Automotive Forums .com - the leading automotive community online! Automotive Forums .com - the leading automotive community online!
Automotive Forums .com - the leading automotive community online! 
-
Latest | 0 Rplys
Go Back   Automotive Forums .com Car Chat > Panoz > GTRA / GTWS / GTS
Reply Show Printable Version Show Printable Version | Email this Page Email this Page | Subscription Subscribe to this Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old 02-10-2013, 01:56 PM   #1
Panoz60
AF Regular
 
Panoz60's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Valrico, Florida
Posts: 144
Thanks: 38
Thanked 27 Times in 24 Posts
SCCA Homologation Update

I just returned from a chilly weekend at Sebring (72 degrees, wind chilld must have been 69)

I had an interesting conversation with a Panoz Driver, Phil Lasco. Phil pilots his car around the long course in the 2:18 range in current GTS trim. (Pretty fast) FYI- GT2 Porsches lap Sebring in the 2:12 range, and GT1 cars in the 2:05 range. Phil is an accomplished GT1 driver and recently purchased the Panoz as his "Florida car" (Must be nice!!) He served on the SCCA GT1 advisory board for years and is well connected in SCCA. His day job is owner of Lasco Ford in Fenton Michigan.

So, according to Phil, the following WILL BE HAPPENING and published in upcoming SCCA Fast Track letters. The following will all be unrestricted, provided they are within the normal GT2 rules: Brakes, Transmissions, rear gears, shocks, ALL aero devices (Splitters, Wings, Canards) Wiring, wheels, plumbing, etc. A new spec motor is in the works, but yet undetermined. According to Phil, look for a 100HP bump. I suggested the 540 HP, 374 CID Windsor (Ford Racing) crate motor, and he said that's a strong possibility. (current spec motor was 445 HP) According to Phil. SCCA is well aware that the new Porsche (997?) has reset the bar, and they are willing to make Panoz more competitive.
There is strength in numbers, so those of you who race (or may want to race) in SCCA GT2 competition, may be asked to chime in with letters to the CRB. When that time comes, and you're interested, I'll post another thread.

PS, NO! I don't know for sure that Phil was/is full of :censor: , but based on the conversation, I doubt it. Super nice guy. That's my take. I will be keeping in touch with him via email and I already asked him to join this forum.
__________________
Mark W.
Panoz GTRA, Chassis #10
Panoz60 is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Panoz60 For This Useful Post:
CMPanoz (02-11-2013), panozracing (02-10-2013)
Old 02-22-2013, 08:28 PM   #2
boothkc
AF Regular
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Alamo, California
Posts: 212
Thanks: 0
Thanked 14 Times in 10 Posts
Re: SCCA Homologation Update

I think this is very interesting and would be welcome. I'm concerned that most of the GTS chasis are over 10yrs old and not designed for so much HP. I think w/o good support from Panoz this would be "risky" and will meet with push back from the SCCA. Hopefully there is a good solution to get the Panoz back to being competitive in GT2

The SCCA has been focused on increasing car counts in GT2 and this year did some peculiar things. They made the 997.1 Cup (2006-9) much more competitive by removing the restrictor plate and reducing the weight from 2900# to 2700#.... this destroyed the competiveness of the 996 Cup (2000-2005) which is nearly as heavy, lacks the sequential box, does have ABS, but lower HP etc. Prior rules from last year (1st year of 997s in GT2, were GT1 before) were designed to make the 996s = 997s.... now the 996s are way behind. This move makes no real sense to most of us who enjoyed having more Porsches in the field. 997 Cups cost $100k+ used and 996s $70k+ so there is no reason to field a 996 in SCCA anymore.

The SCCA also, this year, allowed many GTA (tube frame Nascar like cars) eligible for GT2 with some tire restrictions. Hard to know where this will shake out and may be what your contact was eluding too. The Panoz could take advantage of the GTA rules (cars are similar), but now the Panoz GTS is governed by its own SCCA supplimental rules (supps) that supercede any general changes to the GT2 class. Porsche has its own class restrictions too (essentially must be as delivered from Porsche). So, to get the Panoz ready for GT2 would require repeal or heavy modification of its current supps as well as some major engineering to make sure they dont all end up twisted wrecks with too much HP.

There used to be a guy on the forum who did an amazing job of putting 650HP and many mods into a GTS.... car looked great and was destroyed when something broke in the rear suspension on one of the first outings.

I personally would be very careful about adding >450rwHP to a 10+ yr old GTS frame. Especially, give the larger wheels and brakes that would be needed to handle more HP.... recipe for disaster. Tired metal is dangerous. The new Howe Camaro is about the same as a used Cup car and would make a very cool GT2 car as well.

Hope they do smart things. Heck maybe Panoz could get back in the game with a new/updated GTS.2 if there was demand.

I did see 2 Panoz registered for GT2 at the SCCA race at COTA in 2 weeks...anyone here going??

cheers,
Kevin
997 Cup
2000 GTS sold
boothkc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2013, 06:45 PM   #3
Panoz60
AF Regular
Thread starter
 
Panoz60's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Valrico, Florida
Posts: 144
Thanks: 38
Thanked 27 Times in 24 Posts
Re: SCCA Homologation Update

SCCA Fasttrack news bulletin was posted today with all the items mentioned above, so it's official. The GTS engine upgrade is still being debated. More to come......
__________________
Mark W.
Panoz GTRA, Chassis #10
Panoz60 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2013, 01:43 PM   #4
Cobra4B
AF Enthusiast
 
Cobra4B's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Virginia Beach, Virginia
Posts: 1,396
Thanks: 71
Thanked 63 Times in 58 Posts
Re: SCCA Homologation Update

Everyone has this impression that these chassis wear out and can't handle power:

1. Has anyone experienced a chassis member failure on a chassis with the "updates" or seen one first hand?

2. Has anyone raced one of these extensively with > 450 horse and had issues?

I know Kel has 500+ horse now and he hasn't posted any negative experiences. It seems that this all comes from Brian G's comments that his car didn't feel comfortable and was lifting a tire with 500+ horse (could have been many other things causing those "issues") and the fact that the first iteration of Panoz chassis had to have a few updates done (double sheer brackets on the rear trailing arms and various plates/ribs up front.).

I'm no chassis expert or degreed engineer, but I've become EXTREMELY familiar with this car over the past 8 months restoring my father's and I just don't see any major differences from the other readily available tube chassis race cars out there.

~Brian
__________________
Brian B.
Panoz GTRA - LS1 swap in progress
#4 Z06 - NASA ST3/TT3
Cobra4B is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Cobra4B For This Useful Post:
Panoz60 (03-23-2013)
Old 03-23-2013, 03:28 PM   #5
Panoz60
AF Regular
Thread starter
 
Panoz60's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Valrico, Florida
Posts: 144
Thanks: 38
Thanked 27 Times in 24 Posts
Re: SCCA Homologation Update

Yes, over time a chassis can fail from metal fatigue. Here's my thought process:

At the time of purchase, my car was a GTRA, with a 250-ish HP motor, street tires, Koni's and 350lb springs. I wouldn't exactly call that a "high-stress" car. Since purchasing it, I have upgraded to slicks, Penske's, 600/350 springs, and did all of PAD's chassis modification suggestions. In my experience, Rod ends and suspension mount points take all the abuse. Maybe because I am a few sandwichs short of a picnic, I have no problem dropping a 450 RWHP engine in the car. While the driver protection part of the cage is a bit minimal, the remainder of the chassis (IMO) is substantial. It is better constructed than my limited late model was, and I drove the living s**t out of it for 8+ seasons of beating, banging, and wall slapping. I had to heat chassis sections with a torch to use come-alongs and quarter-powers to straighten things post accident, and still never had an on-track failure of the chassis.

It is possible that a certain junction or particular bar can fail on my Panoz, but I doubt seriously it will be a catastrophic failure. There will be evident tell-tale signs of it's failure or pending failure. Then again, refer to the sandwich/picnic analogy.
__________________
Mark W.
Panoz GTRA, Chassis #10
Panoz60 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2013, 06:56 PM   #6
NZGTRA17
AF Enthusiast
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Auckland
Posts: 839
Thanks: 8
Thanked 60 Times in 53 Posts
Re: SCCA Homologation Update

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cobra4B View Post
Everyone has this impression that these chassis wear out and can't handle power:

1. Has anyone experienced a chassis member failure on a chassis with the "updates" or seen one first hand?

2. Has anyone raced one of these extensively with > 450 horse and had issues?

I know Kel has 500+ horse now and he hasn't posted any negative experiences. It seems that this all comes from Brian G's comments that his car didn't feel comfortable and was lifting a tire with 500+ horse (could have been many other things causing those "issues") and the fact that the first iteration of Panoz chassis had to have a few updates done (double sheer brackets on the rear trailing arms and various plates/ribs up front.).

I'm no chassis expert or degreed engineer, but I've become EXTREMELY familiar with this car over the past 8 months restoring my father's and I just don't see any major differences from the other readily available tube chassis race cars out there.

~Brian
I have just come from the track where we were watching muscle cars made from 1965 to 1972 racing with up to 800hp. They were lifting wheels all over the place due grip/speed and some were doing lap times 4 seconds faster than Formula Ford open wheelers. There are many examples of classic chassis still going very very fast.........and they are maintained to a high level to ensure they stay together!!

Yes chassis can fatigue over time and it is possible that one of us could have a bar failure in our car at some stage. This is what regular inspection of the chassis flex points is for. The cars most likely to experience a failure are those with big torque, stiff suspension and big slicks. I.e. Brian G's car would be the likely front runner fatigue wise I would have thought or perhaps Kevins car due hard out race hours. Personally this is not something that is keeping me awake at night and I always inspect the chassis as part of my nut bolting of the car for each meeting..

I have had no issues todate running my car with 515 rwhp. I am not running the biggest or stickiest of slicks as yet so perhaps I may change my views at some point. Having said that I am likely to add some bars to the car but maily around the driver protection area.

Interested in others thoughts around this.

Kel.
__________________
Kel M
Panoz GTRA #17
New Zealand
NZGTRA17 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2013, 08:54 PM   #7
Cobra4B
AF Enthusiast
 
Cobra4B's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Virginia Beach, Virginia
Posts: 1,396
Thanks: 71
Thanked 63 Times in 58 Posts
Re: SCCA Homologation Update

My thoughts mirror Mark's in that our car was a 190 rwhp school car and the it's been broken a bunch since we got it. I wouldn't hesitate to put a higher power motor in it if needed for the intended class.
__________________
Brian B.
Panoz GTRA - LS1 swap in progress
#4 Z06 - NASA ST3/TT3
Cobra4B is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-2013, 11:32 AM   #8
panozracing
AF Enthusiast
 
panozracing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Delray Beach, Florida
Posts: 721
Thanks: 16
Thanked 18 Times in 15 Posts
Re: SCCA Homologation Update

I ran the car with 520 RWHP for 3-5 weekends (its a while ago cant remember). I think a huge component is that my motor was over 500 ft-lbs of torque just off idle and over 550 at running speeds at the rear wheels. I am not worried about snapping a chassis tube. I had felt the car was not stiff enough to handle the increased loads. Not enough triangulation on the chassis. I had 8+ inches of daylight under a front wheel. Lifting a tire is one thing lifting it almost a foot of the ground in my opinion on a tube frame chassis tells me we have past the design intent of the car. Tube frame cars are supposed to be stiff...very stiff.... Keep in mind I run large tires so the cornering forces are dramatically increased and the braking speeds as well. I run 325/705-18 rears and 305/650-18 fronts and like to get them up to at least 170 deg. or I keep trying to go faster (brake less :-)) I also only use the fronts for 6 runs and the rears for 3 so I have maximum grip and I am using it all. I try to always be at the limit of machine and driver.

Here is what we broke during that time. Sheared a front spindle completely off. Rear caliper bracket broke off the axle tube. Repeatedly snapped the bolts holding the brembo rotors to the hubs on the rear axle. Bent a brake strut rod. Stripped the teeth out of the front sway bar end piece that connects to the straight sway bar. Was held at pit lane during a race and when let go I did a little bit of a burn out which bent all four bars of the 4-bar system. I have broken heim joints. I only get about 7-8 weekends out of the urethane motor mounts on both sides with 450RWHP so those wont last long with more, Dan and I seem to be the only ones on the forum that had to increase brake cooling to avoid total brake fade it will be worse with more HP, the tranny brakes enough at 500 FWHP if I go to 600 that is the max that Tremec allows and I am sure it will brake all the time, I have twisted the driveshaft so that will need to be addressed, etc.

I think you guys all know that I replace lots of parts as routine maintenance.

The entire car wasn't designed for the power. Take a look at the Howe camaro/mustang chassis. Take a look at all the GT1 chassis. The Panoz has the least amount of chassis bars IMO. I have not really studied this. Just a gut reaction.

Brian B. you seem to be chatting it up with John L. at PAD, ask him his thoughts about his chassis and running gear handling running 600FW and 520RW ish power with huge ALMS GT2/LMPC tires and gobs of torque. He would know best.
__________________
Brian G.
2000 Panoz GTS #420
NASA ST1
427ci Stroker
panozracing is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-25-2013, 01:35 AM   #9
NZGTRA17
AF Enthusiast
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Auckland
Posts: 839
Thanks: 8
Thanked 60 Times in 53 Posts
Re: SCCA Homologation Update

Quote:
Originally Posted by panozracing View Post
I ran the car with 520 RWHP for 3-5 weekends (its a while ago cant remember). I think a huge component is that my motor was over 500 ft-lbs of torque just off idle and over 550 at running speeds at the rear wheels. I am not worried about snapping a chassis tube. I had felt the car was not stiff enough to handle the increased loads. Not enough triangulation on the chassis. I had 8+ inches of daylight under a front wheel. Lifting a tire is one thing lifting it almost a foot of the ground in my opinion on a tube frame chassis tells me we have past the design intent of the car. Tube frame cars are supposed to be stiff...very stiff.... Keep in mind I run large tires so the cornering forces are dramatically increased and the braking speeds as well. I run 325/705-18 rears and 305/650-18 fronts and like to get them up to at least 170 deg. or I keep trying to go faster (brake less :-)) I also only use the fronts for 6 runs and the rears for 3 so I have maximum grip and I am using it all. I try to always be at the limit of machine and driver.

Here is what we broke during that time. Sheared a front spindle completely off. Rear caliper bracket broke off the axle tube. Repeatedly snapped the bolts holding the brembo rotors to the hubs on the rear axle. Bent a brake strut rod. Stripped the teeth out of the front sway bar end piece that connects to the straight sway bar. Was held at pit lane during a race and when let go I did a little bit of a burn out which bent all four bars of the 4-bar system. I have broken heim joints. I only get about 7-8 weekends out of the urethane motor mounts on both sides with 450RWHP so those wont last long with more, Dan and I seem to be the only ones on the forum that had to increase brake cooling to avoid total brake fade it will be worse with more HP, the tranny brakes enough at 500 FWHP if I go to 600 that is the max that Tremec allows and I am sure it will brake all the time, I have twisted the driveshaft so that will need to be addressed, etc.

I think you guys all know that I replace lots of parts as routine maintenance.

The entire car wasn't designed for the power. Take a look at the Howe camaro/mustang chassis. Take a look at all the GT1 chassis. The Panoz has the least amount of chassis bars IMO. I have not really studied this. Just a gut reaction.

Brian B. you seem to be chatting it up with John L. at PAD, ask him his thoughts about his chassis and running gear handling running 600FW and 520RW ish power with huge ALMS GT2/LMPC tires and gobs of torque. He would know best.
Very decent of you Brian to do all that durability testing for us so that we knew what mods were needed when we got to a certain hp level!! Certainly motivated me to do all the chassis mods and replace the 4 link with chrome moly prior to upping the ante.

Seriously though that is what this game is about. Where you are at on the bleeding edge / learning curve. Have played this game with aircraft and that is certainly something you can lose some sleep over.

I agree Brian that we should open this one up to John L and I was going to contact him anyway regards roll cage mods I was looking at and see what other bars Panoz might recommend.

If you have a look around on the net you will find some corker shots of F1 cars lifting inside front wheels and the carbon fibre tubs they use are stiff as hell. I am not sure that the wheel lifting in isolation is a sign that the chassis is on the limit but it is a good indication to ask some questions about.

I am looking forward to lifting some wheels as it will mean I have finally got the slicks of my dreams!!

Kel.
__________________
Kel M
Panoz GTRA #17
New Zealand
NZGTRA17 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-25-2013, 08:15 AM   #10
Cobra4B
AF Enthusiast
 
Cobra4B's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Virginia Beach, Virginia
Posts: 1,396
Thanks: 71
Thanked 63 Times in 58 Posts
Re: SCCA Homologation Update

Just email him... he responds and gives great info. We upgraded our brake strut rods to the next size up from Coleman after one of the clevis ends sheared off. We have the larger trailing arms, but not chromoly yet!
__________________
Brian B.
Panoz GTRA - LS1 swap in progress
#4 Z06 - NASA ST3/TT3
Cobra4B is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-25-2013, 08:42 AM   #11
PanozDuke
AF Regular
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: College Station, Texas
Posts: 355
Thanks: 100
Thanked 13 Times in 12 Posts
Re: SCCA Homologation Update

Not clear on what the brake strut rod is?

Mike
PanozDuke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-25-2013, 08:53 AM   #12
Cobra4B
AF Enthusiast
 
Cobra4B's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Virginia Beach, Virginia
Posts: 1,396
Thanks: 71
Thanked 63 Times in 58 Posts
Re: SCCA Homologation Update

Quote:
Originally Posted by PanozDuke View Post
Not clear on what the brake strut rod is?

Mike
It's the rearward part of what would comprise the lower control arm on a "normal" car. Panoz calls the front bar which is perpendicular to the chassis the lower control arm and the part that angles back to the firewall the brake strut rod. Ours are one size bigger than what came on the car standard.

__________________
Brian B.
Panoz GTRA - LS1 swap in progress
#4 Z06 - NASA ST3/TT3
Cobra4B is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Cobra4B For This Useful Post:
PanozDuke (03-28-2013)
 
Reply

POST REPLY TO THIS THREAD

Go Back   Automotive Forums .com Car Chat > Panoz > GTRA / GTWS / GTS

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:59 PM.

Community Participation Guidelines | How to use your User Control Panel

Powered by: vBulletin | Copyright Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
 
 
no new posts