Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Carbon Ceramic Brakes

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
I have found a couple of Porsche owners with CMC brakes, both say "much better than iron".

I cannot afford to change at this time, but plan to do so.

"That may be true...for a motorcycle" I do not like this comment. I use this bike on a daily basis rain or shine. If you do not own the equipment or have ridden a bike that has CMC brakes kindly refrain from posting a comment on them. As to comparing motorcycle and car brakes, the brakes do not know what they are stopping. Feel at the fingers is much better than feel at the foot. They directly cross over in all other respects.

If you feel threatened by that comment...lol

The comment was meant literally. It might be true for a motorcycle. In my history of road racing with the PCA, I never met anyone who runs anything but iron rotors. I have met many who take the CC rotors off and run iron instead. Why is that, I wonder?
 
If you feel threatened by that comment...lol

The comment was meant literally. It might be true for a motorcycle. In my history of road racing with the PCA, I never met anyone who runs anything but iron rotors. I have met many who take the CC rotors off and run iron instead. Why is that, I wonder?

Check the rulebook.

I know the OEM units on the ZR1 are absolutely fantastic after you bed them, even cold and on the street. Lots of feel, no surprises, no fade. Why anybody would replace them with any kind of iron brakes is beyond me unless they are banned.

However, for street use, you will not notice an improvement using quality iron or bi-metal rotors.
 
Last edited:
Not threatened, pointing out you comment on something you know nothing of.
PCA rules "Brake calipers and rotors must be as supplied by the factory for the year and type of vehicle" so they cannot change to CMC if they want to unless they run SP2, I don't have friends in all classes, but most are limited to steel/iron. Further, all racers that I know prefer the CMC but cannot afford to run them or are ruled out of them. The common thought is iron is "good enough" and their money is better spent elsewhere.
But that is not the subject of this thread.
 
Not threatened, pointing out you comment on something you know nothing of.
Literally what I was saying. I'm not sure what other meaning you got out of "That may be true on a motorcycle" But I am overtly stating that I do not know nor do I care how a motorcycle may react with CC rotors equipped. You are trying to pick a fight and I'm trying to say I agree with you. Put your internet rage away.

What I AM stating is that there is almost no value in a tesla. This is a Tesla forum talking about a potential mod on a Tesla. I'll even admit that the rabbit hole of performance arguments on other cars is equally irrelevant.

100lbs of rotational inertia on a 5000lb car is going to be practically unmeasurable. especially since that inertia will assist in recapturing energy when it's time to slow down. Now, if someone wants to blow $12,000 on this, OK. Personally, I think there would be more value in burning the cash in your fireplace and lavish in the extra heating for your house. Use $1 bills for better value :)
 
Well put St Charles.
But you are missing - brakes are brakes, no matter to slow a shut down gas turbine rotor or a dump truck. They are changing motion to heat and this can be measured. CMC brakes work well in all these applications, but are only used where the cost benefit warrants it. When brakes are designed, they don't build a car first to test it, they build a machine in a shop. You may not care how a type of brake acts when applied to other situations, but engineers do. Motorcycle brakes and car brakes are VERY close cousins.
In our case wheel control may be more important than brake fade. Depends on how and where you drive. A lighter tire/rim/brake package responds better to bumps. Saving a rim cut on a $300 tire would not justify a $12000 cost, but an accident surely would.
Or maybe its worth the conversation at Superchargers. :D
I am not picking a fight or raging, just correcting some thoughts.
 
Well put St Charles.
But you are missing - brakes are brakes, no matter to slow a shut down gas turbine rotor or a dump truck. They are changing motion to heat and this can be measured. CMC brakes work well in all these applications, but are only used where the cost benefit warrants it. When brakes are designed, they don't build a car first to test it, they build a machine in a shop. You may not care how a type of brake acts when applied to other situations, but engineers do. Motorcycle brakes and car brakes are VERY close cousins.
In our case wheel control may be more important than brake fade. Depends on how and where you drive. A lighter tire/rim/brake package responds better to bumps. Saving a rim cut on a $300 tire would not justify a $12000 cost, but an accident surely would.
Or maybe its worth the conversation at Superchargers. :D
I am not picking a fight or raging, just correcting some thoughts.

I appreciate your response. This is far more reasonable discourse.

"Brakes are brakes" isn't really true, however. Specific use cases and requirements will drive different designs. You are right that Brakes are not first bolted to the car and then designed. They do start with design requirements and use cases. This is why brakes on a road bicycle differ greatly from what is used on a 747. The requirements for Motorcycle braking are different from a 4 wheel sedan. While the appearance may appear similar, the design requirements will be very different. Engineers would take this into account as requirements will lead to decisions that ultimately drive design. As such, It is unreasonable to assume that where CC rotors are a total upgrade on a motorcycle, the benefit would also be realized in a Tesla.

Any use case beyond panic stopping is well outside the common use case for this car. I do not believe that the factory brakes will experience fade in a single hard stop from 100mph. Tesla is already capable of threshold breaking with the factory braking system. Any additional braking performance would begin with a change in Tire compound. Brake fade can be handled by changing to a different pad compound, as can dusting. Brake feel and bite can be changed with different pad compound. Additionally, allowing regen to slow the car rather than waiting until friction brakes are necessary will also greatly reduce dusting. All this rules out CC rotors as a reasonable performance upgrade.

Rotational weight is a minimal benefit at a total of maybe 50lbs, best case scenario. This leaves Cosmetic...
 
St Charles, you said the same thing in different words. Please accept the engineering answer, CC brakes are superior, just not usually worth the cost.You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but need to state it as such.
There are more advantages to CC brakes other than rotating mass. I totally agree pad changes can help the stock brakes, but they will never be as consistent as CC. CC has better temperature tolerance. The value of unsprung weight will vary in value depending on how rough your roads are and how fast you travel. Corrosion resistance may also be a factor. Longevity is another win for CC, but the Tesla brakes are very long lived already.
Unreasonable, reasonable, mandatory as an upgrade is all opinion.
 
Oh man, we are still doing this?

You keep spouting these advantages as if you were reading them from a Brembo catalog. The part that seems to go unnoticed, again, is that there just isn't a use case on the Tesla Model S. If you want to spend the extra $$ to make yourself feel better, go for it.

Just like premium gas in your lawnmower, CC rotors are better.
 
Unlike you, Charles, I live with CC brakes. Next door is a 911 with them, I have two sets on motorcycles.
Your opinion is yours.
But since people are buying CC brakes for Tesla's I surmise there is a case for buying them.
For me, the unsprung weight may be worth the price as it would save tires and suspension problems on the terrible roads here.
My K1300s is pictured. The reduced weight is very noticeable. Two years ago I was forced off road by a car and bent a front rim. Luckily the tire stayed inflated and all was well. GP Frame and Wheel straightened the rim. I am hoping the reduced weight will prevent damage should this happen again, the better braking is a bonus.
IMG_0812.JPG

On a car the ride change may not be felt, but the reduction of the unsprung weight will reduce wear and tear.
Unlike premium in the lawnmower, there is a tangible benefit.
 
You really aren't gonna let this go, are you?

Oh look, a bike. My tesla isn't a bike. The use case is very different.

Oh look, a 911. 911's are engineered for track work and then sold to consumers as such. Show me where Tesla says and does the same. (hint: they don't)

Unlike you, Duke, I live without CC brakes. As the benefits of CC rotors would not be realized on a Tesla. People with money and looking to spend is not validation. Your opinion is yours.

Cat_Sitting_On_Himself.jpg


Go get your CC rotors and lets chat in 100,000 miles. I'll take the $13,000 and invest, using the dividends to maybe buy a set of tires in 4 years for the difference in the wear and tear. I'll bet a Taco I come out ahead.
 
Last edited:
Charles, your only argument is that they aren't worth the cost. That's it.
They are better, in every way. They just cost more and you don't see value there.

Let me use your same logic:
The P100d and 100d are quite literally the exact same car. In every way you get the same car and performance.
The only difference is in the performance when you're floored which you can only do for less than 3 seconds.
The cost of those couple seconds is $39,500. You pay 40 grand to get better acceleration that you don't need as the 100d is faster than nearly all 'normal' cars on the road. On top of that you LOSE range. Why would anyone be that stupid when you could put that 40k into stocks and by the time you get rid of your car have like 100 grand?

You can always save money if you're willing to get less and that's the difference. To many, having the best is worth it. And the further you go, the more expensive it gets. CC brakes will make the car last longer, wear less, cleaner, faster, brake better, handle better and give you more range. Is that worth it? Obviously not to you but that doesn't mean it's not worth it to others. My guess is we'll see an option on the build page of Tesla for CC brakes before the S is retired.
 
Charles, your only argument is that they aren't worth the cost. That's it.
They are better, in every way. They just cost more and you don't see value there.
Ok. I should go get 747 brakes fitted to my tesla. They are the best brakes ever designed and I want nothing but THE BEST!!!

Let me use your same logic:
It's not...

The P100d and 100d are quite literally the exact same car. In every way you get the same car and performance.
Incorrect.

The only difference is in the performance when you're floored which you can only do for less than 3 seconds.
Also incorrect. I suspect because your description is lazy. Unless you actually meant that the P100D can only accelerate for less than 3 seconds. You probably meant 0-60 time. I'm splitting hairs because I am bored.

The cost of those couple seconds is $39,500. You pay 40 grand to get better acceleration that you don't need as the 100d is faster than nearly all 'normal' cars on the road. On top of that you LOSE range. Why would anyone be that stupid when you could put that 40k into stocks and by the time you get rid of your car have like 100 grand?
Lots of hyperbole here. The P100D is faster than 'most' other cars on the road. It is also orders of magnitude cheaper than just about any car that can keep up with it in a straight line. AND it has 4 doors. AND it can carry up to 7 passengers. AND it has loads of cargo space. AND it's safer. Additionally, if you can turn 40k into 100k in 10 or so years WTFLOL.

You can always save money if you're willing to get less and that's the difference. To many, having the best is worth it. And the further you go, the more expensive it gets. CC brakes will make the car last longer, wear less, cleaner, faster, brake better, handle better and give you more range. Is that worth it? Obviously not to you but that doesn't mean it's not worth it to others. My guess is we'll see an option on the build page of Tesla for CC brakes before the S is retired.
Make the car last longer? - What?
Wear less? - Maybe it's just me but I don't really use my brakes enough to make them wear out any time soon.
Cleaner? - Maybe? Again, I would have to actually use my brakes more than lightly and sparingly to find out.
Brake Better? - I can already lock up the wheels. The heat advantages of CC rotors aren't a thing if you are on the street.
Handle better? - You aren't going to notice on a 5000lb car. Don't kid yourself.
More range? - Zero evidence. No one claims better mileage with CC rotors. You made this up.

"better" is a weasel word. Nothing "better" about CC brakes are realized on a Tesla. This is my entire point. For your efforts, I present you this cat:

sub-buzz-12407-1467146196-31.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: Catbiscuits
From personal experience I HAVE fitted the Racing Brake CC setup and it was absolutely awful! The fact they never got hot due to re gen braking meant your emergency stopping distance is massively increased. Even your general stopping distance was increased. If they are wet they don't work at all for a short period! Racing brake even sent me out some 'uprated' pads (at a cost of over £1k to me!) which only caused the brakes to squeak under low speed braking. I am currently in a huge dispute with Racing Brake and as they do no provide any actual 0-60-0mph or 0-100-0 mph times. This proves to me they are selling a product which is both unsafe to drivers and putting other peoples lives at risk. Look at the CC brakes on an Audi RS6, they are significantly bigger on a car which weighs less than the Tesla! They clearly have done no R&D into their product but still want to charge $15K for the pleasure of trying to kill you!

My advice is as soon as a company releases some CC brakes with some actual data to back how good they are, hot or cold, then stay well away from them!
 
  • Informative
Reactions: backmarker
Charles, your only argument is that they aren't worth the cost. That's it.
They are better, in every way. They just cost more and you don't see value there.


Not sure if I'm on board for the better in every way argument. Performance is on par with good steel. When CC are wet (like just after washing the car) I really have to remind myself that they simply will not work until I drag them to dry them off. Given I rarely use my MS brakes, I would fear a puddle then needing the brakes miles down the road and forgetting to dry them. Lastly, CC dust a lot less but man they must mix in glue with that dust. The stuff is a royal pain in the butt to get off. I've even taken to waxing the inside of my rims just to get it to release a tad bit easier (and if you knew me, you would understand just how much of a commitment that is :) ).

CC are nice. I'm just not sure they are the cat's rear that people sometimes say they are. By the same token, I would not begrudge anyone for wanting them. They sure are pretty.
 
From personal experience I HAVE fitted the Racing Brake CC setup and it was absolutely awful! The fact they never got hot due to re gen braking meant your emergency stopping distance is massively increased. Even your general stopping distance was increased. If they are wet they don't work at all for a short period! Racing brake even sent me out some 'uprated' pads (at a cost of over £1k to me!) which only caused the brakes to squeak under low speed braking. I am currently in a huge dispute with Racing Brake and as they do no provide any actual 0-60-0mph or 0-100-0 mph times. This proves to me they are selling a product which is both unsafe to drivers and putting other peoples lives at risk. Look at the CC brakes on an Audi RS6, they are significantly bigger on a car which weighs less than the Tesla! They clearly have done no R&D into their product but still want to charge $15K for the pleasure of trying to kill you!

My advice is as soon as a company releases some CC brakes with some actual data to back how good they are, hot or cold, then stay well away from them!
Mind posting exactly what brakes you fitted? How many miles do you have on them? Did you do a "brake in" on your brakes?
Was it these? RB Calipers & CCM-X Rotor Package for Tesla Model S (P/N 2C32 & 2C33)
If so I need to see what differences there are in material from my bike which works well wet or dry, hot or cold.
 
Resurrecting an old thread. There is so much misinformation from people who clearly have never had ceramic brakes on a car that I had to comment so that someone searching who finds this thread is not misled by some high school kid posting cat pics pretending to be an expert

I’ve had them on two Porsche’s, what they call pccb and are a brembo product. Here is my experience

They work when cold. They work when wet. They work at the track (I tracked on mine on my Porsche gt3). They don’t make black dust. The feel on turn in is incomparable to steel. Something about angular momentum. The feel in bumpy roads is more planted. Lots of bumpy roads in the Bay Area even though we have an economy the size of the UK...

They’re expensive, for some. So what, make more money and if not affordable for you then I question if a Tesla S P100D is either. They squeak sometimes. Some people chip the edges of theirs and you see them on fleabay

the car that Tesla used to set a record at the Nurburgring had AP calipers and ceramic rotors. I want that setup and if Tesla sold it I would buy it. The cost is not material

I don’t know racing brake and have never seen their products at track days where I instruct. If there were a factory option would imagine many would buy them

Will ignore any further replies or misinformation, as we used to say in the 90s “arguing on the Internet is like competing in the special olympics, even if you win you are still retarded”
 
Wow. I'm glad someone that knows everything set the record straight.

From my humble vantage point with only one car using carbon ceramic street car brakes (as opposed to the carbon carbon stuff used on "other" cars), they do not like having water on them. More than once I've had a catch your breath moment when there was little if any initial bite. Its kinda like having a good layer of corrosion on your MS brakes; you gotta get through it before things return to normal. They do dust but nowhere near as much as steel brakes. If you are lazy like me and do not wash your rims regularly, the dust is tenacious and a real bear to get off. I must agree with backmarker on the value of the reduction in unsprung weight and rotational inertia. Less weight with the brakes does improve handling and ride.

As for cost, expense and the like, I consider those issues personal and those types of disposable income purchases are a private decision. I would not presume to tell anyone what they should and should not spend their money on.