Consolidated 991RS thread
08-24-2014, 09:10 PM
#1606
Racer
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 370
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So yes, I'm highly disappointed in the US babysitter regime that has come to fruition more and more with the US Dept of Transportation regulating everything and its mother which has killed an opportunity for a car to be further used for exactly what it has been predominately designed for, track car primary with street ability as secondary. Almost forcing Porsche to remove even the anchor points is somewhat mysterious since having anchor points really isn't a direct correlation to a DOT or manufacturer sponsored installation of an aftermarket solutions. In my mind, and merely through simplification, it's like having baby seat anchors in cars even if the owner never uses them. I know, very loose example, but an analogy that could be made in a stretch. But bottom line, anchor points at a minimum should completely release both the DOT and Porsche from any litigation since the owner has to make the conscious decision to mount something to them. Again, in my mind it's like using an OEM seat rail to mount an aftermarket seat. The manufacturer of the rails isn't liable for something that happens with an aftermarket seat failure.
I guess I just really wish there was transparency to exactly WHY the CS option, or AT LEAST the mounting points aren't an option in the US?!?
I guess I just really wish there was transparency to exactly WHY the CS option, or AT LEAST the mounting points aren't an option in the US?!?
08-24-2014, 09:20 PM
#1607
Racer
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 370
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Also, as my memory is often in line with the problems of the younger generation (not remembering what happened more than a year ago), has Porsche been this tight lipped about a model announcement date before? It just seems everyone knew when the GT3, TT, TTS, etc announcement dates were relatively early compared to their relative reveal auto shows whereas we're ~4 weeks out from Paris and there are still conflicting rumors stating Paris and Geneva 2015. With technology now a days, it seems there's a bit more warning for announcements (e.g., C7 Z06, Merc AMG GT, McLaren 650S, Macan, Cayenne facelift, etc.). But there's this great mystery with the RS because of the GT3 engine issue. There MUST be some parts of a media plan that's been leaked in some capacity to gen up anticipation, or to keep a level of interest spotlight on Porsche.
08-24-2014, 10:16 PM
#1608
Agreed. Just trying to find out if a bolt-on application is any good or just "poseur" look. Part of me thinks the bolt itself sits pretty close to the chassis (?1/2 inch off) and if the car does roll and the bolts bend/break/sheer, the base will still hit the floor and offers some protection. Non scientific and possibly wishful thinking but short of doing substantial changes with welding etc, I don't know what else to do/get.
08-24-2014, 10:45 PM
#1612
Three Wheelin'
Agreed. Just trying to find out if a bolt-on application is any good or just "poseur" look. Part of me thinks the bolt itself sits pretty close to the chassis (?1/2 inch off) and if the car does roll and the bolts bend/break/sheer, the base will still hit the floor and offers some protection. Non scientific and possibly wishful thinking but short of doing substantial changes with welding etc, I don't know what else to do/get.
Ryan
08-24-2014, 10:49 PM
#1613
08-24-2014, 11:02 PM
#1614
1. Welding on a new car... I liken it to painting a new car... its not original anymore. This does not bother everyone, but I am of the opinion anything bolt in is okay as it can be reversed. Cutting and welding are not reversible, therefore reducing the value when/if it is sold. Possibly effecting warranty issues if there is every a problem with the chassis... not likely, but a consideration.
2. There is a lot of safety engineering already put into these cars. I would argue the chassis it self can withstand most impacts we would encounter. If the chassis is not sufficient, a lot more safety equipment beyond a basic roll bar will be needed. Once you start down the modification path, it is never ending....
3. Specifically when not wearing a helmet, roll bars are a significant danger to the head of occupants in an accidents. Something most (if not all) aftermarket companies do not test in our specific car. This also causes a insurance issue in the event of an accident.
4. Insurance - Based on experience in the off road (jeep) world, insurance companies will deny claims when the body or structure as been altered. Bolt in sport cages were okay, but once it was welded in, or any piece was cut and replaced, insurance was out. I am guessing the same would apply in this case. Insurance companies are always looking for a way out.
08-24-2014, 11:14 PM
#1615
OK, that's very re-assuring, not. When I asked my tech, he didn't know of other options but I recall reading somewhere on RL about some cage that welds. If anyone knows what I'm talking about, please chime in. Perhaps a different brand than GMG that is yet to make a cage for the 991?
08-24-2014, 11:58 PM
#1616
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 411
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am not disputing that a proper weld would probably improve structure integrity in the event of a significant roll on the track.... but there are other considerations and the benefits seem to be fairly limited.
1. Welding on a new car... I liken it to painting a new car... its not original anymore. This does not bother everyone, but I am of the opinion anything bolt in is okay as it can be reversed. Cutting and welding are not reversible, therefore reducing the value when/if it is sold. Possibly effecting warranty issues if there is every a problem with the chassis... not likely, but a consideration.
2. There is a lot of safety engineering already put into these cars. I would argue the chassis it self can withstand most impacts we would encounter. If the chassis is not sufficient, a lot more safety equipment beyond a basic roll bar will be needed. Once you start down the modification path, it is never ending....
3. Specifically when not wearing a helmet, roll bars are a significant danger to the head of occupants in an accidents. Something most (if not all) aftermarket companies do not test in our specific car. This also causes a insurance issue in the event of an accident.
4. Insurance - Based on experience in the off road (jeep) world, insurance companies will deny claims when the body or structure as been altered. Bolt in sport cages were okay, but once it was welded in, or any piece was cut and replaced, insurance was out. I am guessing the same would apply in this case. Insurance companies are always looking for a way out.
1. Welding on a new car... I liken it to painting a new car... its not original anymore. This does not bother everyone, but I am of the opinion anything bolt in is okay as it can be reversed. Cutting and welding are not reversible, therefore reducing the value when/if it is sold. Possibly effecting warranty issues if there is every a problem with the chassis... not likely, but a consideration.
2. There is a lot of safety engineering already put into these cars. I would argue the chassis it self can withstand most impacts we would encounter. If the chassis is not sufficient, a lot more safety equipment beyond a basic roll bar will be needed. Once you start down the modification path, it is never ending....
3. Specifically when not wearing a helmet, roll bars are a significant danger to the head of occupants in an accidents. Something most (if not all) aftermarket companies do not test in our specific car. This also causes a insurance issue in the event of an accident.
4. Insurance - Based on experience in the off road (jeep) world, insurance companies will deny claims when the body or structure as been altered. Bolt in sport cages were okay, but once it was welded in, or any piece was cut and replaced, insurance was out. I am guessing the same would apply in this case. Insurance companies are always looking for a way out.
Personally, I don't buy a car for the next owner. It's mine, and I'll do what I like with it. Especially, when it comes to safety. I see no difference in running hard on track days when you have free passing, or TT events to real racing. You can get killed just as easy. Granted everybody isn't as aggressive as the drivers in a real race, but things can happen.
I want my car as safe as it would be if I was racing it. My life is more important to me than my bank account. Warranty, and the next owner is a non issue with me.
Just the way I look at it. I don't expect others to agree with me.
08-25-2014, 04:27 AM
#1617
I think its getting too incremental TBH. You can always go "safer" all the way up until you are a 997/991 Cup car. So, in theory, the Cups are the standard in safety and everything else is a compromise. Which means, anything less than a full-factory, welded cage with fire suppression, HANS, race seat and so on is "dangerous". By and large, most people get away with a harness bar / half cage with harness and/or hans. Does that mean anything? Probably not.
08-25-2014, 10:25 AM
#1618
08-25-2014, 10:53 AM
#1619
GT3 player par excellence
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
spectacular flight, as all the corner workers still talk to me about it today, that's four yrs ago. " u flying today, john?"....
a full cage provably too much, might as well buy a cup
but a roll bar I think adds to,the car and even looks nice.
not endowing gmg or rss, but they have some examples u can see as ideas. now this new car has lots of alum on chassis, so structural attachment may be different than steel,chassis cars. u need to do so e research on that. personally I like what oe club sport bar did, bolt to rear tower, a plate (I actually use a large box section) welded to tub then bolt fromt leg to it. welding sounds like some sort of taboo sexual activities, but there are oem roll bar out there in 997.1&2. take a look. it's not what u think. it's really nice and row cars had it as oem.
a good fabricator can duplicate and improve upon that even....
08-25-2014, 11:20 AM
#1620
Rennlist Member
Porsche uses magnesium for the roof of the Cabrio and Targa, I assume they have invested heavily in its production and thus decreases cost for them, making it more cost effective as a company. Also Magnesium not as brittle yet still very light, I think light as aluminum but still stronger more stiff without being brittle. There is currently a battle between Mg and Carbon wheels for motorcycles
Race, it's from my understanding from motorcycle wheels is that cf is much lighter (~50%) and stronger than magnesium. It's just that magnesium is more "flexible" hence more forgiving with potholes compared to cf. But in the case of a car's roof, I'd think that scenario is irrelevant and you'd want the lightest and strongest material, hence the use of cf. There's a reason why high performance cars use cf tubs and/or components and not moving towards magnesium. Maybe this is a cop out for Porsche to go after profit margins vice making the lightest possible RS.
Mg is typically alloyed with Au. Infact many alloy wheels have a small Mg component. I cant see any structural or weight benefits of a higher content Mg alloy for the roof over CF or alloy other than perhaps a benefit when producing the double bubble pressing and a margin weight benefit which may offset what I believe to be a higher roof line (for the bubble components) from what I have studied from the patent drawings which could be a measure to offset what would be a fractionally higher COG if in fact my observations are true. Of course there is also the marketing angle in using a "more exotic" manufacturing and material process. Infact too high Mg component will made for a more "brittle" and fracture prone end result so I guess they will be alloying with something clever to counter this....just my 0.2 on the subject.
I suspect the choice was more engineering than cost driven given location as structural component of the tub/passenger cell (unlike bolt on hood and front fenders).
Magnesium is more expensive than aluminum but has well established advantages over the latter. See this comparison from bike building website: http://www.precisiontandems.com/cat_...amagnesium.htm)
The issues of connecting mg and steel - a factor in this location - also seem to have been solved. See: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehicles...eng_2011_o.pdf
Magnesium is more expensive than aluminum but has well established advantages over the latter. See this comparison from bike building website: http://www.precisiontandems.com/cat_...amagnesium.htm)
The issues of connecting mg and steel - a factor in this location - also seem to have been solved. See: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehicles...eng_2011_o.pdf
Thank you for posting this, very informative. I knew Mg is stronger than Al but your post elaborates on many more aspects that I didn't know about. I did not believe Porsche would use Mg vs CF for maximizing profit (they're jacking the price to achieve that) so this makes sense, provided this bit of info about the RS roof material is indeed factual.