When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
haha - what's the remaining thickness of the stock rotors? unloading them by chance? I'm still on my stockers after a bunch of track days and 55k+ miles... they seem to be lasting pretty well
Not sure what the remaining thickness is. But yes, definitely unloading them -- preferably to someone who'll resurface them and... evaluate the advice I got. :]
Didn't snap any during the install unfortunately, so this is as good as I can offer. Witness the awesome power of my dirty and slightly curb-rashed wheel!
Also, there seems to be more hardware-to-bracket clearance now that the wheels are on, for what that's worth. I'm guessing the rotors just hadn't been fully seated before.
Looks great. Too bad they don't play nice with Carbotech pads.
FWIW, RacingBrake support told me this was an issue with some ceramic pad compounds. They say the alloy they use for the friction ring is too hard to allow those ceramic compounds to bed in properly. Apparently semi-metallic compounds don't have that problem. No idea how to evaluate that claim, but there it is. If it's true, then Carbotech's semi-metallic compounds should be fine. Thoughts?
You know, that is something needs to be verified. I think I remember someone from Carbotech telling me that a year or so ago, and I think I remember reading where Racing Brake has said the same thing, but I should be sure of it before spreading rumors. I'll call both today and see what they have to say about each other.
You know, that is something needs to be verified. I think I remember someone from Carbotech telling me that a year or so ago, and I think I remember reading where Racing Brake has said the same thing, but I should be sure of it before spreading rumors. I'll call both today and see what they have to say about each other.
Not sure if you ever got around to this, but I just had pretty much this exact convo with Carbotech. Their version of the "incompatibility" story is that RacingBrake used to have significant quality issues, which was the real culprit in the incident that touched off the whole RacingBrake/Carbotech incompatibility thing. He also dropped a few other tidbits that make the story more detailed and coherent than what I had been getting from RacingBrake alone.
Here's the story as I understand it: Basically, RacingBrake's rotors accumulate pad material more than others do. This probably has something to do with the harder alloy just refusing to go anywhere. Either way, if you're using a relatively abrasive pad (poor rotor wear), there's less need to worry about pad deposits because the pad's abrasion keeps the deposits in check. But if you're using a pad that's really mild on rotors, and you get it really hot, deposits will accumulate. That's probably where the "no ceramic" thing comes in; ceramic pads tend to have less rotor wear and lower heat ranges, so they're more likely to heat up enough to leave deposits without being abrasive enough to keep those deposits in check.
Per Carbotech, their pads tend to be nicer to rotors than, say, equivalent Hawk pads. Meanwhile, RacingBrake highly recommends Hawk pads...
I can attest to the fact that Carbotech pads can leave deposits--especially in high heat environments. I use their XP10 and XP8 pads as track pads on both my Miata and RX-8. They do occasionally gum up rotors with uneven deposits in the summer. The remedy is to cool them down completely, then bed them in again from cold. The cold pads scrape the old deposits off, then lay down a new friction layer as they heat up. Cool everything back down, and you are good.
It is a perfectly reasonable explanation that RB's rotors may be or have been more susceptible to accumulating deposits from such a pad, and that more abrasive pads are less prone to do it (at a cost of higher rotor wear). I'm sure it depends on the metallurgy and quality control.
It is also reasonable to wonder if RB likes Hawk pads, because Hawk pads result in more replacement rotor ring sales.
Per Carbotech, their pads tend to be nicer to crap material rotors that when pushed hard, like in a track/racing scenario, are susceptible to warping, cracking, and wearing extremely faster than, say, equivalent Hawk pads. Meanwhile, RacingBrake highly recommends Hawk pads that work extremely well with their rotors that have a proven reputation for handling aggressive pad material like a boss ...
It is also reasonable to wonder if RB likes Hawk pads, because Hawk pads result in more replacement rotor ring sales.
The people here on this forum using them with highly aggressive pads report much better wear. Plus they don't crack or warp. FWIW I remember when Carbotech "used to have some manufacturing issues". The BS rationalization games people get into are really tiresome.
I don't see this as being any different than someone posting a thread about putting a hipo/race seat in their otherwise stock street car and initially being fussy about the installation/fitment then later complaining it's a pain to get in/out of, not comfortable because it's too restrictive, etc. followed by claims the manufacturer is obviously overrated and so on.
All I know is, I use Carbotech pads on whatever rotors are cheapest on Rock Auto, and pads and rotors last a very long time. All the Hawk pads I tried ate rotors like crazy. It would never occur to me to run Hawk pads on expensive rotors simply because of that fact. Maybe RB rotors are awesome enough to withstand the Hawk abuse, but I'll not be betting my money on it. My approach works great, and I see no reason to change it.
All I know is, I use Carbotech pads on whatever rotors are cheapest on Rock Auto, and pads and rotors last a very long time. All the Hawk pads I tried ate rotors like crazy. It would never occur to me to run Hawk pads on expensive rotors simply because of that fact. Maybe RB rotors are awesome enough to withstand the Hawk abuse, but I'll not be betting my money on it. My approach works great, and I see no reason to change it.
Isnt it relative to the Hawk pad youre using? HP plus tore through rotors on my cobra very quickly. Switched to HPS and have had a significant decrease in premature wear, with somewhat comparable performance (granted I'm not a very good driver).
Side note, did you ever check temp difference between pads?
All I know is, I use Carbotech pads on whatever rotors are cheapest on Rock Auto, and pads and rotors last a very long time. All the Hawk pads I tried ate rotors like crazy. It would never occur to me to run Hawk pads on expensive rotors simply because of that fact. Maybe RB rotors are awesome enough to withstand the Hawk abuse, but I'll not be betting my money on it. My approach works great, and I see no reason to change it.
The impression I get is:
- If you were already going to use a Hawk pad or any other high-rotor-wear pad for whatever reason, you'll be much better off with a RacingBrake rotor because it'll hold up much better.
- If you pick a pad material that can have pad transfer issues in any situation, you might be worse off with a RacingBrake rotor. The pad transfer issues will be more likely to happen and worse when they do happen.
- If your pad material is somewhere in the middle, a RacingBrake rotor should still last longer than most other options, though whether it's worthwhile is up to you.
The people here on this forum using them with highly aggressive pads report much better wear. Plus they don't crack or warp. FWIW I remember when Carbotech "used to have some manufacturing issues". The BS rationalization games people get into are really tiresome.
I don't see this as being any different than someone posting a thread about putting a hipo/race seat in their otherwise stock street car and initially being fussy about the installation/fitment then later complaining it's a pain to get in/out of, not comfortable because it's too restrictive, etc. followed by claims the manufacturer is obviously overrated and so on.
Missed this post earlier. It's a fair point, and I do appreciate what you've said on this and related topics, so I thought I should respond.
I completely agree that the purported mechanism here -- rotors being too hard for mild pads to keep clean -- makes logical sense in a performance context. But this isn't a case of stumbling blindly into a well-known peculiarity of a whole class of performance parts.
Two things are different here:
1. This particular quirk seems to be unique to RacingBrake, or close enough. No other automotive iron rotors seem to be widely known to have it, including track-oriented rotors from known performance brands. I've spoken with a lot of trackday enthusiasts and brake part vendors about this, including Porterfield, StopTech, Good-Win-Racing, etc.; the only ones who had even heard of such a thing were employees and customers of RacingBrake and Carbotech talking about RacingBrake rotors.
2. Having read about this potential issue, I called RacingBrake before placing my order and asked them specifically about using OE pads with their rotors. They gave me multiple direct and explicit assurances that OE pads would be fine. Only very recently did they change their tune, having exhausted all other explanations for my chronic NVH issue besides rotor quality defects.
05-13-2016, 07:42 AM
