Consolidated 991RS thread
#617
Technical Guru
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
#618
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Wow - i wonder if e RS MIGHT HAVE 6 individual throttles like the RSR. Ive been wanting this since they gave it up after 1973 models.
#619
Rennlist Member
Right on! That was my thought too--there may be a win-win 6-butterfly implementation for us road car users... but that may be wishful thinking coz the "vanilla" 991 Cup is still using the uni-throttle body of yore...
#620
Race Director
#621
Rennlist Member
#623
Rennlist Member
Anybody else think they might call this car the GT3 RSR? If they are going for a loftier price point than previous RS models relative to the standard GT3, I could see them exploiting those three hallowed letters...
#624
If you believe Ferrari, they don't think CF actually saves much weight in street car applications versus aluminum once finished and painted and, of course, it's much more expensive and less durable, more difficult to repair, etc. They are one of the manufacturers, along with Porsche it seems, that is not going down the CF road.
#625
If you believe Ferrari, they don't think CF actually saves much weight in street car applications versus aluminum once finished and painted and, of course, it's much more expensive and less durable, more difficult to repair, etc. They are one of the manufacturers, along with Porsche it seems, that is not going down the CF road.
In an absolute sense there is zero question carbon composite saves weight. The real metric is dollars per pound, however. The highest end cars that can afford it will be virtually entirely composite, the lowest end will stick with steel. Pretty straightforward.
In-between is where it gets interesting. If youre making an upper mid-range car then aluminum is attractive- its the medium dollar per pound option, so using high percentages probably result in the lowest blended cost in isolation. But if youre making something like a BMW M3, for example, youre really blending the economies of scale of a primarily low cost, high volume car with certain features of a high cost, low volume one. Re-tooling to make the entire car from aluminum would lose the economies of scale and be more expensive than blending mostly cheap steel parts youre already tooled up for with a few expensive carbon ones. Hence for them a carbon roof, etc probably makes a strong case.
If youre Porsche, however, and already have an aluminum roof, the dollars per pound saved math for a carbon roof gets far less advantageous: it's much harder to beat money spent instead on a lighter motor, battery or brakes. Thus Porsche and Ferraris stated aversion to carbon probably has more to do with them starting with a fundamentally good and light platform to begin with rather than the inherent qualities of the material itself.
Medium term the picture is changing. BMW has made a case with their i3 that the carbon tube will actually be cheaper to repair: The parts themselves are admittedly more expensive, but by making the frame modular and replacing rather than mending entire sections they'll save labor resulting in a lower repair cost overall. Or at least insurance companies seem to have bought into that theory so far. Its a test case- if successful it may well shortly replace aluminum as the material of choice for the medium volume, medium cost optimization. This next gen lower cost/ lower performance carbon tech might be particularly suited for something like future roof structures, ie A, B and C pillars to allow for high stiffness and rollover protection while maintaining good visibility. We'll see.
#626
#627
Rennlist Member