special attention.
Given. I resorted to AMS's cooling kit to improve padwear. I was using Brembo crossdrilled rotors, and then finally Performance Friction two piece. Both were much better than stock. Evolutionm.net members rated your rotors a little better than both of these rotors, however.
They are respectful names in the "professional racing", however I believe RB has more experience in dealing with "amateur or weekend" racers with budget in mind, although it's yet to be proven in GT-R community.
And, you make another excellent point. There are a few companies that do best with the "weekend warrior" rather than the full racer. Racecars have the luxury of "throwing away" high cost high performance parts at the end of a competition. Many of us weekenders have scrapped most of our lives to afford a great track car like this, and $500 rotors are not easy to dispose of happily. I have had excellent opinions by my old community of your products, so I welcome you.
CCM rotor is not a new technology and its overall value; initial, maintenance (incl. compatible brake pads) cost vs. performance gain and durability (very easy to chip) comparing to iron rotor is yet to be seen although I still believe iron rotor is the one to prevail over the time. As an alternative, we also make
CGI (Compacted Graphite Iron) rotors dedicated for club racing, CGI has much better tensile strength and good heat characteristics than flake iron. So the rotor can be made with less material to further reduce the weight.
And, another good point. The initial outlay on the CCM's is so high, they're not for everybody. Myself, with a bad back and poor tolerance for switching out rotors on ANY regular basis (even every 16-24 months would be a problem for me), the CCM's may prove their worth over time (it'll take ten years, I'm afraid). Unfortunately, your GT-R rotors aren't yet in the CGI material. However, I am certainly impressed with the solution that only uses one rotor ring. A truly unique thought. More thoughtful than any other company to this point that I'm aware for the "track warrior".
Agree, the best way is to put the rotor and pad to test by someone you would vouch in GT-R community, someone that are competent to run the test, collecting data and provide impartial evaluation.
That's easy. Three possible nominations - 1. descartesfool 2. icarus 3.pi-man (mentioned alphabetically). pi-man assembles tables of pad and rotor thickness between track events, descartesfool and icarus are both hard track goers, and both use auxillary cooling to improve brake pad life, and all three have the patience and respect from this community to be complete and have the thoroughness to provide the feedback here. I'd suggest the first one of them that chimes in here we nominate as a potential to provide that data back to this community.
Shawn
