Robert Linton

Looking at the GT2RS, there would appear to be room to (i) increase HP to approximately 750, (ii) decrease weight to approximately 2600 lbs, particularly paying attention to unsprung and rotating weight and (iii) significantly enhance the suspension. If this was done to, for example, 30 cars, it might cost an additional $250,000 each. Would it be worth it?

C.J. Ichiban

so- 500k for a steel chassis 911? or, a turbo 997 RSR?

I'm just one vote, but...never.

eclou

reliable 700-750 hp has already been achieved in the 997 turbo motor with kits in the 20k range. The weight reduction would take a good shop maybe a weekend to achieve. A full Moton setup is about $6k retail. This could all be done with a plain 997 turbo as a starting point ($80k) rather than a GT2RS ($250k). I don't see the point to chopping up a GT2RS

Carrera GT

I had the same initial "sanity" check reaction, but keep in mind the calibre of work from Robert Linton -- he's not talking about sane, he's talking about insane (in a good way) ... if you want to take an '08 GT2 and tweak it, sure, $25K will do a lot ... it won't get 750hp, but you can improve the springs and dampers and generally pull 200lbs out and maybe squeak under 3000lb.

Personally, if I'm ever silly enough and lucky enough to get the GT2 RS, the major upgrade for me would be a full cage, a fuel cell and a fire system ... and budget for some driving instruction ... : )

C.J. Ichiban

I saw the quality of the work on that crazy 964 and it is no doubt the most painfully well done art on wheels I've seen. but my bones are spending 250k additional for a 250k car. I'm young and stupid with money, relatively speaking, so I'd rather try and find a historic race car, something that is all the way out there. or, just get an F40.

micahbones

Just curious, but what drastic measures would you have to take to reduce the weight so significantly? Porsche claims a curb weight of 3075 lbs. with a number of carbon fiber pieces already, so you're talking a good amount of mass reduction to achieve the target.

Sorry if I'm not familiar with your previous work...but would like to be educated.

cgomez

For sure the better way to go for such an extreme machine is to start with a 2010 Cup Car (same chassis, same widebody wider front track and lightest possible), remove/sell the GT3 engine ($60K) and then buy a GT2 engine ($85K?) and tweak it with larger intercoolers (cut rear fenders and isntall factory ducts too) and turbo props to safely get 700+hp.

Then you just need stiffer rear springs and a good chunk of time to set it up. Tranny will probably last 1/3 of the time than in a Cup but you can replace it with a non factory parts stronger sequential and you will rule GTA2 at Club Racing.

Robert Linton

Let me apologize. It has been a very long two days. Over the next two days, I will attempt to write meaningful answers. Two points, however, in the interim. First, I am merely theorizing, not suggesting anything should, let alone will, be built. If, though, it were, it would not be chopping up a car or eliminating anything. To the contrary, it would be engineering better and lighter components and systems almost everywhere. Suspension arms, links, uprights, etc., for example, might be re-engineered in metal matrix composites and carbon composites, transmission housings might become carbon, exhaust pieces might become silicon carbide ceramic, etc. As to dampers (shocks), while you can get a Moton setup for $6K (or less), it does not include carbon struts with titanium/composite shafts (nor the de rigueur Beta C titanium springs). In short, what I was talking about was the use of technology that makes, e.g., the CGT or the new McLaren, look like what they are, but very good cars using rather ordinary components generally made by standard production sources in a clever and well executed way. Having said that, I can see why one would not want to pay for a higher level -- my mother constantly asked why anyone needed anything other than a Buick. In any event, beauty is in the eye of the beholder and the GT2RS is a wonderful vehicle but there will always be someone who wants the ultimate (at that particular point in time), not because it is necessary or even useful, but because it pleases them and they can have it.

Robert Linton

P.S. Why do people think that limited production cars such as the CGT, the Bugatti, the McLaren, etc. are made with large amounts of carbon fiber?

Larry Cable

partially because I think when the motoring press review such cars they typically focus on vague/blanket statements such as "...made with carbon fibre..."

Since few of us mortals get any closer to these cars than Jeremy Clarkson sliding one on tv while making some quip about canine ********* and Sienna Miller's lingerie in "Layer Cake" ... well we just assume that it's CF from the ashtrays up! (and I am not refering to the construction of her knickers here)

Robert Linton

Yes, we have been conditioned to think of it as "cool", Formula 1 technology, etc. And, yes, with proper design it can be stiffer than metal. And, yes, with elegant design it should produce substantially lighter vehicles (but, looking at the CGT, the Enzo, the Bugatti, the SLR, the new McLaren, etc., one might question....).

On the other hand, given current repair expertise, it is harder and more expensive to repair, harder to paint to a finish as good as metal, can, in certain instances, present durability issues and can, if not painted or in some other way coated, oxidize to a color reminiscent of a scene out of the Exorcist.

Notwithstanding any of the foregoing, the real primary reason for the use of carbon fiber in limited production vehicles is that it is cheaper than the cost of metal stamping tools. Though one can debate about the definitive break even between relatively inexpensive carbon fiber components tools and metal stamping, the number is approximately 30,000, i.e., if you are making less than 30,000 vehicles, it is less expensive to make them out of carbon fiber.

P.S. As you look carefully at certain vehicles being advertised as composite, be careful to differentiate between carbon composite and, e.g., SMC (sheet molding compound) which can and is, in instances, be used as a less expensive material to make certain components such as doors, lids, etc.

So do not look at a car made of metal as not being worthy of "supercar" status. Instead, look at overall weight, HP, torque and overall performance, not to mention durability, repairability and comfort. [I like air conditioning, leather, stereo, etc. -- and while those one piece composite seats are, again, cool, the adjustable ones are generally more comfortable for day to day driving (though we have been conditioned to accept CGT type seats as preferable for "real supercars" as they give manufacturers an easy way to save weight)]. While turning a GT3RSR into a "street car" would certainly look cool, it would be a horrible, albeit lightweight, car with which to go to buy groceries.

micahbones

Excellent points Robert. Agreed as well. I actually prefer the durability and appearance of metal for many applications. For example on my bicycles I explicitly stay away from carbon fiber for frames, handlebars, and the like because I found them to be much more fragile that the equivalent metal component, experiencing several failures with CF during my racing days in particular. Saving a few grams at the expense of durability makes no sense to me. Also prefer the feel and aesthetic qualities of steel, aluminium, & titanium vs. carbon fiber.

Robert Linton

And, in today's world, with different aluminums (including even aluminum lithium in special applications), titaniums, specialty metals such as Aermet, the Thyssen super strength steels and even the judicious use of beryllium, there are many options that, together with various composites (including carbon, ceramics, SMC, PEEK, etc.) in selected applications, could make almost anything else out there look dated in comparison to an enhanced GT2RS. But, of course, I am only dreaming.

Carrera GT

I doubt I'd every pay $100K for "this material is cooler than that material" but what I would pay $100K for is safety. If someone took a 911 and built a survival cell (literally like a fighter jet or a formula race boat) then $100K would be in the budget. I'm thinking of something that goes in a central driving position -to get away from the A pillars - steering and brakes are "by wire" and the cell or capsule itself is an egg-shaped cocoon with self-contained air supply and rated to appropriate G loads while remaining air-tight (in case of submersion, not just fire and impact.) The "cradle" to hold the cocoon would make the chassis stiffer (reinforcing where the transmission tunnel is removed) and with no need for a forward drive shaft (since the electric hub motors drive the front wheels in the 918 and the RS cars are 2WD) the cocoon can be very low-slung, literally being the lowest point in the car and perfectly centered fore-after and between the wheels. I could even envisage the egg/cocoon being suspended so it could insulate the driver and the rest of the chassis could endure much worse ride forces as well as letting the driver capsule literally "lean" into the turns to relieve high side load G forces on the neck and upper body of the driver at the same time as communicating "body language" (as of a motorcycle rider or kart driver) to the chassis in turns and under acceleration or braking to enhance traction. Imagine a Le Mans event where the driver change is a robotic arm lifting out one driver pod and lowering another into the gaping rib-cage of the chassis -- no nead for anything but aero in the form of the car, so it becomes a pure form, not compromised to accept a seat and doors, just it's "pay load" in an aerodynamic egg. Maybe we have to wait and see what's in Tron. : ) Far-fetched enough yet? : )

thusly

Interesting perspective Could the reason this car is being produced is so that it can be FIA homologated???