CL RC6 pads on R500
Discussion
Without going in to a long debate on pads which I can see a number of threads on here, has anybody used RC6 pads front and rear on treaded tyres for track days and fast road use (not a fan of that expression but not daily driver)?
I prefer to match compounds but wondering if any experience has shown RC5+ rears are balanced better.
Discs are AP ventilated fronts, have the 4 pot callipers and standard rears.
Thanks in advance.
I prefer to match compounds but wondering if any experience has shown RC5+ rears are balanced better.
Discs are AP ventilated fronts, have the 4 pot callipers and standard rears.
Thanks in advance.
Edited by griggsy2 on Tuesday 8th August 20:25
For what its worth, I have recently switched to the same pad front and rear and much prefer the brake balance. I also have AP front and standard rear.
This was recommended to me by Simon at Meteor Motorsport.
I think its a bit of a misconception that you need a lower friction pad on the back. As they are Caterhams are rather under-braked at the rear so need all the help with at least the same compound at the back.
Since switching I've had no problems even when trail braking deep into a corner.
This was recommended to me by Simon at Meteor Motorsport.
I think its a bit of a misconception that you need a lower friction pad on the back. As they are Caterhams are rather under-braked at the rear so need all the help with at least the same compound at the back.
Since switching I've had no problems even when trail braking deep into a corner.
Thanks, I think it was Simon I spoke to yesterday who said the same to me, he also recommended the Ferodo DS3000s for my intended use.
Sure they're great but I'm pretty keen to try the CL pads, been meaning to for a while. To match them all round though I need the RC6 from Meteors site (no RC5+ AP 4 pot front option) but would prefer the RC5+ from what I have read.
If anybody knows a site where I can get them in the right sizes for my Cat then I'm all ears.
Edit: Saw this on the CL website:
https://www.cl-brakes.co.uk/caterham-7-cl-brakes-r...
Image is not correct pad shape (which 'might' just be a stock photo thing) but then the CP7600 differs from the Caterham website which says the callipers are CP7651.
Edit2: This is the correct shape pad in the image, part number of the pad (5038W45T16) looks the same as on the link above:
https://www.cl-brakes.co.uk/ap-racing-cp7600d46-cl...
Not sure it should be this difficult
Sure they're great but I'm pretty keen to try the CL pads, been meaning to for a while. To match them all round though I need the RC6 from Meteors site (no RC5+ AP 4 pot front option) but would prefer the RC5+ from what I have read.
If anybody knows a site where I can get them in the right sizes for my Cat then I'm all ears.
Edit: Saw this on the CL website:
https://www.cl-brakes.co.uk/caterham-7-cl-brakes-r...
Image is not correct pad shape (which 'might' just be a stock photo thing) but then the CP7600 differs from the Caterham website which says the callipers are CP7651.
Edit2: This is the correct shape pad in the image, part number of the pad (5038W45T16) looks the same as on the link above:
https://www.cl-brakes.co.uk/ap-racing-cp7600d46-cl...
Not sure it should be this difficult
Edited by griggsy2 on Wednesday 9th August 12:29
Edited by griggsy2 on Wednesday 9th August 12:30
Bloody hell... page 221 (I think) has my answer:
http://www.cl-brakes.com/catalogues/auto.php
Dimensions:
112.9mm, 59.3mm, 14.5-16mm
If correct, hopefully this will save somebody else a few days of buggering about
Can confirm dimensions appear same as Mintex MDB2027
http://www.cl-brakes.com/catalogues/auto.php
Dimensions:
112.9mm, 59.3mm, 14.5-16mm
If correct, hopefully this will save somebody else a few days of buggering about
Can confirm dimensions appear same as Mintex MDB2027
Edited by griggsy2 on Wednesday 9th August 12:57
This is what I found looking at CL brake pad types for Caterham (AP racing) 4 pot and stock rear a few months ago;
Carbone Lorraine: (CL Brakes)
Front – 5038W46T16
Rear – 4035
(RC6 best; Maybe RC8? But RC6 seems more suitable)
(RC6E = less noise – more disc wear, Maybe RC5+ street & track, but can fade - may be worth the experiment, especially if mainly road use, but RC6 has what in my experience would be a better coefficient of friction.)
Seems some people are getting the front/rear brake BIAS thing backwards in this post. With stock single piston brakes front/rear the rears are a bit stronger than what may be safest. A brake Bias adjuster works for that, or different (less sticky) pad compounds in back.
With AP racing front brakes, you can get away with slightly stickier pads on the rear, as the rears now are a touch weaker than perfect - though leaving them weaker is much safer than having stronger rear brakes. So not something to really worry about unless your telemetry is telling you otherwise.
One gentleman on here who raced his caterham, and has tried almost every pad, swears by the RC6 compound. Stickiest, yet driveable and no noise.
I've used a couple of Ferodo pads, and I wouldn't think a DS3000 would be any good for a street used car, or that much use on the track for a caterham, they may not get hot enough. Newer compounds such as DS1.1 seems fine (I am trying it now but not enough miles on it yet for a proper review), and the DSUNO is supposedly (I haven't tried it, just 2500 and DS1.1) about the same but has a better pedal feel and less wooden. It may require a bit more heat. The DS1.1 being ceramic has a wider temperature range, which is good for a caterham.
I've also used EBC red in back, performance friction PF01 in front, and some ancient Mintex (1142? - not made any more), that was awful. I've done Pagid RS14, Ferodo 2500, and Carbotech XP10 and XP8 on my Subaru. Pagid have most linear curve and very high friction. Carbotech are a bit noisier, and when hot have more firction, but have a really wild heat/friction curve. Goes from slightly better than brembo cold, to tear the rubber - in one medium length hard stop. lol. I like them, but they might be weird on a light car.
Carbone Lorraine: (CL Brakes)
Front – 5038W46T16
Rear – 4035
(RC6 best; Maybe RC8? But RC6 seems more suitable)
(RC6E = less noise – more disc wear, Maybe RC5+ street & track, but can fade - may be worth the experiment, especially if mainly road use, but RC6 has what in my experience would be a better coefficient of friction.)
Seems some people are getting the front/rear brake BIAS thing backwards in this post. With stock single piston brakes front/rear the rears are a bit stronger than what may be safest. A brake Bias adjuster works for that, or different (less sticky) pad compounds in back.
With AP racing front brakes, you can get away with slightly stickier pads on the rear, as the rears now are a touch weaker than perfect - though leaving them weaker is much safer than having stronger rear brakes. So not something to really worry about unless your telemetry is telling you otherwise.
One gentleman on here who raced his caterham, and has tried almost every pad, swears by the RC6 compound. Stickiest, yet driveable and no noise.
I've used a couple of Ferodo pads, and I wouldn't think a DS3000 would be any good for a street used car, or that much use on the track for a caterham, they may not get hot enough. Newer compounds such as DS1.1 seems fine (I am trying it now but not enough miles on it yet for a proper review), and the DSUNO is supposedly (I haven't tried it, just 2500 and DS1.1) about the same but has a better pedal feel and less wooden. It may require a bit more heat. The DS1.1 being ceramic has a wider temperature range, which is good for a caterham.
I've also used EBC red in back, performance friction PF01 in front, and some ancient Mintex (1142? - not made any more), that was awful. I've done Pagid RS14, Ferodo 2500, and Carbotech XP10 and XP8 on my Subaru. Pagid have most linear curve and very high friction. Carbotech are a bit noisier, and when hot have more firction, but have a really wild heat/friction curve. Goes from slightly better than brembo cold, to tear the rubber - in one medium length hard stop. lol. I like them, but they might be weird on a light car.
Very helpful, thanks!
RC6 were my initial thought though reports say they didn't seem to last long and seemed aggressive for discs, hence taking a look at the 5+ versions.
Re the serial number, you sure it was 46T16 and not 45T16 for the 'ear' pads for AP fronts? Have ordered the 45s after much faffing about. Will need to quickly change otherwise.
Looking through the CL spec doc again there doesn't seem to be a 46T16, Google only throws up your posts re 46T16? Where did you get that serial number?
RC6 were my initial thought though reports say they didn't seem to last long and seemed aggressive for discs, hence taking a look at the 5+ versions.
Re the serial number, you sure it was 46T16 and not 45T16 for the 'ear' pads for AP fronts? Have ordered the 45s after much faffing about. Will need to quickly change otherwise.
Looking through the CL spec doc again there doesn't seem to be a 46T16, Google only throws up your posts re 46T16? Where did you get that serial number?
Edited by griggsy2 on Wednesday 9th August 20:30
Edited by griggsy2 on Wednesday 9th August 20:55
Ok... this is odd.
The carbonne Lorrainne catalogue in PDF format state that the correct cross reference for the AP racing CP7600D46 brake pad shape is the CL 5038W46T16 pad shape.
So now to see if there is a pad shape chart that matches the CP7600D46 and what it relates to in the other parts of the catalogue, lol.
The carbonne Lorrainne catalogue in PDF format state that the correct cross reference for the AP racing CP7600D46 brake pad shape is the CL 5038W46T16 pad shape.
So now to see if there is a pad shape chart that matches the CP7600D46 and what it relates to in the other parts of the catalogue, lol.
In the catalogue, looking up caterham comes up with your 5038W45T16. :-) So which is correct?
Now to look through pad shapes...
Despite the 46T showing up in many cross-references to other pad makes, it isn't in the drawings.
Most of the pad cross-references for pads that I have looked up for the AP Racing caliper, including pad makes I have actually used, cross reference to the 46T, not the 45T... but the 45T shows up most for elise cup and caterham AP calipers.... but for other 7600 series AP racing calipers, the 46T shows up a lot in the catalogue.
If the 46 is just for pad depth (not thickness), then one mm is not a big deal.
AP Racing pads come in a D43 or a D46 - it's the width of the pad. You could run either, but the wider one fits the disc better, and gives more life to the pads, and maybe a touch more friction. Wider as in from outer edge of brake disc towards the hub. You could also conceive of it being deeper(?). Narrower pads are needed usually for floating discs that have bolts in the way.
So.... to match back brakes and be sure of no interference with anything, the 45Ts are fine. To be closer to the biggest pads AP racing puts in those calipers, the 46T is fine.... if my assumption of that number being the width of the pad in millimeters is correct, and we all know what assumptions can do.
I have an odd feeling that the 46T that shows up most in cross-reference parts of the catalogue may be a typo error in their database when they created those parts of the catalogue - or they don't bother listing it in the pad shapes because it is basically the same as the 45T.
Anyway; I think you're fine with the 503845T16. I'm not sure where the 46T comes from, or if it really exists, but I think it would be only 1 mm different from the 45T. It's quite an interesting problem and excess of data - or maybe fake news, lol.
Now to look through pad shapes...
Despite the 46T showing up in many cross-references to other pad makes, it isn't in the drawings.
Most of the pad cross-references for pads that I have looked up for the AP Racing caliper, including pad makes I have actually used, cross reference to the 46T, not the 45T... but the 45T shows up most for elise cup and caterham AP calipers.... but for other 7600 series AP racing calipers, the 46T shows up a lot in the catalogue.
If the 46 is just for pad depth (not thickness), then one mm is not a big deal.
AP Racing pads come in a D43 or a D46 - it's the width of the pad. You could run either, but the wider one fits the disc better, and gives more life to the pads, and maybe a touch more friction. Wider as in from outer edge of brake disc towards the hub. You could also conceive of it being deeper(?). Narrower pads are needed usually for floating discs that have bolts in the way.
So.... to match back brakes and be sure of no interference with anything, the 45Ts are fine. To be closer to the biggest pads AP racing puts in those calipers, the 46T is fine.... if my assumption of that number being the width of the pad in millimeters is correct, and we all know what assumptions can do.
I have an odd feeling that the 46T that shows up most in cross-reference parts of the catalogue may be a typo error in their database when they created those parts of the catalogue - or they don't bother listing it in the pad shapes because it is basically the same as the 45T.
Anyway; I think you're fine with the 503845T16. I'm not sure where the 46T comes from, or if it really exists, but I think it would be only 1 mm different from the 45T. It's quite an interesting problem and excess of data - or maybe fake news, lol.
Edited by Canuck7 on Thursday 10th August 10:03
As to compounds; I haven't used an CL brake pads myself.
The RC5+ seems like their answer to the ferodo 2500, but hopefully better. ;-) If you don't run sticky tires, and are on the street mainly, and like less friction out of a brake pad, it will be fine.
I like pads with a Mu around .50 when relatively cold, to mimic the feel of my power assisted brembos on pagid RS14s or carbotechs.
The RC6 will certainly be enough pad, and if they work well cold, and you like a higher Mu, then they will be great.
The RC5+ seems like their answer to the ferodo 2500, but hopefully better. ;-) If you don't run sticky tires, and are on the street mainly, and like less friction out of a brake pad, it will be fine.
I like pads with a Mu around .50 when relatively cold, to mimic the feel of my power assisted brembos on pagid RS14s or carbotechs.
The RC6 will certainly be enough pad, and if they work well cold, and you like a higher Mu, then they will be great.
5+ for now as running treaded tyres and drive to and from circuit, sound like a nice balance so want to see.
Alas rears not here yet and off for a week so will have to wait until I return for road test. Mu, although lower than others, looks very consistent cold to hot so I'm hopeful.
Have put the AP master cylinder on also so should be more how I like things.
Alas rears not here yet and off for a week so will have to wait until I return for road test. Mu, although lower than others, looks very consistent cold to hot so I'm hopeful.
Have put the AP master cylinder on also so should be more how I like things.
Ahhh
Ya, that's a lot of changes at once. :-) The master cylinder change is a big drop in power, but it feels better. It may be a bit hard for you to see how the pads compare at higher forces. When I switched to the AP racing master I actually took it apart again, and did the math, and changed my brake pedal leverage ratio a bit to find a feel I liked best. Did the same to my clutch - I'm picky. :-D I have broken bones in my feet and arthritis from rock climbing for decades, so a certain peal force level gets to be too much.
For pads; I feel initial bite style and cold friction level are the most critical items for these cars. Cooking the pads isn't much of a problem with vented AP brakes.
I'm very interested to see how it all turns out for you after about 100 kms. I was thinking of shifting to CL6 pads all round, but just the front pads are around $800 in Canada. So that's a really pricey experiment.
I am now trying ferodo DS1.11 pads up front, since their ceramic profile is supposedly good at lowish temps, and easy on discs. So far they are fine, but I'd like better colder bite and colder Mu. They also have a slightly wooden feel cold, and perhaps a softer pad feel than say, carbotech and performance friction. Once a bit hot they have a consistent release and quite good modulation, though not as good, maybe, as performance friction (but PF needs more force hot, a tiny bit). I can see how DS1.11 are a good serious track pad, though - and for what they are, not bad for the road. I do I hear the Ferodo DSUNO has a better feel at low speeds and pedal efforts, less wooden. I may just end up back on my performance friction PF01, but carbotech AX6 autocross pads might be a good fit, as well as CL5+ or 6. The AX6 are for cold high Mu performance and hard bite, but some people find their steep heat/friction curve a bit odd to deal with. Most mazda racer types seem to really like them, and Tesla roadster owners. Might not be an issue in a light car.
I agree that the CL5+ are a good place to start. I hope they are a true road/track pad, with a bit more towards track and higher frictions. If they have more real life Mu and bite than ferodo 2500, that should work out well for you.
Ya, that's a lot of changes at once. :-) The master cylinder change is a big drop in power, but it feels better. It may be a bit hard for you to see how the pads compare at higher forces. When I switched to the AP racing master I actually took it apart again, and did the math, and changed my brake pedal leverage ratio a bit to find a feel I liked best. Did the same to my clutch - I'm picky. :-D I have broken bones in my feet and arthritis from rock climbing for decades, so a certain peal force level gets to be too much.
For pads; I feel initial bite style and cold friction level are the most critical items for these cars. Cooking the pads isn't much of a problem with vented AP brakes.
I'm very interested to see how it all turns out for you after about 100 kms. I was thinking of shifting to CL6 pads all round, but just the front pads are around $800 in Canada. So that's a really pricey experiment.
I am now trying ferodo DS1.11 pads up front, since their ceramic profile is supposedly good at lowish temps, and easy on discs. So far they are fine, but I'd like better colder bite and colder Mu. They also have a slightly wooden feel cold, and perhaps a softer pad feel than say, carbotech and performance friction. Once a bit hot they have a consistent release and quite good modulation, though not as good, maybe, as performance friction (but PF needs more force hot, a tiny bit). I can see how DS1.11 are a good serious track pad, though - and for what they are, not bad for the road. I do I hear the Ferodo DSUNO has a better feel at low speeds and pedal efforts, less wooden. I may just end up back on my performance friction PF01, but carbotech AX6 autocross pads might be a good fit, as well as CL5+ or 6. The AX6 are for cold high Mu performance and hard bite, but some people find their steep heat/friction curve a bit odd to deal with. Most mazda racer types seem to really like them, and Tesla roadster owners. Might not be an issue in a light car.
I agree that the CL5+ are a good place to start. I hope they are a true road/track pad, with a bit more towards track and higher frictions. If they have more real life Mu and bite than ferodo 2500, that should work out well for you.
Gassing Station | Caterham | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff