I have read that Type RA's have lightweight glass, does anyone have any idea just how much lighter/different it is or better still some official figures.

I'm trying to make a comparrison to lexan competition windows to see if it is worth the expense/hassle.

Cheers,
Rob.

 

it doesn't.. glass is the same weight. antoher myth..

Simon

 

isnt because they mechanism is lighter, wind up instead of elec

 

yes

 

thanks guys.

Rob.

 

Do the spec c ra have thinner glass.............sure i,d read somewhere the front screen was a lightweight/thinner glass????

 

Yes they do all round also light weight window motors also I remember a thread a while back that some one cracked their window had to have a new one imported even tho a standard one will fit cost over a £1000 to get it brought in.

 

I have an RA STi in the barn and the glass on the doors is about 25% thinner than a WRX I have.

I am sure the real RA's had lighter glass. I measured mine and is certainly does. It's a 96m/yr.

Also has wind down windows, electics were an option.

 

any way you could post pictures with tape measure as I have checked and was same width..

Simon

 

Hi Simon,

Firstly you are much more qualified than I on this but I can report the following.

I have a STi RA 1996 shell which has glass measuring 3.9mm front and 3.6mm rear. (purchased from API).

My RA 1995 shell and my two WRX 1996 and 1997 windows measure 4.9mm front and 3.9mm rear.

Thats four car measured with a vernier in the dark just. funny thing is that the RA's have different size glass, perhaps it's been changed in the last 10+ years.

It,s too bloody dark for photo's and blowing a gale here.

What do you think?

John

 

not at all.. I have sat in plenty of passenger seats lol, have only measured one (cannot remember size other than it matched a uk) and this also tallied with others but perhaps there is there are some with lighter glass then..

Simon

 

Now I'm confused.

 

plastics 4 performance.

Search on google, they do a thermal formed plastic window set for your car.

If it's weight saving and you can bin the glass, thats your option.

Seems the RA might have thin glass on certain models, try posting on RA forum for more informed advice.

My STI RA came with thin glass and motorsport light weight rims that had a 2mm different offset front to rear (and the lightest I have ever seen). Plus they are 15inch and normal Scooby wheels of 15" dont fit over the brakes.

This was a special car and had Zerosports all over it's parts and the thin glass might not be the norm?

 

I got a quote of £522 (+vat I think) for 4 doors and rear screen from plastics for performance.

Quoted around 9 kilo saving over glass, I just wondered if that 9 kilos became much less in the case of RA glass.

Now it's just a case of justifying the expense against the weight saving.

 

compare your glass to the measurements John posted

 

Same thoughts about my car. 9 kilos for 600 odd pounds does not seem cost effective, unless it is the last thing you can do to stay competitive.

It would be cheaper if I lost the extra 5 or 6 kilos that I am lugging around and spend the money towards a carbon fibre propshaft, which probably saves a couple of kilos and would help with responsiveness or even a carbon fibre race seat, adjustable cam gears ,Exe-tc suspension- the list goes on.

 

I agree it's all a big trade off and at the moment my 600 could go somewhere else that will make me go faster, I thought the plastic glass would be more of a saving than 9 kilos but the profiled perspex replacements need to be quite thick as they are frameless so I'm told.

By the sellers own admission they are bought more for rally cross cars where impact resistance is just as much of an issue as weight.

However at the stage my strip out has got to now 9 kilos sounds like a massive amount.

 

Rob:
EVERY 'real' hillclimb car around us has plastic 'glass' inc the Audi V8 and every car in C2.
B2 all have plastic.

That cost is plus vat and the cost is in the thermo forming to suit the seals/body.

Remember the 9 Kg is well up the height of the car too.

As to thicknesses, I bet Subaru fitted thicker glass if it ran out of thin, and that UK as well as Jap window replacement companies only stock the thicker more popular glasses to replace smashed ones, hence a car can have different thicknesses over it's life.

Chuck it all out, but I for one would keep the screen glass. Just feels safer to me. A Shelsley pheasent in your screen on the finishing straight (@116 mph?) and I would rather have a laminated screen than plastic...
Thus the weight saving (in my case) would be less than 9 Kg if keeping the glass screen.

 

The £522 and 9 kilo saving is based upon doors and rear screen only, retaining the front glass screen.

Blue book states mod prod cars must retain glass windscreens, even though many, like the A4, flout this.

 

Yes, and it was allowed to race despite a SAFETY issue as you correctly state with the screen.
Mind you, many raced without a rollcage the year before when it was in the Blue Book you had to have one in Mod Prod (Roy comes to mind and a couple of others too)

That was why Dave Parr dropped from Mod Prod to Road and 'B' meetings.

Hope today went well!

 

managed to strip out about 200 kilos so a good day at the office.

 

!
You need the engine Rob!