Parameter | Carbon-Reinforced (C/C) | Carbon-Ceramic (C/SiC) |
Primary composition | Nearly pure carbon fiber matrix (woven/needle-felt) bonded into a carbon matrix. | Carbon fibers + ceramic matrix or carbon substrate with silicon-carbide ceramic coating/impregnation. |
Typical manufacturing | High-temperature carbonization/graphitization of preforms via CVI/PIP/CVI+CVD processes. Has long cure cycles and high temp graphitization. | Polymer precursor or CVI routes followed by silicon infiltration or sintering to produce SiC bonding. High temp processing but with different chemistries. |
Microstructure & anisotropy | Strongly anisotropic — properties (thermal, mechanical) depend on its fiber orientation. Can be engineered for directional conductivity/strength. | More isotropic than C/C builds (ceramic matrix evens properties). Microcracks behave differently because the ceramic component controls fracture behavior. |
Typical density | ~1.4–1.9 g/cm³ (manufacturing dependent). Very light vs metals. | ~2.2–3.2 g/cm³ (depends on SiC content/porosity). Heavier than many C/C designs but still much lighter than steel. |
Relative mass reduction vs steel | 40–70% lighter than equivalent steel rotors, depending on thickness and design. | Typically 30–60% lighter than steel, depending on carrier and disc design. |
Thermal conductivity | Can be very high in fiber direction (from rapid heat transfer along fibers) but lower when considering cross-plane. Performance is orientation-sensitive. | Moderate-to-good since ceramic is more isotropic. SiC rotors provide solid through-thickness conductivity but it’s still fairly lower than a C/C composite. |
Specific heat capacity / thermal inertia | Lower mass and lower volumetric heat capacity than steel. Rapid heat management can be facilitated by design with conduction pathways. | Higher thermal inertia than C/C due to ceramic blend. Good at absorbing and distributing heat without structural change. |
Operating temperature range | Extremely wide — usable well above 1,000°C in racing environments. Ideal for extreme, repeatable heat cycles. | Excellent — stable up to ≈900–1,000°C. The SiC matrix resists oxidation and thermal damage better than steel. |
Friction coefficient | Designed to work with carbon-based high-temp pads — friction is engineered to be stable and high at elevated temps. Lower cold-bite and needs higher temperatures to achieve optimal grip. | Stable friction at high temps. Often paired with special high-temp metallic or ceramic pads. Cold-bite is still limited, relative to steel rotors. Exact μ depends on pad pairing and temp. |
Wear: pad vs rotor | Rotor wear is relatively low in purpose-designed race systems, but pads are sacrificial. Carbon rotors require matching carbon pads for optimal life. | Rotor wear is generally low. C/SiC tends to be less abrasive on high-spec pads than some metallic race compounds. |
Impact / brittleness | Tough, damage-tolerant in fiber direction. Possible delamination or cracking under sharp impact but much less brittle than pure ceramic. | More brittle than C/C under point impacts. The ceramic matrix can crack catastrophically on hard impacts. |
Fatigue & thermal cycling | when well engineered (fiber layup + resin/graphite treatment). | Very good thermal stability, but ceramics can develop microcracks under extreme thermal shock — design and quality control is critical. |
Corrosion & oxidation | Carbon oxidizes at high temperatures. Often, these rotors require coatings or are used in controlled temperature environments. | The SiC matrix resists oxidation well. Overall, this is more corrosion-resistant than bare carbon in many conditions. |
Resurfacing / repairability | Repairing can become difficult — replacements are usually required if the surface is compromised. | Ceramic damage is usually means structural weakness in that part of the rotor. This is typically solved with a replacement. |
Optimal brake pad pairing | Specialized carbon-on-carbon or high-temp compounds designed for C/C rotors. | Special high-temp metallic or ceramic-compatible compounds. Brake pad selection is critical for performance and rotor lifespan. |
Cold-start & street usability | Poor cold-bite — very low friction rate at lower temps. Not suitable for daily drives or casual street use, without prior warming laps. | Better than C/C in some designs. Many C/SiC systems are engineered for road use (e.g., Porsche PCCB) but with a couple of compromises. |
NVH & dust/noise | High dust debris and characteristic noise at low temps. NVH is a tradeoff for boosted performance. | Lower dust than some semi-metallic race pads but still not as quiet/clean as basic braking setups. |
Cost | Extremely high — generally the most expensive rotor option. | Very expensive but typically less than bespoke C/C race units. |
Common applications | Formula-level car racing, MotoGP, pro endurance championships. | High-end sports cars, superbikes, endurance racing, premium cars. |
Maintenance & inspection | Requires specialist inspection and careful care/maintenance. | Needs good inspection for microcracking and bonding integrity. |
Racing advantage | Ultimate high-temp stability, extreme mass savings, with predictable performance when used with proper pads and maintenance. | Better road-friendly balance, high fade resistance, robust against oxidation, and slightly more forgiving in mixed use. |
Best for | Racing at the highest levels and you want absolute mass/heat performance. Be ready for a strict care/maintenance regime. | Very high-performance use with some tolerance for dual-use applications. |