I think we are debating from two slightly different perspectives here
Unsprung mass and rotational mass with performance improvement. Reducing rotational mass is all about where the weight is being lost on a spinning object where as unsprung mass is mass not being supported by the suspension. rotational mass depending on where it's removed can equal 4x the benefit of sprung mass, and removing unsprung mass can improve 2 fold. All I'm saying is because the weight lost on two piece rotors is close to the hub, it's not as dramatic as if the weight was lost on the disks themselves. Carbon ceramic rotors reduce the mass off the disks and that compared to a normal two piece is so much more beneficial to reducing rotational mass. Same theory with reducing wheel size from 20's or 19's down to 18's. Weight is reduced at the outer edges is substantial. That's why these light weight pulley's and flywheels make such a big difference in improving efficiency of the driveline.
Removing 40-50lbs of unsprung mass will have a much greater effect on suspension geometry and handling than straight line performance. Reducing rotational mass from the brakes is also reducing unsprung mass *** well. And the benefits will be seen on handling, not so much straight line. I think I'm starting to talk in circles lol.
Going from carbon composite to carbon fiber driveshaft is a terrible idea.
