S2's Build Thread

Kyle

Supporter
I never want to have my car next to yours looks great.

The portion of the hinge that mounts to the nose, was their any gap or unevenness? I understand you filled the back with mat to strength. I guess I’m asking if it mounted perfectly flat to the nose without having to add filler in between the gel coat and aluminum.
 
TBF the chassis is advertised as one of the stiffest, however that does not mean it has no flex at all. If one is being very picky, lifting one corner could be enough to flex panel alignment by a noticeable amount that would catch the builder's attention.
 

Scott

Lifetime Supporter
This indicates a chassis that is not rigid......
Neil, the chassis is plenty rigid, in newton/meters per degree

35,000 Ferrari F50
30,000 SL-C
27,100 Ford GT (2005-6)
27,000 Pagani Zonda F
17,000 Ford GT40 MK1
14,500 Corvette C7

And that's without the roll cage. If you don't trust the FEA data, the first SL-C in Australia was apparently tested on a rig and the bolts ripped out of the floor... I guess that's a pass. It has also been empirically proven to be rigid by endurance race teams. In any event, Alan has really upped his game in finishing the cars and his SOP is to do body prep and gapping on the wheel cribs.

The portion of the hinge that mounts to the nose, was their any gap or unevenness?
Dutsy, I think both of the retaining plates sat pretty flat on the fiberglass, but, as I mentioned, the passenger side was paper thin. If there are gaps between the retention plate and the fiberglass, just torquing the screws will put undue stress on the fiberglass.

Regardless of how thick the fiberglass is or if there are gaps or not, anyone hinging the nose this way should spend time reinforcing this area. Dewax/Degrease, abrade with 40 grit, cut cloth to distribute loads past the piece that the hinge mounts to. I wouldn't epoxy the retention plate in case you need to make some adjustments.
 

Neil

Supporter
Neil, the chassis is plenty rigid, in newton/meters per degree

35,000 Ferrari F50
30,000 SL-C
27,100 Ford GT (2005-6)
27,000 Pagani Zonda F
17,000 Ford GT40 MK1
14,500 Corvette C7

And that's without the roll cage. If you don't trust the FEA data, the first SL-C in Australia was apparently tested on a rig and the bolts ripped out of the floor... I guess that's a pass. It has also been empirically proven to be rigid by endurance race teams. In any event, Alan has really upped his game in finishing the cars and his SOP is to do body prep and gapping on the wheel cribs.


Dutsy, I think both of the retaining plates sat pretty flat on the fiberglass, but, as I mentioned, the passenger side was paper thin. If there are gaps between the retention plate and the fiberglass, just torquing the screws will put undue stress on the fiberglass.

Regardless of how thick the fiberglass is or if there are gaps or not, anyone hinging the nose this way should spend time reinforcing this area. Dewax/Degrease, abrade with 40 grit, cut cloth to distribute loads past the piece that the hinge mounts to. I wouldn't epoxy the retention plate in case you need to make some adjustments.
If you are satisfied with it, that is OK with me. I was just pointing out the logical conclusion.
 

Joel K

Supporter
Hi Scott, really nice progress on the build. I was reviewing your intercooler setup posts and wondering how you sized the reservoir tank. I’ve read various articles explaining the benefits and drawbacks of larger vs, smaller reservoirs so curious what your perspective is.

BTW, really like how you positioned and connected your reservoir. Looks great.

329FEEE0-D896-4E5F-ABE6-31F44E44F437.jpeg
 

Scott

Lifetime Supporter
If you are satisfied with it, that is OK with me. I was just pointing out the logical conclusion.
Neil, I'm glad that you OK with it. I'm beyond satisfied which isn't easy to do ;-)

I was reviewing your intercooler setup posts and wondering how you sized the reservoir tank. I’ve read various articles explaining the benefits and drawbacks of larger vs, smaller reservoirs so curious what your perspective is.
Joel, I spent some time trying to determine the optimal size, but in the end I went with what would fit (and looked cool) at the level the water exits. Here's my perspective:
  • I'm not building a drag or Texas-mile car so there is no point in having a massive reservoir or the ability to add ice to delay heating the coolant.
  • My intercoolers are on the left and right sides of the radiator, so the lines have a lot more volume that if the coolers were located near the engine.
  • I have identified an area in which I could add a second reservoir if one is warranted.
  • The reservoir tank is designed to swirl the coolant and to have an air pocket to help remove air bubbles. In addition, the air pocket provides a depressurized area which increases flow rate because the pump doesn’t have to work as hard pushing into a pressurized tank.
  • I used a high-quality brushless Pierburg pump.
  • The pump is mounted low to provide it with maximum gravity feed from the reservoir.
  • The heat exchangers are:
    • custom, high-quality units from C&R
    • the largest that would fit in the nose of the car
    • plumbed in parallel
    • fed lots of cold air via an enlarged brake-duct opening in the nose. I will fabricate an aluminum duct to force the air from the opening in the nose through the heat exchangers.
    • easily bled via a valve at the top
 

Joel K

Supporter
Neil, I'm glad that you OK with it. I'm beyond satisfied which isn't easy to do ;-)


Joel, I spent some time trying to determine the optimal size, but in the end I went with what would fit (and looked cool) at the level the water exits. Here's my perspective:
  • I'm not building a drag or Texas-mile car so there is no point in having a massive reservoir or the ability to add ice to delay heating the coolant.
  • My intercoolers are on the left and right sides of the radiator, so the lines have a lot more volume that if the coolers were located near the engine.
  • I have identified an area in which I could add a second reservoir if one is warranted.
  • The reservoir tank is designed to swirl the coolant and to have an air pocket to help remove air bubbles. In addition, the air pocket provides a depressurized area which increases flow rate because the pump doesn’t have to work as hard pushing into a pressurized tank.
  • I used a high-quality brushless Pierburg pump.
  • The pump is mounted low to provide it with maximum gravity feed from the reservoir.
  • The heat exchangers are:
    • custom, high-quality units from C&R
    • the largest that would fit in the nose of the car
    • plumbed in parallel
    • fed lots of cold air via an enlarged brake-duct opening in the nose. I will fabricate an aluminum duct to force the air from the opening in the nose through the heat exchangers.
    • easily bled via a valve at the top

Thanks Scott, appreciate the explanation. Totally agree with how you plumbed everything with the tank feeding the intercooler pump. Having it at the highest point makes it easy to bleed and provides some head pressure to feed the pump.

I have a couple follow on questions.

1)I assume the tank cap is a pressure release cap like a radiator cap. I think I read the water in the intercooler system normally does not get hot enough so there is no need for a recovery tank. That assumes the intercooler tank is topped off during bleeding. Any comments on this topic would be helpful.
2)Where did you get that cool cap with the Superlite logo?
 

Scott

Lifetime Supporter
Joel,

The cap doesn't have a pressure release. It's my understanding that intercooler temps don't get high and it operates as a closed system. Let me know if you think different.

The cap is anodized aluminum which I had laser etched. I picked it because I liked the finger indents on the side and it comes with a nice aluminum weld bung. I think it also has an O-ring, but it's been a long time so I don't recall. They can be purchased in multiple different sizes here:

Shop By Category - Fabrication Parts - Dedicated Motorsports Solutions

...
 

Ken Roberts

Supporter
The fill port on my LS9 build is from a 2016 CTS-V and uses a 5psi cap. (Shown in the picture)

The stock C6 ZR1 Corvette and stock C7 Z06 had a closed system and could be difficult to bleed all the air out. By closed I mean a threaded fill port, not twist off cap.

The Dodge SRT Hellcat uses a 18psi supercharger coolant cap.

The Ford GT500 uses a 16psi supercharger coolant cap.

The 2005/2006 Ford GT uses a 16psi supercharger coolant cap.

48D02F6A-1053-42B6-B68D-96D3FFB8A9B5.jpeg
 
Last edited:

Joel K

Supporter
The fill port on my LS9 build is from a 2016 CTS-V and uses a 5psi cap. (Shown in the picture)

The stock C6 ZR1 Corvette and stock C7 Z06 had a closed system and could be difficult to bleed all the air out. By closed I mean a threaded fill port, not twist off cap.

The Dodge SRT Hellcat uses a 18psi supercharger coolant cap.

The Ford GT500 uses a 16psi supercharger coolant cap.

The 2005/2006 Ford GT uses a 16psi supercharger coolant cap.

View attachment 119758

Thanks Ken, I was thinking to use some type of pressure rated cap just to be on the safe side although it appears you could get away without it as well.
 
What supercharger coolant temps are you seeing? There will be expansion but are they high enough to boil the coolant? If not, should just need a header tank to hold the extra volume of expansion?
 

Scott

Lifetime Supporter
Over two years ago I posted about modifications that I was going to make to the side of car.

1640711171452.png


I decided to go with Option A3, which requires the most work. I focused on the area behind the front wheel (i.e., the section circled in red). Option A1 is stock in this area so comparing it to A3 will illustrate what changes need to be made. I purchased a pair of QL-38 Quick-Latches and made several point-of-no-return cuts to the doors and spider, but I got busy with other parts of the car.

Last week I worked with Allan to finalize the mod. The two pictures below show where the initial cuts were expanded.

1640711205707.png

To achieve clean aesthetics all fiberglass under the nose flange that wasn’t required to enclose the body was removed. This included the entire surface to which the stock AeroCatch was mounted.

1640711227365.png

The top of the wheel well exit was cut to be as open as possible and the inside edge of the vertical piece on the left was also trimmed

We were able to cut the wheel well higher than what we initially thought. This not only looks better, but it will enable more air to flow from behind the tire. We also took the opportunity to fill in the “beer holder” and the curved vertical piece behind the wheel. Everything still needs to be fine tuned, but the heavy lifting on this part of the mod is done. Note that the pictures depict the Quick-Latch ball stud inserted into the latch whereas it will eventually be installed in the nose flange.

1640711269439.png

Top rear of wheel well significantly more open than stock

1640711291674.png

Backside of curved vertical piece trimmed and filled solid

1640711321610.png

“Beer holder” removed and patched; Quick-Latch installed flush with top of spider; nose locating pin in stock location

1640711347710.png

The vertical piece has been significantly strengthened and the underside of the opening has been made flat. Some additional bodywork is required.
The Quick-Latch has several advantages over the AeroCatch;
  • Significantly smaller
  • Significantly easier to install (one cut with a hole saw vs. a large awkward shape and five holes)
  • All metal
  • Ball stud is stainless steel
  • Rated to 500 pounds each
Allan plans to recommend upgrading the AeroCatches to Quick-Latches on his future builds.

The next step is to mount the ball studs to the nose flange, blend the cuts in the doors to match the new body line and fabricate covers for the door hinge cutouts.
 

Scott

Lifetime Supporter
I modified the front wheel well outlets which required me to cut the stock body line on the doors which are several inches below the nose parting line (i.e., the line that separates the nose and body).

1641516716579.png

1641516727433.png

Left door cut to remove the stock body line that is aligned with the top of the front wheel outlet, the fiberglass was appropriately thick in this area

The holes in the doors have been patched and a clean body line has been created and blended into the doors.

1641516796815.png


1641516806668.png


When Allan first picked up one of the doors he said, “you got bad doors.” He knew by the weight that the fiberglass was much thinner than it should be. To demonstrate, he turned off the lights and shone a flashlight on the gelcoat side. Large sections of the door weren’t much more than gelcoat. It’s understandable that there might be some thin spots, but both doors were shoddy and the nose and tail have similar issues. This really pisses me off. It would have taken the fiberglass terrorist with the chop gun what, two extra minutes? In addition, the fiberglass on the nose, center section and tail wasn’t rolled out. Whomever glued the interior shell should have noticed how thin the door was and they could have easily laminated a few layers of chopped mat. But no, they just bonded them together and shipped it.

Fixing this after the fact is several orders of magnitude more work than to do it right the first place because there is only a small opening in the interior shell to access the backside of the door. Not as bad as building a ship in a bottle, but you get the point. You have reach through the opening and apply dewaxer, abrade with 40-grit sandpaper and then apply multiple layers of cloth. The good news is that Allan has had to do this before and this is one of the first things that he checks when he gets a SL-C. Apparently the quality of the SL-C bodies have gotten much worst over time so it’s critical that you check your fiberglass before doing any bodywork. Put the pieces on sawhorses, turn off the lights and have someone slowly move a flashlight across the gelcoat.

As you can see in the picture above, Allan also has a GT-R in the shop and I compared the quality of the fiberglass. The GT-R fiberglass was really nice and made my SL-C body look shoddy. That said, I prefer the SL-C ;-) This isn’t about the molds. The subcontractor who makes the GT-R bodies does a high-quality job whereas the one who makes the SL-C bodies doesn’t. The issues are fixable, but it’s not something that a builder should need to do. The fiberglass parts are incongruous with the quality found in the rest of the parts.
 
Last edited:
I have a early body at least 2010, mine passes the light test, but It has been moved probably 10+ times, and was used as a display for some kind of CNC booth at trade shows. Its got alot of surface scratches. I have talked to a few body guys about taking molds. It's not that expensive. More than I would say and individual would do, and for a single piece it makes more sense just to buy replacement sections from RCR. However, if a few got together it might make sense. Where I was going with it is that if we can come upon a set of body modifications we all like. (Your duct mods are perfect, IMO) Allans hood mod is another. We mod one body and pull molds. Kind of get a SLC 1.5 or something. I originally was investigating it to do carbon fiber doors, but I was told for a single part it just makes more sense to skin them with CF and add support to areas that flex.

A body refresh really makes sense if you think about it. Alot of these builds on the SLC and GT side are now topping out over 200K. For this tier of build it just makes sense to have a ultra high quality option, ideally in CF or GRF/CF hybrid. I think it would be more pieces, instead of three large ones, but I could see it happening.

Another option is to redesign it and make bucks, and go full aluminum these guys will do that https://www.alloycars.com/ its about 65K.

The other option is to just make the jump to 3d printing and go that route.

Really someone just needs step to the ledge and make the jump. Probably would be a breakeven venture at best, but nothing abut these builds is a money making process.

I am no where near that decision point yet, but its coming. To me door are the obvious starting point.

Bob
 

Scott

Lifetime Supporter
Bob, the quality problem can be easily solved by having the SL-C body made by the same subcontractor that makes the GT-R body.

No manufacturer is going to look favorably on someone using their intellectual property to create a derivative replacement, especially if the IP is still in production. Making add on parts is different. I have 3D printed molds for the brake ducts and Allen used them for the first time last week. I’ll post the results and if they’re good we’ll make them available to other builders.

I have also done a fair amount of CFD modeling with an xF1 aero guy for a radiator outlet to maximize mass air flow. A male buck will be 3D printed and a female mold will be made. I have a custom radiator and deep shroud with drop in fans. If the part can be used with the stock set up, we’ll make it available to other builders.

I considered modifying the doors, but that’s more than I wanted to bite off. That said, I think I have a way to replace the external upper door hinges with internal ones which will clean up the aesthetics.

Making full-size bucks without using the SL-C as a baseline is certainly doable, but in my experience it costs more than you think and shipping an entire car body isn’t cheap. If I have the energy after I complete this car, I might make a bespoke one by 3D printing a male buck for the body.
 

Scott

Lifetime Supporter
When pigs fly..

1642264659279.png


I decided to make some significant mods to my “finished” fuel tank. Unfortunately, I had gone overboard covering it with Second Skin Damplifier Pro. Holy shit is that stuff is a nightmare to remove. Their guarantee to “stick until pigs fly” is pretty close to true. As their marketing states the butyl layer is “elastic with a high tensile strength and elongation” which makes it difficult to tear pieces off. It sticks to whatever you stuck it to and once the foil constraint layer has been removed, it sticks to everything it touches (tools, workbench, floor, itself, gloves, fingers, whatever). It grudgingly comes off in small goopy pieces and leaves behind smaller pieces that need to be scrubbed off with acetone and a Scotch-Brite pad.

While lamenting this situation, Hill mentioned that he uses bags of dry ice to remove sound deadener. Damplifier Pro is rated to -75 °F and dry ice is -109.8 °F, so I decided to give it a try. My local ice distributor sells it in blocks, slices, pellets and high-density pellets. Since all of the surfaces on the fuel tanks are flat, I decided to go with slices because they would maximize the contact area. I laid a slice of dry ice on the tank and covered it with several shop rags to reduce the rate of sublimation. After a several minutes elapsed, I used a paint scraper to pry up the material. It was less sticky, easier to remove and there was less material left on the tank, but it was still a lot of work.

I then experimented with the duration of exposure to the dry ice which make a big difference. For example, I left a slice in one spot during lunch. With that long of a duration I found it difficult to pry the material up and as I pried it would begin to bend and then crack off… that’s what I call frozen. While it wasn’t nearly as easy to remove as I wanted no material was left on the tank.

When I achieved optimal duration, the slice would freeze to the material requiring a gentle pry with the paint scraper to remove. The containment foil just popped off. Using the paint scraper, I pried up a corner of the butyl far enough to grab it with my hands. I was then able to peel everything in one piece with my bare hands without leaving anything stuck to the tank. The material felt like normal rubber and wasn’t in the least sticky, at least until it warmed up.

In the picture below I had just placed a slice and two broken pieces of dry ice are on top of a large piece of Damplifer Pro. I had previously removed the containment foil (an unnecessary step) which makes it looks wet, but it’s completely dry. I pulled up the half covered by the slice, repeated the process on the other half and it came off in one piece. I’m not sure what the temperature was, but frost would develop on the bare aluminum around the material.

1642264694056.png


The dry ice allows easy removal without the need for flying swine. Vertical or curved surfaces would be more difficult because you would need to use pellets in a bag resulting in less contact with the dry ice. It takes patience to get the material to the optimal temperature so I would position and cover the slice, do something else, remove the chilled section and repeat.

I think I used less than three slices to do the entire tank. What to do with the leftover dry ice? A blue martini of course (my photo didn’t show the smoke as well as this one). My dog fears the animated drink as much as the vacuum cleaner, but she came over to check it out once as soon as it stopped bubbling.

1642264727058.png
 

Joel K

Supporter
Scott, that does not look like fun. Looking forward to seeing what’s next for the fuel tank.
 
Last edited:

Scott

Lifetime Supporter
After a little tweaking with a sander and Dremel grinding wheel, we mounted the door cards to the doors with 10-32 nutserts. The right door card fit well, but the left one needed to be modified. The top rear corner had a 5/8” gap from the door. After determining where the door card started to pull away from the door, we cut it into two pieces. Both pieces were sanded on the front and back to prepare them to be epoxied. Clear packing tape was placed under the cut line to prevent the epoxy from sticking to the door, the small piece was held in place with a temporary screw, and epoxy was mixed with mirco balloons to a peanut-butter consistency. The mixture was pressed into the cut line with a wood tongue depressor and after it kicked the door card was removed, the seam was sanded smooth and fiberglass cloth was added to the backside. Problem solved.

The next step is to validate that door cards clear the removeable side impact bars.

1642864727837.png

Door card cut and about to be epoxied
 

Scott

Lifetime Supporter
1643473439694.png


I had left my trailer at Allan’s while he was working on the car, but, as you can see in the snow forecast above, we’re expecting an epic Nor-easter which would have buried and frozen it in place. So, I hauled the car back yesterday. I’m glad that I’m in a state that’s lower on the f’d scale.

A few months ago I ordered custom axles. I wasn’t sure how to accurately measure them, but after trying several approaches I wound up using a welding rod. I kept snipping small pieces off of the end with a diagonal cutting plier until it fit snugly and then I measured the rod on the bench. Both sides were within 1/32” of the same length.

While 930 CV joints will accommodate fairly steep angles it’s best to keep the angle as shallow as possible at ride height. This is particularly true for high-torque drivetrains. As can be seen in the pictures below the axles have a minimal angle when compared to a Ricardo or a Graziano when mounted in a SL-C.

1643473462459.png

Top view; the transaxle output hub and stub axle are in almost perfect front-to-back alignment

1643473495990.png

Rear view; the transaxle output hub is a little higher than the stub axle
 
Back
Top