Why Carbon-Ceramic Brakes Are Expensive. And Why They Might Be Worth It

A couple of years ago, a Brembo engineer told me something that stuck: If you buy a car with carbon-ceramic brakes, you'll likely never need to replace the rotors. I'd heard the benefits of carbon-ceramic brakes talked up before, but this particularly bold claim seemed wild, an answer to the ultimate question: Are these fancy brakes worth their huge price tag?
On the Cadillac CT5-V Blackwing, the carbon-ceramics are a $9,000 option; BMW charges $8,500; Porsche charges more than $9,000. Carbon-ceramic brakes are routinely among the priciest options for cars that already have a lot of big-ticket extras. Is there any world in which they're worth it?
Welcome to The Rabbit Hole, a bi-weekly column where Senior Editor Chris Perkins explores his latest obsession with automotive technology. He speaks to the best in the business to understand how cars work and what the future of the automobile looks like.
Photo by: Brembo
Cast iron is a wonderful material for making brake discs. It's relatively cheap, easy to cast and machine into shape, and crucially, it has higher thermal conductivity than, say, steel. To perhaps state the obvious here, brakes convert a car's kinetic energy (forward motion) into heat via friction between the pad and rotor when the two come together. So a brake disc's thermal properties are of key importance.
"[Cast-iron discs] have a better ability of absorbing the heat," explains Emanuele Bruletti, senior engineering manager for Brembo North America. "They can absorb it at a lower rate [than other common materials], and therefore, they can help in taking some of that away from the pads."
It's the same reason cast iron makes for a great skillet, but if you cook with one, you know just how heavy it is. Weight is a car's enemy. So too is the increased demand on braking systems as cars evolve.
This story was available to our newsletter subscribers before it hit the website. Want early access? Sign up below.
back
Sign up
For more information, read our
Privacy Policy
and
Terms of Use
.
"What has been driving the size increase in braking systems in the last few years is basically the performance envelope increasing," Bruletti explains. Cars are simply more powerful and heavier. Tires also play a role. Bruletti says that modern developments in tires have allowed for far greater deceleration rates, further increasing the demand on a braking system.
That increased demand translates to more heat. Upping the size of your cast-iron rotor helps deal with all that heat better and improves the brake's ability to effectively slow a car. For obvious reasons, though, you can only make rotors so big, both for packaging and weight.
Brake rotors are unsprung, which means their mass has a disproportionately high effect on ride and handling relative to a car's sprung masses. They're also rotating masses, which have a big effect on a vehicle's ability to accelerate, brake, and turn.
"If you can shave weight off your car and more importantly, unsprung weight and evenly more importantly unsprung rotating weight, which is what a rotor is, [there are] huge gains to be had in performance," says James Walker Jr., a racer, engineer, and author on a book about braking systems.
Chasing lightness, Dunlop developed the first carbon-fiber reinforced carbon brakes for the Concorde in the 1960s, and by the 1980s, these became common in Formula 1. However, these carbon-carbon brakes, still in use at the top levels of motorsport, are entirely unsuitable for road use, as they don't work well at cold temperatures. They're also extremely expensive and time-consuming to make, even now.
A carbon-reinforced silicon-carbide matrix brings some of the weight-saving benefits of carbon-carbon brakes, but in a package that actually works at cold temperatures. And while still expensive and time-consuming to make, a carbon-ceramic brake disc is a lot easier and cheaper to manufacture than a carbon-carbon disc. We're talking a production time of around a couple days vs four months here. (That said, Brembo can make a cast-iron disc in about two hours.)
Photo by: Porsche
Photo by: Ferrari
German company SGL Carbon introduced carbon-ceramic brakes in a road car, with the 2001 Porsche 911 GT2. Brembo's first carbon-ceramic brakes arrived a year later, with the Ferrari Enzo. In 2009, SGL and Brembo formed a joint venture for the development and manufacture of carbon-ceramic brakes, and today, it's one of, if not the largest, suppliers of brakes of this type.
Bruletti says the carbon-ceramic matrix it uses has about a third the density of its cast iron. In terms of actual weight savings, you see all sorts of numbers thrown out. A good example is the brake discs in the previous-generation M3 and M4. In a technical document, BMW quotes a 30.6-pound weight for the car's standard front rotors and 17.1 pounds for the carbon-ceramics. So nearly half. The proportional weight savings for the carbon-ceramic rear rotors on the old M3 and M4 are similar, and that's despite the fact that BMW's carbon discs were slightly larger than their cast-iron counterparts.
So great! But, we also need to talk about what carbon-ceramic brakes don't do. As Walker explains, a brake system is, essentially, a series of hydraulic levers that turn the relatively light force the driver applies to the brake pedal into a huge force at the road that slows the car down. In a road car, a 20 to 30 pound pedal input can translate to 1G of deceleration. This is called gain. Here, carbon-ceramic brakes don't have an advantage.
"There's nothing that's done with a carbon-ceramic system compared to a cast-iron system that increases the mechanical output of the brake system," Walker explains. "So there's no real advantage to them in that space. The only reason people say, 'Oh, they feel better, they stop better,' is not because it's carbon ceramic, it's because [the automaker has] tuned that carbon-ceramic system to have a higher gain."
Taking things a step further, Walker also points out that the braking system is only as good as the tire you have attached to it.
Imagine you could have two identical cars, on the same model tires, the only difference being that one has cast-iron brakes, the other has a carbon-ceramic brake package. The brakes don't change the level of grip the tire is capable of. On the flipside, and to Bruletti's earlier point, the tire has a profound effect on the energy that goes into the braking system.
Photo by: Ferrari
As we've established, a carbon-ceramic disc is materially very different from a cast-iron disc. Carbon-ceramic has a much lower level of thermal conductivity than iron, but also far less mass and heat capacity.
Which is a good and bad thing. Good because the brake disc can withstand the higher temperatures that today's faster/heavier/grippier vehicles generate in extreme braking events, courtesy of that ceramic chemistry.
Brembo says carbon-ceramic discs can comfortably operate between 1,000 and 1,400 degrees Fahrenheit and can even withstand temperatures beyond 1,800 degrees. That's why carbon-ceramic brakes are frequently praised for their resistance to fade on track.
But since the lighter and less-dense carbon-ceramic rotors gain and lose temperature quickly, that leads to huge thermal stresses on the rest of the braking components as they heat and cool in rapid succession. A cast-iron rotor better contains its heat, which keeps everything else cool.
"You need to find a way of dissipating that heat away from the pads in some other way, and this is where it becomes very important to provide the necessary cooling at the brake system," Bruletti says.
Photo by: Porsche
Photo by: Porsche
Beyond carefully designed cooling from both external components and internal rotor ducting, the fact that carbon-ceramic rotors aren't made from a homogenous material also has implications . The length, diameter, and orientation of the individual carbon fibers all have an effect on the material's thermal capacity.
Adding additional layers and coatings also improves thermal capacity, which is why Brembo and SGL offer CCB brakes with additional ceramic friction layers on both sides, and CCW brakes, which use five carbon-ceramic layers. These options allow automakers to size down components, further saving weight, but their manufacturing processes are more time-consuming and thus, expensive.
That's helpful because generally, carbon-ceramic rotors are larger than their cast-iron equivalents, in cars where both are optional. This is a direct result of the heat a carbon-ceramic rotor reflects into the pad during large braking events.
'In order to guarantee a stability of the friction material, you need to go larger with the pad,' Bruletti explains. And when you make the pad larger, you make the caliper larger, and the rotor larger. It's all cyclical.
Yet, there's also a virtuous cycle here. Reducing unsprung, rotational mass means there's less weight to control. In theory, an automaker can use the weight reduction from carbon-ceramic brakes to employ smaller tires, lower spring and damper rates, smaller anti-roll bars, and so on.
Photo by: McLaren
All because of the outsize effect that a brake rotor's weight has on the rest of the car. That's a big part of why Ferrari and McLaren only use carbon-ceramic brakes, beyond the simple need for a brake system that can handle the huge stresses these fast cars generate.
And now, we get to the original claim, the thing that started me down this path. Does a carbon-ceramic rotor last the life of the car? Yes. In some cases.
'The wear of the components really depends on usage, how you use them,' Bruletti says. 'If we assume that the usage, the cycles will be the same, yes, it is fair to say that in normal driving and non-track usage, just everyday driving, a carbon ceramic rotor will last in my opinion almost the entire life of your vehicle.'
It's not just the guy from Brembo saying that too. Walker agrees that in normal street use, a carbon-ceramic rotor will last a very long time. Obviously you'll need to replace pads, but the rotors could have incredible longevity. But add track use into the mix, and the calculus becomes very different.
With lots of heavy braking events, the carbon fibers in a carbon-ceramic rotor will eventually burn out. They'll lose thermal capacity. At road speeds, this won't happen much, if at all, but depending on what sort of car you drive on track, what sort of tracks you go to, and how you drive it, the carbon fibers can burn out very quickly.
Photo by: BMW
Let's say you're running your new, 5,300-pound BMW M5 at Road America, where you'll regularly blow past 150 mph on the track's long straights. Let's also say you're one of the last of the late brakers, pushing your brake zones as deep into the corner as you dare, hitting the pedal as hard as you can. If you've got carbon brakes on, you shouldn't expect those rotors to last very long at all.
But say you've got a Porsche 911 GT3, which weighs in around 3,330 pounds, and you're at Lime Rock Park, which has only one heavy braking zone. And let's also say that you're a bit more measured. Rather than braking hard and late, you brake a little lighter, a little earlier. In that case, you can reasonably expect a more life out of your carbon-ceramic rotors.
That difference, though, is why Porsche still offers cast-iron rotors on its GT cars, even the mighty GT3 RS. It knows that some customers will use up their brakes tracking their cars often, and in that instance, it makes sense to go for cast-iron discs, which are much cheaper to replace.
Some other things to consider: With usage, a carbon-ceramic rotor doesn't lose thickness like a cast-iron rotor, but when those carbon fibers burn out, they do decrease in weight. This means a carbon-ceramic rotor won't develop cracks or warp like a cast-iron rotor would on track, so there's another point in favor. It's also why the hats on many carbon-ceramic rotors list a minimum weight. Once the rotor goes below that weight, it's time for a replacement.
So, there isn't a simple answer to whether carbon-ceramic brakes are 'worth it.' But given what we all now know, their high upfront cost can be offset by rotor longevity, and the myriad other benefits the technology brings. It becomes a question of you, the customer. How are you going to use your car, and what do you value at the end of the day?
More Deep Dives
Brake Dust Is a Problem. Brembo Has a Solution
Why BMW's B58 Is a True Successor to the Toyota 2JZ
Share this Story
Facebook
X
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Reddit
WhatsApp
E-Mail
Got a tip for us? Email:
tips@motor1.com
Join the conversation
(
)

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Yahoo

16 minutes ago

• Yahoo

If You Can Only Buy 1 Cathie Wood Stock in 2025, It Should Be This

Cathie Wood, founder, CEO and chief investment officer of Ark Invest, continues to make headlines for her high-conviction approach to disruptive innovation. Her flagship fund, the Ark Innovation ETF (ARKK), has posted a 52.9% return in the past 52 weeks, reflecting investor confidence. Known for identifying transformational themes early, Wood maintains focused exposure to industries like genomics, autonomous technology, and blockchain. Within this context, Natera (NTRA) has drawn sharp relevance. The company leads in cell-free DNA testing and precision medicine, aligning directly with Ark's long-term thesis. CoreWeave Just Revealed the Largest-Ever Nvidia Blackwell GPU Cluster. Should You Buy CRWV Stock? AMD Is Gunning for Nvidia's AI Chip Throne. Should You Buy AMD Stock Now? The Saturday Spread: Statistical Signals Flash Green for CMG, TMUS and VALE Tired of missing midday reversals? The FREE Barchart Brief newsletter keeps you in the know. Sign up now! For investors seeking a stock that fits the Ark playbook, Natera may represent one of the most fundamentally aligned additions under Wood's current investment lens. Based in Austin, Texas, stands Natera (NTRA), a pioneer in the field of cell-free DNA and genetic testing. The $23.3 billion biotech firm's arsenal includes powerful offerings like Panorama for prenatal screening, Signatera for real-time cancer surveillance, and Prospera, which sharpens the lens on transplant rejection. Over the last three months, the stock has climbed 16.9%, leaving the broader S&P 500 Index's ($SPX) 5.4% gain behind. On May 8, Natera opened the books on its first-quarter, and the results exceeded Wall Street expectations. Investors responded swiftly, with the stock inching up 1.5% the same day. Natera posted $501.8 million in total revenues, a 36.5% year-over-year increase that soared past Wall Street's $443.3 million forecast. Behind those numbers were powerhouse operations. The company processed 855,100 tests during the quarter, up 16.2% year over year. Women's health volumes climbed meaningfully over the fourth quarter, but it was Signatera that stole the spotlight. The personalized, tumor-informed molecular residual disease test reached new heights, recording its highest volume quarter ever. Clinical volumes for Signatera grew 52% year over year, with a sequential gain of roughly 16,005 units over Q4, marking the most significant quarter-on-quarter growth to date. Gross margins landed at 63.1%, reflecting solid cost discipline. Moreover, Natera's net loss narrowed 1% from the year-ago period to $66.9 million. Also, the company managed to trim its loss per share by 10.7% to $0.50, outperforming analysts' projections of a $0.59 loss per share. As for liquidity, the balance sheet remained in good shape. Cash, cash equivalents and restricted cash climbed to $973.8 million, up from $945.6 million on Dec 31, 2024. CEO Steve Chapman has made no secret of the firm's long-term vision. He believes Signatera could ultimately generate over $5 billion in annual revenue, and he emphasized that they are still playing in the shallow end of a much deeper market pool. In a move that reinforced this optimism, Natera has raised its full-year revenue guidance to between $1.94 billion and $2.02 billion. That is a $70 million boost from the midpoint of its earlier outlook, pointing to a 26% year-over-year growth. On the other hand, analysts expect the Q2 2025 loss per share to widen 100% year over year to $0.60. For FY25, the loss per share is projected to increase 37% to $2.10, but FY26 could bring relief, with a forecast 64.8% narrowing to $0.74, hinting that profitability may finally be within reach. Analysts seem to be singing in harmony when it comes to NTRA, marking it with a firm 'Strong Buy' rating. Out of 19 analysts following the stock, 16 have given it an enthusiastic 'Strong Buy' rating, and the remaining three have placed their bets on a 'Moderate Buy.' The average price target of $200.42 represents potential upside of 17.6%. Meanwhile, the Street-High target of $251 hints at a 48% climb from current levels. Such projections do not come lightly and often reflect deep-rooted confidence in future earnings momentum and strategic execution. On the date of publication, Aanchal Sugandh did not have (either directly or indirectly) positions in any of the securities mentioned in this article. All information and data in this article is solely for informational purposes. This article was originally published on Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data

Yahoo

24 minutes ago

• Yahoo

Company makes game-changing breakthrough that could solve common issue with plant-based food — here's what you need to know

Let's be honest: Plant-based protein doesn't always taste great. Even if you love the idea of eating less meat for your health and the planet, the weird aftertaste of some plant-based meats can be hard to ignore. But that might be about to change. According to FoodNavigator USA, the flavor company T. Hasegawa USA has developed a high-tech, natural flavor that tackles the unpleasant "off" notes of plant proteins such as pea and soy. The whole technology (and science) behind it is pretty impressive. When meat sizzles in a pan or bread gets crispy in the toaster, the Maillard reaction creates craveable aromas and flavors. But plant proteins such as soy and pea don't react the same way during cooking, which can leave them tasting bland or, worse, beany and bitter. If companies want people to go for meat alternatives, there's a need to focus on options that taste good and have pleasant textures. As Mark Webster, vice president of sales and marketing at T. Hasegawa, said, "That is where the headwind is." The T. Hasegawa team tackled this problem by developing a natural flavor technology called Plantreact that increases Maillard reactions — the chemical processes that give so-called browned foods their flavors. This innovation doesn't stop with fake meats. The same flavor solution can also recreate creamy, dairy-like notes in alternative milks and other nondairy products. That's huge for people who love the idea of oat or almond milk but miss the full-bodied taste of cow's milk. Plantreact has been in the works for a while, but it's now ready to hit the market. T. Hasegawa is already working with food brands to roll it out in products. Better flavor means plant-based foods are more enjoyable, which makes it easier for more people to cut back on animal products and reduce pollution, conserve water, and shrink their carbon footprints. This tech is already being explored by plant-based brands looking to improve their products, and it may soon appear in alternative meat and dairy products at your local grocery store. Combined with the work of companies such as Meati and Perfect Day, this kind of innovation helps build a future in which eating more sustainably doesn't mean compromising on taste. Why do you eat plant-based foods? The health benefits It's cheaper It's good for the planet I prefer the taste Click your choice to see results and speak your mind. Join our free newsletter for easy tips to save more and waste less, and don't miss this cool list of easy ways to help yourself while helping the planet.

Forbes

39 minutes ago

• Forbes

Tesla Misses Robotaxi Launch Date, Goes With Safety Drivers

A vehicle Tesla is using for robotaxi testing purposes in Austin, Texas, US, on Friday, June 20, ... More 2025.. Photographer: Eli Hartman/Bloomberg Tesla's much-anticipated June 22 'no one in the vehicle' Robotaxi launch in Austin is not ready. Instead, Tesla has announced to its invite-only passengers that it will operate a limited service with Tesla employees on board the vehicle to maintain safety. Tesla will use an approach that was used in 2019 by Russian robotaxi company Yandex, putting the safety driver in the passengers seat rather than the driver's seat. (Yandex's robotaxi was divested from Russian and now is called AVRide.) Having an employee on board, commonly called a safety driver, is the approach that every robocar company has used for testing, including testing of passenger operations. Most companies spend many years (Waymo spent a decade) testing with safety drivers, and once they are ready to take passengers, there are typically some number of years testing in that mode, though the path to removing the safety driver depends primarily on evaluation of the safety case for the vehicle, and less on the presence of passengers. Tesla has put on some other restrictions--rides will be limited to 6am to midnight (the opposite of Cruise's first operations, which were only at night) and riders come from an invite-only list (as was also the case for Waymo, and Cruise and others in their early days.) Rides will be limited to a restricted service area (often mistakenly called a 'geofence') which avoids complex and difficult streets and intersections. Rides will be unavailable in inclement weather, which also can happen with other vehicles, though fairly rarely today. Tesla FSD is known to disable itself if rain obscures some of its cameras--only the front cameras have a rain wiper. The fleet will be small. Waymo started testing with safety drivers in 2009, gave rides to passengers with safety drivers in 2017, and without safety drivers in 2020 in the Phoenix area. Cruise had a much shorter period with passengers and safety drivers. Motional has given rides for years but has never removed the safety driver. Most Chinese companies spent a few years doing it. Giving passengers rides requires good confidence in the safety of the system+safety driver combination, but taking the passengers does not alter how well the vehicle drives, except perhaps around pick-up and drop-off. (While a vehicle is more at liberty to make hard stops with no passengers on board, I am aware of no vehicle which takes advantage of this.) As such we have no information on whether Tesla will need their safety drivers for a month or a several years, or even forever with current hardware. Passenger's Seat vs. Driver's Seat Almost all vehicles use a safety driver behind the wheel. Tesla's will be in the passenger seat, in a situation similar to that used by driving instructors for student human drivers. While unconfirmed by Tesla, the employee in the passenger seat can grab the wheel and steer. Because stock Teslas have fully computer controlled brake and acceleration, they might equip the driver with electronic pedals. Some reports have suggested they have a hand controller or other ways to command the vehicle to brake. There is no value to putting the safety driver on the passengers side. It is no safer than being behind the wheel, and believed by most to be less safe because of the unusual geometr20 November 2024, Berlin: A prototype of the Tesla Cybercab stands in a showroom in the Mall of Berlin. Photo: Hannes P. Albert/dpa (Photo by Hannes P Albert/picture alliance via Getty Images)y. It's hard to come up with any reason other than just how it looks. Tesla can state the vehicles have 'nobody in the driver's seat' in order to attempt to impress the public. The driving school system works, so it's not overtly dangerous, but in that case there's an obvious reason for it that's not optics. Tesla Cybercab concept. With only 2 seats and no controls, not very suitable for a safety driver. ... More These are not being used in Tesla's Austin pilot. That said, most robocar prototypes, including Tesla supervised FSD, are reasonably safe with capable safety drivers. A negligent and poorly managed safety driver in an Uber ATG test vehicle killed a pedestrian in Tempe, Arizona when the safety driver completely ignored her job, but otherwise these systems have a good record. The combination of Tesla Autopilot and a supervising driver has a reasonable record. (The record is not nearly as good as some people think Tesla claims. Every quarter, Tesla publishes a deeply misleading report comparing the combination of Tesla Autopilot plus supervisor to the general crash rate, but they report airbag deployments for the Teslas mostly on freeways and compare it without general crash numbers on all roads for general drivers. This makes it seem Autopilot is many times safer than regular drivers when it's actually similar, a serious and deceitful misrepresentation.) As noted, Yandex, now AVRide, has used safety drivers in the passenger seat, and has done so in Austin--also speculated to be mostly for optics, though there are some legal jurisdictions where companies shave made this move because the law requires safety drivers and they hope to convey an aura of not needing them. This has also been the case in China.) When Cruise did their first 'driverless' demo ride in San Francisco, they had an employee in the passengers seat. So Tesla has been ready to run with safety drivers for years. What's tested here isn't the safety of the cars, but all the complexity of handling passengers, including the surprising problems of good PuDo (Pick-up/Drop-off.) Whether Teslas can operate a safe robotaxi with nobody onboard, particularly with their much more limited sensor hardware, remains to be seen. Other Paths To Launch Tesla apparently experimented with different paths to getting out on the road before they are ready to run unsupervised. In particular, vehicles were seen with the passenger seat safety driver, and also being followed by a 'chase car' with two on board. Reports also came of Tesla planning for 'lots of tele-ops' including not just remote assistance (as all services do) but remote supervision including remote driving. We may speculate that Tesla evaluated many different approaches: Because Elon Musk promised 'nobody in the car' and 'unsupervised' in the most recent Tesla earnings call, there was great pressure to produce #1, but the Tesla team must have concluded they could not do that yet, and made the right choice, though #3 is a better choice than #4. They also did not feel up to #2, which is commonly speculated to be what other companies have done on their first launch, later graduating to #1 #5 just looks goofy, I think the optics would not work, and it's also challenging. Remote driving is real and doable--in spite of the latency and connectivity issues of modern data networks--but perhap Tesla could not get it ready in time. All teams use remote assistance operators who do not drive the cars, but can give them advice when they get confused by a situation, and stop and ask for advice. Even Waymo recently added a minor remote driving ability for low-speed 'get the car out off the road' sort of operations. I have recommended this for some time. It is worth noting the contrast beween Cruise's 'night only' launch and Tesla's mostly-daytime one. Cruise selected the night because there is less traffic and complexity. LIDARs see very well at night. Tesla's camera-based system has very different constraints at night and many fear it's inferior then. On the other hand Tesla will operate in some night hours and with more cars and pedestrians on the street. The question for Tesla will be whether the use of safety drivers is a very temporary thing, done just because they weren't quite ready but needed to meet the announced date, or a multi-year program as it has been for most teams. Tesla is famous for not meeting the forecast ship dates for its FSD system, so it's not shocking that this pattern continues. The bigger question is whether they can do it at all. Tesla FSD 13, the version available to Tesla owners, isn't even remotely close to robotaxi ready. If Tesla has made a version which is closer, through extra work, training and severe limitations of the problem space, it's still a big accomplishment. This will be seen in the coming months. Two robocar teams had severe interactions with pedestrians. Both those teams, and one pedestrian, are dead. Tesla knows they must not make mistakes.