GT40 evolution in carbon fiber - Page 2

imsa · 02-26-04, 10:37 PM

For some reason it reminds me of the Vector

SpyderMike · 02-27-04, 01:33 AM

I think this car needs a turbine engine

**F3L** · 02-27-04, 06:41 PM

I don't mind the front-end treatment but I think you could have gone a little "retro" in the styling with 60-era strakes but that rear wing just won't do, it's a totally different era of technology/styling and it doesn't compliment the car at all.

I like the idea of adding a splitter at the front and rear diffuser, though, taking a clue from the Ford GT design...

PierreM · 03-01-04, 04:24 AM

This is about the tenth time I'm looking at this thread and I'm still puzzled about the use of CF for this car's bodywork.

It is my understanding that there are two 'basic' uses for CF in the automotive world - structural and non-structural.

Structural CF is used mainly to replace steel (for lightness) like F1 chassis and suspension components. Structural CF need to be vacuum formed in moulds, to be effective and structurally sound. I don't see any CF on this car's chassis or suspension.

Non structural CF is used for cosmetic purposes and / or weight saving on bodywork.

Now for my question - with the amount of body filler used on this car, what is the point of using CF in the first place? Surely not cosmetic, and with so much body filler weight added, what happened to weight savings?

Not trying knock the guy, I just don't get it.

ChrisL · 03-01-04, 09:10 AM

I’m not sure I understand why people are so confused about this project. As I see it, it’s quite simple. (Advance apologies for any bluntness).

a) The builder is obviously not a purist, so why apply purist logic to the car’s design? The GT40 only happens to be the starting point. As described, it is not a GT40 but an evolution of a GT40.

b) The designer’s single goal is obviously to build the quickest car that he is capable of building. I suspect his intention is not to show-up other GT40s specifically, but to blow as many cars into the weeds as he can.

c) A sports car’s biggest enemy is weight. Once you are forced (as he is) to keep the steel space frame, the next biggest chassis weight saver is in the outer body. Done correctly (and many people are unjustifiably assuming that it isn’t), CF is lighter than the alternative, end-of-story.

Keep in mind that the original GT40 had function defining form. It was just pure luck that it was also very beautiful. As a car enthusiast first, he has my admiration.

Mike Dozier · 03-01-04, 02:02 PM

Chris

The key word here is this is the "owner's interpretation"
of a current day GT40.

Several of us have taken exception to what his "interpretation" is...not to say it's a bad thing...
only to state what we thought was good...and what we might
have done differently.

I'm not sure if Volker's intention by posting was to solicit our comments, or just to entertain. But you know this crowd...we all have our own (diverse) opinions...
and not bashful about sharing them!

MikeD

JP · 03-01-04, 02:36 PM

[ QUOTE ]
CF is lighter than the alternative, end-of-story.

[/ QUOTE ]

Rubbish! Explain why please?

I'm a fan of carbon. As I've already mentioned it depends on how you use it. 100gm of carbon weighs the same as 100gm of glass. end of story - unless of course you have a different interpretation of the law of physics.[img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Iron Sheik · 03-01-04, 03:49 PM

Well Chris, I am only speaking for myself here. The reason for all the negative stuff is that I own a KIT CAR that looks like the real thing (but it's not [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]) and that I am a POMPUS ASS that think my KIT CAR is far better looking than this guys KIT CAR, so putting him down makes me feel "better" [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img] [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img] [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

P.S

I like his car and I think it looks great more power to him. Too bad he does not post here to tell us what he thinks of our MDA,GTD,KVA,RF,CAV,ERA,DRB,,,, KIT CARS [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Mike Dozier · 03-01-04, 06:43 PM

I can only guess what this person invested in molds/body parts etc in CF....wild wild guess
is $ 50k....and that's probably well understated.

My question is what I would do if given $ 50k to "upgrade"
my GT40 replica...I guess I'd spend nearly all of it on
engine/suspension/tires/wheels/brakes/etc.
IMHO you'd get a much greater return performance wise
than attempting to remove weight via CF body parts.

Now if the owner also wanted to change the body look for
his own enjoyment, that's fine...but as to performance
enhancement...I remain unimpressed. Sorry.

MikeD

Mark Worthington · 03-01-04, 08:55 PM

I think it's pretty cool. [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

gt40rick · 03-02-04, 07:07 AM

I think the use of carbon fiber in the interior is neat even if it is just for looks and not for strength or weight savings.

DaytonaBill · 03-02-04, 09:32 AM

MikeD, I think you are right on. I like the looks of seeing the weave pattern through a deep clear gloss coat. I think a GT40 done up like that would look pretty cool. I bet a LOLA T70 MKIIB Coupe' would look even better! [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

ChrisL · 03-02-04, 10:30 AM

[ QUOTE ]
CF is lighter than the alternative, end-of-story.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Rubbish! Explain why please?

[/ QUOTE ]

JP,

My knowledge of CF is very limited, so I certainly won't stand my ground on this if someone can fill me in on anything that I may have misunderstood. [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]

However, my explanation follows the same lines as your comments in your previous post...

[ QUOTE ]
The weight savings come from using less material because they are stronger not lighter.

[/ QUOTE ]

... so I didn't see my comments as being at odds with yours. Surely the point you and I were making is that the per-volume weight is irrelevant, and the total weight is the defining factor. Of coarse it is possible to make a full body out of CF that is as thick and heavy as FG, but why would you?

With regards to tyres verses engine verses suspension verses CF, I don’t think that its as simple as making direct $$$$ comparisons, especially if you are going racing. Weight comes into play with everything. Less weight means that you can run softer rubber that in turn means more grip. You can get away with less horsepower meaning better characteristics and more reliable engine, and one that needs less fuel (less fuel = even less weight). It also means that you can have better brake feel and smaller rotors, which means less un-sprung weight (which again is less total weight and better handling). The suspension is less loaded so it becomes more compliant

...but again I stress ONLY IF it is done correctly. Combine this with the fact that this car also has aerodynamic devices, and we are talking about a different class of race car altogether.

I hope I’m not rubbing anyone the wrong way here, its not my intention [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img] but the differences between a winning race car and a leading race car is fractions of a percent. That is what makes a good sports car great.
[img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img] [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img] [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

JP · 03-02-04, 01:06 PM

No worries Chris! [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Savings in weight can be made true. The skin would be bloody thin. Although it will be strong, in terms of compressive and tensile loading, it will have very poor impact resistance.

I have gone mad with my MDA trying to save weight. Cast magnesium wheels, ali uprights, lightweight body (not carbon), light weight chasis, ali rad, etc. etc. However I still want durability which is why I have not got a carbon body.

If I were to go carbon I would use 5mm nomex honeycomb or 5mm divinicell sandwich contruction, wet lay up, vacuum bagged. I would use a 50/50 carbon/aramid twill. But why? To save an extra 25kg?

It would be a good talking point though, much like this thread!! [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Regards,

J.P

Mike Dozier · 03-02-04, 01:30 PM

Well...since once again we've kinda strayed off thread...

I saw a professional race car (drag) that had the heads of
all the bolts drilled to reduce weight! I asked how much
they saved and it was something like (3) lbs!
Can't imagine how much time was invested for that (3) lbs.

My comment was that the driver could probably lose the same (3) lbs by taking a dose of laxative the night before,
and saved someone a lot of hard work/expense.

MikeD [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

ChrisL · 03-03-04, 09:33 AM

MikeDD,

Your not alone in your opinion. Carrol Smith's book states that the easiest place to remove weight off a race car is the driver.

3 lbs may not sound like alot, but that was probably just the thin end of the wedge. If that logic was followed in 10 places on the car, then there would be 30 kilos saved. Now imagine using that logic in 50 places or more on that car. It adds up.