Page 14 of 24 FirstFirst ... 41213141516 ... LastLast
Results 131 to 140 of 237

Thread: 599GTB - Modificato Project

  1. #131
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    London
    Name
    Mark
    Posts
    963

    Default

    P.S. No two CCM discs weigh the same. The manufacturing process is actually very imprecise. There many be 10's of grams out across one axle. The manufacturers try to fit discs roughly the same but it never is.

    Also, CCMs are balanced to their bell to take into account the huge manufacturing tolerances. Brembo have finally moved to having balance weights fixed to the bells on their new generation discs - this started a year or so ago.

  2. #132
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    north west
    Name
    CPD
    Posts
    2,712

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MWStewart View Post
    Ahh, yes, do not rely on that dash algorithm! My advice to people asking me about CCM conversions has been do not have it enabled in the cluster. It's worth noting that some manufacturers now are moving away from weighing discs because it's not really that reliable either: in situations where a car has been driven on the road it's generally OK, but cars that are driven hard suffer from excessive pad material transfer which can artificially bolster the weight. I've become pretty deft at evaluating CCMs by eye.
    Just had a very interesting call with Wolfgang from brake.de and then a tech call with the SICOM factory. I also have corresponded with Surface Transforms so have been down a similar learning path. I asked Wolfgang bluntly about his public troubles with SICOM and the stories going about the net forums. He was very frank and told me about a customer from eastern Europe who had started the stories and why.

    Bottom line - there is a failure rate in the re-manufacturing process down to invisible inclusions in the disc and / or hairline cracks in supplied discs that have gone undetected by their inbound inspection. The incoming inspection IS thorough but their latest data is that still 0.375% of discs fail the process - in fact - 3 in the last 800 discs at the last count. The discs go through three Pyrolytic cycles in the re-manufacture process so any defects WILL cause a failure. Someone's disc had that failure and decided to dispute it that turned into a stand-off and resulting internet coverage. Secondly they have also had capacity problems as the factory having delays commissioning extra capacity in their autoclaves. As word spread that Carbon discs could be re-furbished they had that nicest problem to have for them but bad for customers - too much work. Lead-times extended and like anything that has a priority system introduced it slows the whole thing down and creates winners and losers. Road car customers started to experience extended lead times and bigger batches waiting for bigger autoclaves saw capacity increase but 'service' decrease. The old economies of scale folly.

    In corresponding with surface transforms I have learned more myself about assessing wear and the now increasingly relevant issue of Ferrari Road car CCM wear. The first Ferrari cars to get Brembo CCM's were the Enzo and the 360 CS. The 360 test mule allegedly did >300,000km on one Brembo disc set but that seems now to be down to the development car using pre-production discs that didn't make it onto the customer cars. Depending on who you talk to there are two stories as to why but the product was - shall we say - not quite consumer ready. Needing too much heat in them to be acceptable in cold initial use / and for people who don't drive like Ferrari test drivers the material was changed. The original customer CCM's (we will call CCM1's) were thus different and what are now known as uniform hardness chopped carbon ceramics. These are also known in the industry as 'soft' carbon discs (sitting at approximately 70 on the Vickers Hardness scale). Hard wear has the chopped carbon pieces getting dislodged and the whole disc becomes what I call 'swiss-cheesed'. See voiceys blog for great close-up pictures of this phenomenon. This wear characteristic drove the initial thought that the most reliable way of measuring wear was by weighing the discs. In hard used scenarios this is a sound logic but the trouble is that regular road is unlikely to wear discs in this way at all and as long as they are mirror-like in appearance they can be run way down beyond the stamped minimum weights and revert to a simple minimum thickness measure. Example is my rear discs have a stated lower limit of 6615 grams but the industry guys say they can be run perfectly safely down to 6540grams as long as surface-wise they are still in good order. Being relatively softer than later ceramics they do wear like steel discs complete with a reduced thickness and corresponding lip around the discs albeit slower. Who knows where the discs on the California that Voicey shows on his website came from but I can only surmise they came from another very very heavily tracked car and / or one owned by an idiot that regularly drove into and immersed in the stability systems on the car. Foreign object damage could equally be part of that equation but it still shows what an unscrupulous person can be capable of.

    Initial Ferrari service advice was two sets of pads = new discs but the industry guys suggest that is valid only for challenge race cars and is ridiculously conservative for road use.

    Still hardly any Enzo's or CS have likely reached this point due to their status and typical collection / non-usage so no great numbers running into the issue yet.

    For later 'soft carbon' disc cars such as the F430 and 599GTB we are seeing owners run into the now inevitable dilemmas on replacement. The dash algorithm is of course there and again this is known to throw up wildly variable results and also many spurious ones. By example sit at traffic lights with your foot resting on the brake - you trigger 'wear' or...by contrast take a detour into the kitty litter on a track day and incur no algorithm 'wear' but likely lots of physical damage. In my own studies it seems that the main cause for premature wear is mainly through external 'third party' abrasives such as road salt / sand / track day kitty litter and driving badly into the cars systems limits, and / or bad braking technique. Desert country based cars are known to be suffering more rapid ageing. Looking at the disc faces has become my most reliable way of assessing these components. Glass smooth and shiny appearance = good surface. Dulling denotes pad material depositing on the disc at higher temperature and 'swiss-cheesing' more serious wear. My 599 disc faces are glass smooth and even incurring an 11% wear on the Mille Miglia they showed no visual signs of duress. Similarly track use at Silverstone showed no dulling and indeed the front tyres went 'off' before brake performance declined any. Although I use the car with different Mannetino settings I count driving into them as a 'mistake' not an aid so in the heavy rain of the 2016 Mille Miglia I found out where the rain setting limit was and then drove consistently up to not into that limit. Later in the dry the same with Sport. At Silverstone fast laps in Race mode would trigger some intervention at Chapel and occasionally at Stowe but other than that I hardy 'use' the electronic aids. By contrast the used set of CCM's I acquired had much greater wear on the rears pointing to lots of SCM use.

    So...

    If I was buying a CCM1 car now I would pay the hours labour to have a dash read-out, disc weighing, and visual inspection as the dash read-out can be worthless.

    The second generation of CCM's and indeed a SICOM refurbished set eliminates much of this inherent 'soft CCM' problem by adding a thin Silicon Carbonate facing-layer (sitting at approximately 100 on the Vickers scale). This means a much extended life like the later CCM tech now fitted to Porsche, Bentley, Audi et al. Ferrari call these CCM2 but I am not sure how their service regime differs over CCM1. These discs are known to be good for at least around 50,000 miles so they not only make sense performance and handling wise over steel (unsprung weight reduction being the primary benefit on road) but economically they make sense too - now that they can be refurbished. If I was buying a car with SICOM refurbished discs on I would consider that 'added value' over OEM and of course steel. Also if I was buying a replacement set of discs I would prefer to buy SICOM refurbished over new OEM for both cost AND performance. There are 'almost' equivalent fit discs for some tipo - for example using Corvette parts - but I haven't been able to confirm if these are soft or CCM2 standard I suspect the former.

    Surface Transforms technology is another step on now in tech from Brembo and uses a continuous carbon fibre strand method to create the discs. Its principle benefit is that the brakes run a lot cooler and that for the same surface area you get more effective braking and even longer life but you must buy both their discs and pads. These are still well below OEM prices but significantly more than an OEM disc refurbish route. The only road car applications as an OEM supplier so far are Koenigsegg and BAC Mono but they have recently signed a pre-production deal with a German OEM to use their CCM3(?) tech on higher volumes. They are already making and supplying Ferrari discs as they have spotted the niche for soft disc replacement. They thus have products available now for 360, 430, 458, and 599.

    To cut a long story short for my Mille Miglia 2017 prep.

    I am sending Wolfgang a set of discs for the 599 (The spare set I bought which were supposedly 63% worn but are actually below the weight limit) and will weigh my current on-car set to see how 93% worn on SD3 actually translates to weights. We will fit the SICOM discs and reset the wear to 0% on SD3 and see what this years 3,000mile odyssey suggests in terms of wear.

    I will report my experiences and any other knowledge gained as it comes.
    I am still waiting for additional responses from various enquiries to Brembo themselves but they are slow to reply so far.

  3. #133
    Mike01606's Avatar
    Mike01606 is offline Nowhere to put the shopping -The Ferrari F40 Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Cheshire
    Name
    Mike M
    Posts
    3,499

    Default

    Nice summary


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  4. #134
    sssdu01 is offline No I'm Spartacus Committee Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Gloucestershire UK
    Name
    Simon Dutton
    Posts
    1,441

    Default

    Mod forgot two most important benefits to CCM brakes

    1 No dust
    2 Pose value when your mates say "Bloody hell those are bigger than the wheels on my car !!!"
    3 Massive 6 pot calipers on the front for extra pose value. Especially in red !!

    I am not sure if they are any good as my car has never been over 70

  5. #135
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    London
    Name
    Mark
    Posts
    963

    Default

    I look forward to seeing if SICOM have turned things around.

    Don't forget to measure thickness too, Chris. That's one of the three data points to evaluate condition.

  6. #136
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    north west
    Name
    CPD
    Posts
    2,712

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MWStewart View Post
    I look forward to seeing if SICOM have turned things around.

    Don't forget to measure thickness too, Chris. That's one of the three data points to evaluate condition.
    Sure forgot to mention it as an important variable that becomes increasingly important in the typical road wear scenario.

    Minimums are stamped in the disc bell housings along with minimum weights.

  7. #137
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    London
    Name
    Mark
    Posts
    963

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Modificato View Post
    Sure forgot to mention it as an important variable that becomes increasingly important in the typical road wear scenario.

    Minimums are stamped in the disc bell housings along with minimum weights.
    Something else just occurred to me: can you find out how SICOM manage disc balancing? Not many people are aware of it for CCM's but I'd like to think they take it into account.

  8. #138
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    north west
    Name
    CPD
    Posts
    2,712

    Default

    Sure will report back

  9. #139
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    north west
    Name
    CPD
    Posts
    2,712

    Default

    Got some info corroborated by Wolfgang - the floating design of the Ferrari CCM discs means there is no need for balancing as the manufacturing variances are accounted for in the floating carrier design.

    CCM2 / PCCB / AMG / Bentley carbon brakes...however do become balance critical above 400mm diameter and need an extra balancing check and adjustment in the SICOM process which is reflected in a higher pricing.

  10. #140
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    London
    Name
    Mark
    Posts
    963

    Default

    Thanks. Interesting. Brembo have started supplying their new assemblies with a facility for balance weights. I've attached a photo of a California disc to illustrate: note the tapped holes around the circumference of the bells and a balance weight attached to one (sometimes there are two or three). Brembo started supplying these as an improvement over the earlier generation. California front discs are 390 or 394mm.

    Personally, for peace of mind I would want SICOM discs checked to be sure. I have negotiated 60 + VAT per disc with Steve at Vibration Free. He's done a lot of work in the F1 field so is trustworthy.

    An ideal test would be a before and after. I will have a front set to do soon so will check it out if you want.

    Name:  tmp_3828-$_3.JPG-1444267427.jpg
Views: 322
Size:  64.7 KB

Page 14 of 24 FirstFirst ... 41213141516 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. modificato - contact details
    By rustywings in forum Lounge
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 27-09-2011, 09:10 PM
  2. 456 Modificato differences ?
    By dsolds in forum Ferrari Talk
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 12-10-2008, 09:21 PM
  3. 599GTB up for grabs
    By Moz in forum Ferrari Talk
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 04-11-2007, 10:17 AM
  4. Ferrari 599GTB
    By Ferraritech in forum Ferrari Talk
    Replies: 37
    Last Post: 10-02-2006, 09:54 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •