Notices
Racing & Drivers Education Forum
Sponsored by:
Sponsored by:

New SP996 Build

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 09-19-2012, 03:40 PM
  #16  
analogmike
Rennlist Member
 
analogmike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Danbury, CT, USA
Posts: 3,909
Received 97 Likes on 39 Posts
Default

Love it!!!
Old 09-19-2012, 03:44 PM
  #17  
jrgordonsenior
Nordschleife Master
 
jrgordonsenior's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Vacuuming Cal Speedway
Posts: 7,306
Likes: 0
Received 7 Likes on 5 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by J richard
Nice build, great looking ride. I would make one suggestion to find another home for the accusump, I don't like the idea of 3 1/2 quarts of scalding pressurized oil in the cockpit, I've seen one fail in the trunk...
+1, at least wrap it in something strong to stop the spray if a line or fitting fractures.....
Old 09-19-2012, 04:33 PM
  #18  
onefastviking
Rennlist Member
 
onefastviking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Texas
Posts: 3,549
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Great looking car !

A couple fyi things that I see.
As already mentioned, the Accusump location is an issue, besides the obvious potential of leaking oil, it does put out quite a bit of heat, as it has hot oil circulating thru it, and your car will be in Texas heat and is black so it will be plenty hot inside the car already. I would mount under car in tunnel or in fender well. Or if mounted inside car I would have it contained in a box.

Another thing I noticed is the additional scoop on the deck lid, from my understanding and reading of the rules for SP996 the scoop is not allowed in that class. I could be mistaken and maybe the rules have changed since I last looked, but you might double check this to be sure you are legal within the rules. FYI - In my opinion the scoop actually should be added to the rules as it will help the cars go slightly faster and the expense is quite minimal with no maintenance or downsides, but that is a decision for the rule makers to make and add into the rules. If you don't expect to be a front runner you might leave it on the car and start discussing with the other SP 996 racers and maybe it can get added to the rules.

On the cage I noticed that the horizontal bar, that they have as 2 separate bars for harness bars, may not be legal per NASA rules. I'm not saying that it is not safe or strong, I understand where the design came from.
Also, and it's hard to tell from the pictures but are all the drivers door NASCAR bars of the same diameter ?

I can't wait to see it in person and it's wonderful to see this class gaining more cars.

See you at the track,
Viking
Old 09-19-2012, 04:49 PM
  #19  
GuyIncognito
Rennlist Member
 
GuyIncognito's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: FL
Posts: 2,986
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by onefastviking
Another thing I noticed is the additional scoop on the deck lid, from my understanding and reading of the rules for SP996 the scoop is not allowed in that class. I could be mistaken and maybe the rules have changed since I last looked, but you might double check this to be sure you are legal within the rules. FYI - In my opinion the scoop actually should be added to the rules as it will help the cars go slightly faster and the expense is quite minimal with no maintenance or downsides, but that is a decision for the rule makers to make and add into the rules. If you don't expect to be a front runner you might leave it on the car and start discussing with the other SP 996 racers and maybe it can get added to the rules.
isn't that the Getty Design decklid?

http://www.gettydesign.com/996_wings.html#specwing
Old 09-19-2012, 04:54 PM
  #20  
onefastviking
Rennlist Member
 
onefastviking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Texas
Posts: 3,549
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by GuyIncognito
isn't that the Getty Design decklid?

http://www.gettydesign.com/996_wings.html#specwing
Yes it is, or appears to be from my just looking at these photos, the correct Getty deck lid. But the top scoop is an optional item and last time I checked was not written into the Spec 996 rules as an allowable option.
Old 09-19-2012, 04:54 PM
  #21  
Horus2000
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
 
Horus2000's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: McKinney, TX
Posts: 431
Received 16 Likes on 12 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by GuyIncognito
isn't that the Getty Design decklid?

http://www.gettydesign.com/996_wings.html#specwing
Yes, it is, but it also includes the optional top scoop. My belief was that it assisted with cooling, not a speed advantage. That was also Getty's explanation. I ran it by some of the other SP996 guys and nobody had an opinion on whether the rules allowed it or not.
Old 09-19-2012, 05:00 PM
  #22  
GuyIncognito
Rennlist Member
 
GuyIncognito's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: FL
Posts: 2,986
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Horus2000
Yes, it is, but it also includes the optional top scoop. My belief was that it assisted with cooling, not a speed advantage. That was also Getty's explanation. I ran it by some of the other SP996 guys and nobody had an opinion on whether the rules allowed it or not.
OK that's what I thought.

I assume if Getty designed/built it for SP996, then it's legal.
Old 09-19-2012, 05:03 PM
  #23  
onefastviking
Rennlist Member
 
onefastviking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Texas
Posts: 3,549
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Horus2000
Y My belief was that it assisted with cooling, not a speed advantage. That was also Getty's explanation.
When Porsche ran it on the race cars they claimed it to be worth some hp at speed due to the ram air effect. This was of course with a different air box and different engine than is in your car. Yes, it will add some more cooling air to the engine, although since it's a H2O car thats not really much an issue.

Like I said, I wish it would be written into the rules as ok, but as the rules currently are written I don't see it.

Rules creep in a Spec class can be very damaging for the growth and cost of the class. Grey areas are grey areas but should be defined clearly for the benefit of all the participants.
Old 09-19-2012, 05:04 PM
  #24  
onefastviking
Rennlist Member
 
onefastviking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Texas
Posts: 3,549
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by GuyIncognito
OK that's what I thought.

I assume if Getty designed/built it for SP996, then it's legal.
Getty is not the sanctioning body in charge of the rules.
Old 09-19-2012, 05:05 PM
  #25  
Horus2000
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
 
Horus2000's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: McKinney, TX
Posts: 431
Received 16 Likes on 12 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by onefastviking
Great looking car !

If you don't expect to be a front runner you might leave it on the car and start discussing with the other SP 996 racers and maybe it can get added to the rules.

On the cage I noticed that the horizontal bar, that they have as 2 separate bars for harness bars, may not be legal per NASA rules. I'm not saying that it is not safe or strong, I understand where the design came from.
Also, and it's hard to tell from the pictures but are all the drivers door NASCAR bars of the same diameter ?

Viking
Thanks Viking. I will not be a front runner as (1) I'm not used to this platform and (2) the car isn't yet set up to be competitive - it's VERY overweight and won't get the GT LSD until the '12 season is over.

Regarding the cage, it was installed by a NASA tech shop (by the previous owner) and comes with a NASA log book, although it's never been raced. And the door bars are the same diameter, just the padding is probably making them look off.
Old 09-19-2012, 05:10 PM
  #26  
GuyIncognito
Rennlist Member
 
GuyIncognito's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: FL
Posts: 2,986
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by onefastviking
Getty is not the sanctioning body in charge of the rules.
I know that, but there's no point in them building something for a specific class if it's not going to pass tech.
Old 09-19-2012, 05:12 PM
  #27  
mglobe
The Penguin King
Rennlist Member
 
mglobe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Houston
Posts: 9,834
Received 118 Likes on 84 Posts
Default

FWIW, I've never installed an accusump because I've not liked the idea of having it in the cockpit with me, and the other locations have their own set of issues. So far oiling has not been an issue, but that could be because I can't keep the car off of the wall long enough for the engine to experience oil starvation.
Old 09-19-2012, 07:12 PM
  #28  
J richard
Rennlist Member
 
J richard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 3,636
Received 39 Likes on 28 Posts
Default

^^^brilliant!^^^

Preventative maintenance at its finest....
Old 09-19-2012, 07:39 PM
  #29  
Veloce Raptor
Rennlist Member
 
Veloce Raptor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Guess...
Posts: 41,634
Received 1,402 Likes on 748 Posts
Default

Old 09-20-2012, 03:20 AM
  #30  
Marc Shaw
Super Duper Moderator
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
 
Marc Shaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: YQU
Posts: 7,774
Likes: 0
Received 14 Likes on 12 Posts
Default

Looks really good -any better pictures of the centre dash area?

Thanks!

Marc


Quick Reply: New SP996 Build



All times are GMT -3. The time now is 12:17 PM.