Newbie - Hello

[bob tilton]

I know Ernie's site well. In fact I headed up the team that restored R3.

Awesome to have you aboard considering your accomplishments! What's on the horizon for your "to do" list?

[Flat Six, inc.]

Thanks Santiago.....we put that RSR together for the owner to race in historic events and soon after....he decided to sell it....(175K)....

I think the car was then taken to a more 'correct' specification.....but I'm not sure. I haven't seen it since.

Aaron

[platas]

well, credit due to folks who do great work, wow for 175 i could off been in that car. Well if you find out something let me know, the work is very good, like most of your projects aaron.

santiago

[RandyWebb]

Do you happen to know how much weight was saved by using the thin Glaverbel glass?

Here is the reason I ask: Stout states that the Glaverbel glass was 3.1 mm thick while the stock glass was 3.5 mm thick. Excellence 110: 58. This is a reduction of only 11.4%; assuming equal densities, this meant little weight savings.

So, was it that minimal a wt. savings?

[Chuff]

Thanks Bob,

I must say that working on the R was an honour rather than an achievement. As for future plans, I have left motorsport, but I have managed to rebuild R3's gearbox in my spare time, which was kinda fun.

Randy,

Not sure whether you were directing your question at me, but here goes anyway....
Although the % weight loss is minimal, as a total, the loss could be significant given that glass is pretty heavy. Also, the cost of this weight loss will not be very expensive, so kg's per dollar works out pretty well. Makes the exercise worth it.

Andrew

[RandyWebb]

Yes & thanks. I was wondering if the Glaverbel glass was different in some other way. e.g maybe it had a very thick plastic safety film in the center, so the % decrease in wt. was more than the % decrease in thickness.

The wt. savings for the large rear glass would have only been 1.85 lbs. (11.4% of the 16.2 lb wt of the stock glass for a '73.5 911)

[Chuff]

To be honest, I'm not sure what how the thinner glass is constructed, and usually I don't like to speculate, but having been around 60's racing cars (mainly F1's) for some time, I can safely say that many things were done either because the engineers could get away with it, or simply because they had nothing else to work with.
With that in mind, I would say that the thinner glass would have been just that. The thinnest possible glass they could get away with, without it cracking, or breaking the rules of the time. I doubt safety came into the equation at all.

In the R's, all the side as well as the rear screen were constructed of plastic (there is some debate as to whether it was plexiglass or something else, but I' not going there). The plastic does give quite a good weight saving.

Hope this helps.

Andrew

[RandyWebb]

Thx - it appears that the wt. savings from use of the thinner glass was not that great. I agree re the plastic. What I'd like is plastic that has a hard glass-like surface - we may to wait a few decades for that....