Jump to content
SAU Community

Insurance For A Track Car

JimmyRickard

By JimmyRickard,
in Motorsport Discussion & Builds

 Share

Recommended Posts

JimmyRickard Mentor

JimmyRickard

Posted
Posted

I'm looking for insurance for my unregistered GTR Track car atm, but I'm not having much luck. I recently got a quote off Shannon's for Fire & theft, which turned out to be more expensive then my old Comprehensive insurance with Just Cars. Are there any other places which might be a bit cheaper? Who do you guys insure with (if at all)?

Cheers!

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/336612-insurance-for-a-track-car/
Share on other sites
paulR32gtr Mentor

paulR32gtr

Posted
Posted

I'm guessing Justcars under a normal insurance arrangement would only pay out half what the actual replacement value of the car is?

I doubt you could cost effectively have it covered at an event, only for fire, theft or damage in your garage or on the trailer on the way to an event.

GTR32G Proficient

GTR32G

Posted
Posted

I have my Mazda R100 Sports Sedan insured with Shannon's. it's covered for $25,000 and cost $125 yearly. Covered if it catches fire at home or damaged while at a mechanic shop or in transit + I have salvage rights too keep the car. Only time it's not covered it once it's powered onto the race track.

Once the Value of Historic Sports Sedans pick up more will give them a call the up the value again.

Neil Grand Master

Neil

Posted
Posted

Interesting comment about shannons,,,my racecar is insured with them,,,actually we have everything insured with them. Couldn't be happier,,,they have always been great. From memory I think my racecar is insured up until I leave pre-grid or out of a garage and onto pit lane.

I'd hate to think what a premium would cost for actually being on the track,,,.

Cheers

Neil.

Duncan Grand Master

Duncan

Posted
Posted

Yeah my gtr race car is insured with shannons for $35k agreed. It is on a limited klm (less than 5000klm) policy and comes in at a couple of hundred a year from memory. And I have claimed a windscreen on it a few years back no problems

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing


  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • GTSBoy
      Help Understand GTT Boost Setup

      By GTSBoy · Posted

      But we haven't even gotten to the point of talking about stateless controllers or any of the good stuff yet!
    • Duncan
      Help Understand GTT Boost Setup

      By Duncan · Posted

      You guys need to take this discussion to another thread if you want to continue it, most of the last 2 pages has nothing to do with OP's questions and situation
    • MBS206
      Help Understand GTT Boost Setup

      By MBS206 · Posted

      And this, is just ONE major issue for closed loop control, particularly using PID. One such issue that is created right here, is integrator wind up. But you know GTSBoy, "it's just a simple PID controller"...  
    • GTSBoy
      Help Understand GTT Boost Setup

      By GTSBoy · Posted

      Nah. For something like boost control I wouldn't start my design with PID. I'd go with something that originates in the fuzzy logic world and use an emergency function or similar concept. PID can and does work, but at its fundamental level it is not suited to quick action. I'd be reasonably sure that the Profecs et al all transitioned to a fuzzy algorithm back in the 90s. Keep in mind also that where and when I have previously talked about using a Profec, I'm usually talking about only doing an open loop system anyway. All this talk of PID and other algorithms only comes into play when you're talking closed loop boost control, and in the context of what the OP needs and wants, we're probably actually in the realm of open loop anyway. Closed loop boost control has always bothered me, because if you sense the process value (ie the boost measurement that you want to control) in the plenum (after the throttle), then boost control to achieve a target is only desirable at WOT. When you are not WOT, you do not want the the boost to be as high as it can be (ie 100% of target). That's why you do not have the throttle at WO. You're attempting to not go as fast as you can. If the process variable is measured upstream of the throttle (ie in an RB26 plenum, or the cold side pipework in others) then yeah, sure, run the boost controller closed loop to hit a target boost there, and then the throttle does what it is supposed to do. Just for utter clarity.... an old Profec B Spec II (or whatever it is called, and I've got one, and I never look at it, so I can't remember!) and similar might have a MAP sensor, and it might show you the actual boost in the plenum (when the MAP sensor is connected to the plenum) but it does not use that value to decide what it is doing to control the boost, except to control the gating effect (where it stops holding the gate closed on the boost ramp). It's not closed loop at all. Once the gate is released, it's just the solenoid flailing away at whatever duty cycle was configured when it was set up. I'm sure that there are many people who do not understand the above points and wonder wtf is going on.  
    • joshuaho96
      Help Understand GTT Boost Setup

      By joshuaho96 · Posted

      This has clearly gone off on quite a tangent but the suggestion was "go standalone because you probably aren't going to stop at just exhaust + a mild tune and manual boost controller", not "buy a standalone purely for a boost controller". If the scope does in fact stop creeping at an EBC then sure, buy an EVC7 or Profec or whatever else people like to run and stop there. And I have yet to see any kind of aftermarket boost control that is more complicated than a PID controller with some accounting for edge cases. Control system theory is an incredibly vast field yet somehow we always end up back at some variant of a PID controller, maybe with some work done to linearize things. I have done quite a lot, but I don't care to indulge in those pissing matches, hence posting primary sources. I deal with people quite frequently that scream and shout about how their opinion matters more because they've shipped more x or y, it doesn't change the reality of the data they're trying to disagree with. Arguing that the source material is wrong is an entirely separate point and while my experience obviously doesn't matter here I've rarely seen factory service manuals be incorrect about something. It's not some random poorly documented internal software tool that is constantly being patched to barely work. It's also not that hard to just read the Japanese and double check translations either. Especially in automotive parts most of it is loanwords anyways.
×
×
  • Create New...