Discussion
IREvans said:
Exactly. Visible gloss finish carbon fibre is just there for looks. Modern GRFP moulding is a fraction of the price for tooling and manufacturing, and offers very similar weight and structural strength. Plus lots of the exterior visible parts on the front and rear bumper of the 992RS are prone to stone chipping, and GRFP is more resistant to this than a gel coated carbon part.
While I'm fully onboard with not having stupidly expensive visible carbon bits of splitters etc that can get pranged, I really can't see how GFRP is more resistant to stonechips than the equivalent carbon fibre bit which is er... CFRP. It's still the same (or similar) resin coat over CF fibres rather than glass fibres.....?I replaced the Black plastic engine bay covers on my Ferrari 458 with Carbon fibre ones. The Carbon ones were much more structurally stronger and much lighter.
However, having CF so low down on the front which is very prone to damage would worry me so I'd be happy with just painted ones but not the ugly unpainted ones as fitted to the GT3 and RS.
However, having CF so low down on the front which is very prone to damage would worry me so I'd be happy with just painted ones but not the ugly unpainted ones as fitted to the GT3 and RS.
Taffy66 said:
I replaced the Black plastic engine bay covers on my Ferrari 458 with Carbon fibre ones. The Carbon ones were much more structurally stronger and much lighter.
However, having CF so low down on the front which is very prone to damage would worry me so I'd be happy with just painted ones but not the ugly unpainted ones as fitted to the GT3 and RS.
Painted would be better and ppf,the plastic is proper poor on such a expensive car,it was my main grip on my gt3rsHowever, having CF so low down on the front which is very prone to damage would worry me so I'd be happy with just painted ones but not the ugly unpainted ones as fitted to the GT3 and RS.
isaldiri said:
While I'm fully onboard with not having stupidly expensive visible carbon bits of splitters etc that can get pranged, I really can't see how GFRP is more resistant to stonechips than the equivalent carbon fibre bit which is er... CFRP. It's still the same (or similar) resin coat over CF fibres rather than glass fibres.....?
A gloss carbon finish component has an epoxy based external gel coat. This is very weak in the direction perpendicular to the fibre layup, ie the direction in which a stone chip will travel onto it. This brittle surface finish is therefore easy to chip, and then water will eventually get under the gel coat, and you’ll have a right mess on your hands. A polymer coated GFRP component will have a less brittle and more flexible surface finish, and hence be more resistant to stone chips.
I’m not really a fan of gloss carbon finish on car parts. It’s a bit early 2000s Mitsubishi Evo
Taffy66 said:
I replaced the Black plastic engine bay covers on my Ferrari 458 with Carbon fibre ones. The Carbon ones were much more structurally stronger and much lighter.
However, having CF so low down on the front which is very prone to damage would worry me so I'd be happy with just painted ones but not the ugly unpainted ones as fitted to the GT3 and RS.
Engine dress parts don’t need strength, they’re just there for decoration…be lighter still to remove them altogether, as they do on the challenge race car.However, having CF so low down on the front which is very prone to damage would worry me so I'd be happy with just painted ones but not the ugly unpainted ones as fitted to the GT3 and RS.
IREvans said:
A gloss carbon finish component has an epoxy based external gel coat. This is very weak in the direction perpendicular to the fibre layup, ie the direction in which a stone chip will travel onto it. This brittle surface finish is therefore easy to chip, and then water will eventually get under the gel coat, and you’ll have a right mess on your hands.
A polymer coated GFRP component will have a less brittle and more flexible surface finish, and hence be more resistant to stone chips.
Ah ok, interesting - thanks for that. A polymer coated GFRP component will have a less brittle and more flexible surface finish, and hence be more resistant to stone chips.
My personal preference is to have any visible exterior CF towards the rear of the car and high enough to be out of harm's way just like on the GT4 RS WP. Ferraris in contrast tend to have all their external CF right at the lowest perimeter all around the car from the lower front spoiler, and side sills to the rear bumpers and diffuser ie right in the firing line.
isaldiri said:
IREvans said:
A gloss carbon finish component has an epoxy based external gel coat. This is very weak in the direction perpendicular to the fibre layup, ie the direction in which a stone chip will travel onto it. This brittle surface finish is therefore easy to chip, and then water will eventually get under the gel coat, and you’ll have a right mess on your hands.
A polymer coated GFRP component will have a less brittle and more flexible surface finish, and hence be more resistant to stone chips.
Ah ok, interesting - thanks for that. A polymer coated GFRP component will have a less brittle and more flexible surface finish, and hence be more resistant to stone chips.
Not sure if this was already posted.
Got a note from RSR clarifying the rear wing concerns as follows:
From RSR
"After the release of our RSRNurburg May newsletter last week in which we talked about the delays in delivery for the latest 992 GT3 RS, we received a call from Porsche AG on the subject.
The source of the information we presented in our newsletter came from customers who are waiting for delivery of their cars.
However Porsche AG stated our explanation was completely incorrect.
The Porsche 992 GT3 RS is;
- Fully Homologated
- None of the cars were released on the market in a ‘half legal’ state
- There is no TÜV (MoT) issue / illegality with the rear wing or any of the parts on the car
Porsche checks for the correct mounting of a third party part on the car. After this check, the cars are released and handed over to the clients. "
Got a note from RSR clarifying the rear wing concerns as follows:
From RSR
"After the release of our RSRNurburg May newsletter last week in which we talked about the delays in delivery for the latest 992 GT3 RS, we received a call from Porsche AG on the subject.
The source of the information we presented in our newsletter came from customers who are waiting for delivery of their cars.
However Porsche AG stated our explanation was completely incorrect.
The Porsche 992 GT3 RS is;
- Fully Homologated
- None of the cars were released on the market in a ‘half legal’ state
- There is no TÜV (MoT) issue / illegality with the rear wing or any of the parts on the car
Porsche checks for the correct mounting of a third party part on the car. After this check, the cars are released and handed over to the clients. "
RDMcG said:
Not sure if this was already posted.
Got a note from RSR clarifying the rear wing concerns as follows:
From RSR
"After the release of our RSRNurburg May newsletter last week in which we talked about the delays in delivery for the latest 992 GT3 RS, we received a call from Porsche AG on the subject.
The source of the information we presented in our newsletter came from customers who are waiting for delivery of their cars.
However Porsche AG stated our explanation was completely incorrect.
The Porsche 992 GT3 RS is;
- Fully Homologated
- None of the cars were released on the market in a ‘half legal’ state
- There is no TÜV (MoT) issue / illegality with the rear wing or any of the parts on the car
Porsche checks for the correct mounting of a third party part on the car. After this check, the cars are released and handed over to the clients. "
Whilst the oversized and illegal rear wing is a nice tall story, the actual reason my car was delayed (by a few days) was because 2 x 13mm bolts needed to be torqued to a higher spec. This is in a non structural part of the body, and took no more than 2 minutes to check.Got a note from RSR clarifying the rear wing concerns as follows:
From RSR
"After the release of our RSRNurburg May newsletter last week in which we talked about the delays in delivery for the latest 992 GT3 RS, we received a call from Porsche AG on the subject.
The source of the information we presented in our newsletter came from customers who are waiting for delivery of their cars.
However Porsche AG stated our explanation was completely incorrect.
The Porsche 992 GT3 RS is;
- Fully Homologated
- None of the cars were released on the market in a ‘half legal’ state
- There is no TÜV (MoT) issue / illegality with the rear wing or any of the parts on the car
Porsche checks for the correct mounting of a third party part on the car. After this check, the cars are released and handed over to the clients. "
Saw a few 992 3RS up close and personal at the N’ring this weekend. Plenty of them about now.
Q: How much wing would you like?
A: Yes
Overall car actually seems smaller than I thought it would. The wheel arch cutouts are awesome. It’s a piece of kit.
Have put it on my bucket list to do the 3 day Porsche Track Experience in Europe.
Q: How much wing would you like?
A: Yes
Overall car actually seems smaller than I thought it would. The wheel arch cutouts are awesome. It’s a piece of kit.
Have put it on my bucket list to do the 3 day Porsche Track Experience in Europe.
Edited by TDT on Saturday 6th May 21:44
IREvans said:
RDMcG said:
Not sure if this was already posted.
Got a note from RSR clarifying the rear wing concerns as follows:
From RSR
"After the release of our RSRNurburg May newsletter last week in which we talked about the delays in delivery for the latest 992 GT3 RS, we received a call from Porsche AG on the subject.
The source of the information we presented in our newsletter came from customers who are waiting for delivery of their cars.
However Porsche AG stated our explanation was completely incorrect.
The Porsche 992 GT3 RS is;
- Fully Homologated
- None of the cars were released on the market in a ‘half legal’ state
- There is no TÜV (MoT) issue / illegality with the rear wing or any of the parts on the car
Porsche checks for the correct mounting of a third party part on the car. After this check, the cars are released and handed over to the clients. "
Whilst the oversized and illegal rear wing is a nice tall story, the actual reason my car was delayed (by a few days) was because 2 x 13mm bolts needed to be torqued to a higher spec. This is in a non structural part of the body, and took no more than 2 minutes to check.Got a note from RSR clarifying the rear wing concerns as follows:
From RSR
"After the release of our RSRNurburg May newsletter last week in which we talked about the delays in delivery for the latest 992 GT3 RS, we received a call from Porsche AG on the subject.
The source of the information we presented in our newsletter came from customers who are waiting for delivery of their cars.
However Porsche AG stated our explanation was completely incorrect.
The Porsche 992 GT3 RS is;
- Fully Homologated
- None of the cars were released on the market in a ‘half legal’ state
- There is no TÜV (MoT) issue / illegality with the rear wing or any of the parts on the car
Porsche checks for the correct mounting of a third party part on the car. After this check, the cars are released and handed over to the clients. "
noneedtolift said:
The issue is related to the "DRS" flap on the rear wing. Under load, the fitting that holds the trailing edge of the flap in its track can break on some cars. The flap will still move even if the guide has failed, but obviously Porsche does not want to take any risks. A solution for reworking the part was expected cw 18/19 (so now basically). Unclear if the solution announced involves new parts & rework or is indeed just a check.
Interesting observation. Although mine has a non WP plastic or CFRP rear moveable wing, which appears to have a different design of guide to the carbon wing. Worth noting that the bottom of edge of the wing is fully supported in the wing end plate in the event that the guide would break. It doesn’t look as if the guide is supporting any load, it just ensures the wing moves in the correct plane.
Yellow491 said:
Digga said:
Probably people like TDT yanking at the spoilers that makes them break. 
Is that because tdt does not like the rear spoiler
Do you think it would be possible to fit a Gt3 wing to the Rs
IREvans said:
noneedtolift said:
The issue is related to the "DRS" flap on the rear wing. Under load, the fitting that holds the trailing edge of the flap in its track can break on some cars. The flap will still move even if the guide has failed, but obviously Porsche does not want to take any risks. A solution for reworking the part was expected cw 18/19 (so now basically). Unclear if the solution announced involves new parts & rework or is indeed just a check.
Interesting observation. Although mine has a non WP plastic or CFRP rear moveable wing, which appears to have a different design of guide to the carbon wing. Worth noting that the bottom of edge of the wing is fully supported in the wing end plate in the event that the guide would break. It doesn’t look as if the guide is supporting any load, it just ensures the wing moves in the correct plane.noneedtolift said:
Design & geometry the same for plastic and crp wing element apparently. Got told to me that the rework involves changed bolts and shims that are appernetly being sent out this week. Lets see....
From my experience, installing fixings into motorsport carbon fibre structural components and bodywork isn’t easy. It’s a relatively brittle substrate compared to plastic. It’s also quite complex to perform accurate fatigue and finite element analysis on the components. Plastic will begin to crack and show early signs of fatigue then failure during testing, but carbon just fails. Would appear that this is what’s happened here..?
Gassing Station | 911/Carrera GT | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff