[Cavpilot2k]

Originally Posted by Levi

M2 rival, the RS3 will get CCB, so why should not the M2 get that?

Not if they push the price of the car up by $8k just for brakes that 90% of buyers don't need. They should be an option, not standard. Otherwise they will artificially inflate the entry price of the vehicle up to around $60k, which will be a deal-breaker for a lot of people, based on the feedback from this forum.

In fact, if they came as a no cost option, I would NOT get them. Here is why:
I will be honest: I am one of the 90% of potential buyers that will never really need the marginal performance upgrade. I am not a poseur - I am simply a driving enthusiast who enjoys spirited driving and wants a great DD for track use 2-3 times a year. So if I am not likely to need the upgrade, why would I opt for a relatively fragile component that costs 10x as much to replace and is 100x more likely to get chipped, dinged, or otherwise inadvertently damaged.

I actually think that most of the people who DO get them will be poseurs because they are the cool "gotta have it" performance item. "check out my bitchin' CC brakes, brah"

[m3bs]

I just did a search for replacement M3 rotors: $4500 each was the lowest I found.

There's an article in the latest Panorama (PCA magazine) by a Boxster owner with PCCB. Six track days and the wear indicators were showing. His lap times improved after switching to iron Probably not the result of brakes, but clearly the iron rotors didn't slow him down.

Make mine metal until the technology improves and the cost comes down.

[vantagesc]

Originally Posted by RingMeister01

Correct about the popularity of the steels with the Porsche and Ferrari crowd. This has more to do with consumable and replacement cost rather than outright performance. I'm nominating myself to try the Carbons for this use, If BMW decides to give us this option.

- Also has to do with the pad choices available. If you are running slicks or racing, then the stock ceramic pads don't really cut it. There's a reason 911 Cup cars don't use PCCB despite having engines requiring rebuilds every 50 hours.

- The same racing drivers also dislike the consistently of brake modulation with ceramics, which changes with temperature. Some also report poor release characteristics.

So it just depends on how extreme your requirements are. For light tracking, ceramic should be no problem. An option better suited to street cars IMO. The big caveat is that ceramics are improving with every generation, so who knows what we'll get on the M2. Nor do I think people really would track the M2 as hard as some other ground up sports / race cars.

Let us know how they are in two years!

[Pete_vB]

Originally Posted by vantagesc

There's a reason 911 Cup cars don't use PCCB despite having engines requiring rebuilds every 50 hours.

So it just depends on how extreme your requirements are. For light tracking, ceramic should be no problem.

GT3 SuperCup cars, as opposed to the regular GT3 Cup cars, use PCCB ceramic brakes. They work well with slicks and motorsports pads. They changed rotors every other race weekend as of a couple years ago, I'm not sure if that has increased recently with the move to larger rotors.

[JustChris]

surely this might as well be do you intend to track your M2. For me not really or very infrequently so no, not for GBP£6000. Thats a lot of fuel covered in Sport+

[RingMeister01]

Originally Posted by vantagesc

- Also has to do with the pad choices available. If you are running slicks or racing, then the stock ceramic pads don't really cut it. There's a reason 911 Cup cars don't use PCCB despite having engines requiring rebuilds every 50 hours.

- The same racing drivers also dislike the consistently of brake modulation with ceramics, which changes with temperature. Some also report poor release characteristics.

So it just depends on how extreme your requirements are. For light tracking, ceramic should be no problem. An option better suited to street cars IMO. The big caveat is that ceramics are improving with every generation, so who knows what we'll get on the M2. Nor do I think people really would track the M2 as hard as some other ground up sports / race cars.

Let us know how they are in two years!

I will sir. I plan to break that mold. Thank you for your input.

[dsh135]

If I could easily afford them I'd get them, both for the slight performance increase and the pride of ownership factor, but given the huge law of diminishing returns of ceramics over the best standard set-ups it doesn't bother me at all that I can't.

[LDSM]

I do hope they're offered as an option.

I would hate to see BMW significantly handicap the M2, just because of the M3/M4


M2 vs M3/M4 debates will look very similar to Cayman vs 911 debates

[oldmanstyle]

The option is priced ok if only the replacement costs weren't so much.

[FTS]

Originally Posted by vantagesc

- Also has to do with the pad choices available. If you are running slicks or racing, then the stock ceramic pads don't really cut it. There's a reason 911 Cup cars don't use PCCB despite having engines requiring rebuilds every 50 hours.

Are you sure lack of pad choices is what is keeping Cup cars from using PCCBs? I know Porsche offers motorsport pads for PCCBs, so probably there is another reason. May be, do you think, the racing series rules do not allow it depending on the Cup car version? As Pete_vB mentions Supercup uses them. Also, when Supercup used to use steel rotors, they were changing rotor each weekend and quite often twice a weekend, now they trippled the duration of rotor durability under racing conditions.

[crqflier]

Seems everyone is ignoring the big loss in unsprung and rotating weight with CC rotors. Had a chance to talk with Boris Said about an M3 that he spec'd for himself. Only options: 6MT, LED, and CC brakes. His reco: if you track a lot or race, definitely CC. If it's a DD with an hpde 1-2 times a year, regular works great.

[fcman]

Originally Posted by Levi

In the comparison M4 vs. RC F, the M4 was 3/10 faster thanks to CCB.

I highly doubt the CCB is anything other than a negligible factor in why the M4 is faster than the RCF, the 415lb weight difference on the same size rubber (and better rubber on the M4) play a far larger role. Steel brakes will stop just as quickly as carbons until your start pulling a ton of laps and they become heat soaked

[sgrinavi]

Originally Posted by crqflier

Seems everyone is ignoring the big loss in unsprung and rotating weight with CC rotors. Had a chance to talk with Boris Said about an M3 that he spec'd for himself. Only options: 6MT, LED, and CC brakes. His reco: if you track a lot or race, definitely CC. If it's a DD with an hpde 1-2 times a year, regular works great.

If you're tracking regularly with the CC option be sure to factor in the cost of changing out rotors. Unless you're in a competition class (where the payoff is really good) the slight increase lap times is not going to change your fun-factor even if you do track often.

[Artemis]

Originally Posted by LDSM

I do hope they're offered as an option.
I would hate to see BMW significantly handicap the M2, just because of the M3/M4
M2 vs M3/M4 debates will look very similar to Cayman vs 911 debates

Uh-oh...
http://f80.bimmerpost.com/forums/sho....php?t=1107233

[Dackelone]

Originally Posted by m3bs

I just did a search for replacement M3 rotors: $4500 each was the lowest I found.

There's an article in the latest Panorama (PCA magazine) by a Boxster owner with PCCB. Six track days and the wear indicators were showing. His lap times improved after switching to iron Probably not the result of brakes, but clearly the iron rotors didn't slow him down.

Make mine metal until the technology improves and the cost comes down.

BMW wasn't smart like Porsche when it comes to their first generation CCB.

BMW's CCB's don't have wear dots or bars. Instead... you MUST disassemble the entire braking system. Weigh the CCB rotor, and THEN you will know IF they are worn out or not. Can you imagine the repair bill to check your brakes?

Dackel

[Artemis]

Let's wait and see what BMW M comes up with.

[BIGMIG]

If I could afford it I woul. There is one racetrack an hour away from the city, but it is small and there are not many open events.

Aggressive pads and rotors for autoX would be sufficient for me. CCBs would be balleur.

[kd0t]

Do they ceramic brakes follow the same warranty as regular brakes? In terms of free maintenance? Haha

[filet.M2c]

For $8k I can get a new set of wheels, tires, a tune, full exhaust, and intake. Only planning on tracking a couple times a year... so no.

[Artemis]

Originally Posted by synergist

For $8k I can get a new set of wheels, tires, a tune, full exhaust, and intake. Only planning on tracking a couple times a year... so no.

...and lots of fuel (another bare necessity for driving pleasure) !

[Denk]

I'd skip 'em even at $1K.

[FTS]

Originally Posted by Dackelone

BMW wasn't smart like Porsche when it comes to their first generation CCB.

BMW's CCB's don't have wear dots or bars. Instead... you MUST disassemble the entire braking system. Weigh the CCB rotor, and THEN you will know IF they are worn out or not. Can you imagine the repair bill to check your brakes?

Dackel

When you mention 1st gen, do you mean the current MCCBs on the F8x and F10, etc.? Those do have wear indicators, same as PCCBs. However, those don't mean much frankly as they only show the wear on the outter ceramic coating, not the inner core which has to be weighed, just like PCCBs.