Yes, it's definitely physically larger than the Porsche item. Weight is correct at 4.2kg though, I checked.
I forgot to mention that the passenger footrest mounts to the standard battery plate and swings off the front for access to the battery. If you ditched the heavy standard mounting plate you would need to make another mounting system for the passenger footrest. Anything can be done with time, money and materials; but it would have been a big exercise for the relatively small gain. Since finishing my Scuderia project I have thought of another area where worthwhile weight savings could be made. The inner wheel arch covers are very heavy and might be worth replicating in carbon Kevlar. My 360 Michelotto has them fitted and gave me the idea. Did a bit of research and found Capristo did a carbon fibre set for the 458 claiming a 7kg weight saving. Might be worth investigating for someone.
I took some comparative measurements and test fit the rapid prototype hat with a rotor to the car today to confirm that all the critical dimensions were within spec, and it wasn't going to have any clearance problems. Only one dimension was a little too tight, so we will make an adjustment, but that's the beauty of using rapid prototypes. Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login
Here's a brain teaser for everyone to play over the long weekend. Match the history of the following three carbon ceramic rotors to their physical condition (picture): One rotor is Brand New (0 miles) One rotor has 800 track miles of use One rotor has 3000 track miles of use Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login
Removing the stock E-Brake posts is very straightforward. It requires one ratchet wrench and three allen head sockets. It works best to remove the pulley first to get some slack in the cable, disconnect the cable at the caliper lever, then remove the upper caliper bolt to tilt the caliper back as though you are changing the brake pads (who wears an E-brake out to the point of replacing pads?). That gives easy access to the two bolts that attach the post to the caliper. While I had the OEM posts and the new posts off, I threw them on the scale for comparison: The two stock cast aluminum posts with hardware weighed 0.75 lb/0.340 kg combined. The two new sintered titanium posts with hardware weighed 0.85 lb/0.385 kg combined. Clearly, the more dense and stronger titanium posts are overbuilt. The new posts use shorter, stainless allen bolts, which partially offsets the heavier titanium posts, so the difference is more pronounced than the data suggests. Had we known from the beginning that we would manufacture the posts with a 3D printer, we could have designed lighter, but more complicated parts, and worried less about machining steps. So, there's at least 0.10 lbs to be shaved from each of the Gen II posts.... Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login
This is the correct answer. Not surprised that the first right answer comes from Europe. Europe has it all over the US when it comes to motorsports applications of advanced technologies and materials. The first rotor is a CCB rotor manufactured in Germany, using a lamination technology to adhere a friction surface on top of a core made from chopped carbon fibers. It did not take long, under track conditions, to generate enough heat to delaminate the friction surface (shiny surface) off of the carbon ceramic core. If you look closely at the rotor, you can see the friction surface from the 12 o'clock position to the 3 o'clock position is completely gone, and it is not a coincidence that it is in the shape of a brake pad. The second rotor is a CFRC rotor manufactured in the UK, using many layers of woven mats of carbon fiber. Because the entire rotor is friction material, it is impossible to 'wear through' the friction material. Looking closely, you can see the 'grain' of the carbon fiber weaves running 0 degrees and 90 degrees. The third rotor is also a CFRC rotor, from the same set. This was a little bit of a trick question, because that rotor also has 3000 track miles on it. However, it has been resurfaced by removing 0.4mm from each face, so from a physical examination, it is now a 'new' (zero mile) rotor. Fun Fact - even though nearly every OEM in the world now offers a carbon ceramic brake rotor on at least one model, there are only three rotor manufacturers, using four different technologies. AND, regardless of manufacturer, all rotors use the same raw material: PolyAcryloNitrile OXidized fiber, aka PANOX, sold by one company.
Installation is the reverse of removal. Again, it only required one ratchet wrench with three allen head sockets. The install took less than 10 minutes. The last photo shows how far the stock Brembo post sticks out beyond the E-Brake caliper, for purposes of comparing the clearance to the new post in the previous photo. Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login
Since there has been a lot of interest in lightweight batteries, here is some tech data. I'll list the specs for the OEM Optima battery for baseline data also. There are alot of batteries available at different price points, but mostrequire some form of adapter or bracket to install. There is currently only one battery that is 'bolt-in' mostly because of the inelegant (cheesy) way that Ferrari secures the stock battery. If Ferrari used industry-standard hold-down clamps for a group 34 battery, installing other batteries would be a whole lot easier. So, here we go with lightweight battery option #1. Specification.....................................................................................Odyssey PC-925T Chemistry.........................................................................................AGM Weight .........................................................................................24.5 lb (11.111 kg) Length.............................................................................................6.47" Width..............................................................................................6.75" Height @top of SAE terminals...............................................................5.56" Pulse Cranking Amps (PCA)..................................................................925 A Mean Cranking Amps @32F (MCA).........................................................765 A Cold Cranking Amps @0F (CCA).............................................................380 A Capacity (C/20 Rate) (Equivalent Capacity).............................................28 Ah BCI Group..........................................................................................n/a Voltage.............................................................................................12V Reserve Capacity (25 A discharge to 10.5 V)............................................52 minutes Recharge time (50 amp charger, @25C, from 10.5 V to 90% charge).............55 minutes Price.................................................................................................$181.90 OEM Baseline Specification...............................................................................Optima Red Top 34R Chemistry...................................................................................Sealed Lead Acid (H2SO4), Absorbent Glass Mat (AGM) Weight.......................................................................................39.04 lb (17.705 kg) Length.......................................................................................10.02 Width.........................................................................................6.83 Height @top of SAE terminals..........................................................7.84 Pulse Cranking Amps (PCA).............................................................1100 A Mean Cranking Amps @32F (MCA)....................................................1000 A Cold Cranking Amps @0F (CCA)........................................................800 A Capacity (C/20 Rate) (Equivalent Capacity)........................................50 Ah BCI Group.....................................................................................34 Voltage.......................................................................................12V Reserve Capacity (25 A discharge to 10.5 V)......................................100 minutes Recharge time (50 amp charger, @25C, from 10.5 V to 90% charge)........75 minutes Price...........................................................................................$179.97 Odyssey PC-925T Pro's - moderate weight savings - comparable cost - same stable chemistry - no battery management system needed Con's - lower cranking current - lower capacity - requires mounting adapter I have used the Odyssey PC-925 in a Porsche 996TT street car with success, and currently have one in an AMG SL65 for a starter battery (SL65 has a two-battery system). It has ample cranking power for a 5.5L twin turbo V12. Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login
Great work Bob. Many owners go 18" to 19", very few would go to such lengths to go the other way! That said, the OEM setup looks very close to that of a 360 which is able to accommodate the smaller wheels. Appreciate. of course, you are not fitting OEM 360 wheels so perhaps that's where the problems arose?
My Scuderia came standard with a FIAM manufactured 21kg lump installed. I believe later cars came with the red top OPTIMA as standard so there is some variance as to what Ferrari fits as standard equipment across the model ranges. Great summary and you are correct that most options will require a custom battery mount.
Here is Lightweight battery option #2: Specification..................................................................................... Porsche Lightweight Battery Chemistry.........................................................................................Li Fe (Lithium-Iron) Weight .........................................................................................13.23 lb (6.0 kg) Length.............................................................................................10.25" Width.............................................................................................. 6.81" Height @top of SAE terminals............................................................... 5.08" Pulse Cranking Amps (PCA)..................................................................not avail Mean Cranking Amps @32F (MCA)......................................................... not avail Cold Cranking Amps @0F (CCA)............................................................. not avail Capacity (C/20 Rate) (Equivalent Capacity).............................................18 Ah (60 Ah) BCI Group..........................................................................................34 Voltage.............................................................................................12V Reserve Capacity (25 A discharge to 10.5 V)............................................ not avail Recharge time (50 amp charger, @25C, from 10.5 V to 90% charge)............. not avail Price.................................................................................................$2,945.00 Porsche Lightweight Battery Pro's - good weight savings - stable chemistry - similar capacity Con's - highest price - requires mounting adapter Image Unavailable, Please Login
Sort of. The objective of the project is to make the Scuderia a better and more affordable track day car for those who want to drive their Scuderias to/on/from the track (as Ferrari intended). There's no point in making a 'track day' car lighter to be faster, because any given driver will drive at the speeds he is comfortable with, and the lap times that the traffic in his 'run group' permits. Those are independent of any car's performance potential. Nothing I have done was done solely to make the car faster. And nothing I have done makes the car less drivable on the street. Or is irreversible. But a lighter car consumes less fuel for a given lap time, and consumes less 'consumables' such as tires and brakes. And less consumption means lower operating costs and lower maintenance costs. A track car with a track alignment wears tires more evenly, making them last longer. The concept will go over the heads of a lot of people, especially those who lighten their car with the mis-guided notion that it will automatically make them faster, which is why I never really discussed this before. And I'm sure this will generate flames from the cerebrally-challenged who can't do the math, and the dogmatic drones that have it in their mind that "tracking a Ferrari must be expensive" and "if you want to save money, the only way is to track a Miata". I believe there's a middle ground, and this project is demonstrating that.
