Ben you are correct however the leading edge of the sump will always be more vulnerable due to the effect of the suspension as there's more variation in ride height under compression here than further back.
I have the Raceline on my S3 with th nylon wedge to bridge the step to the standard size bellhousing, I've only kissed this once on a speed hump once and I'm no racing snake, never even kissed the sump even with spirited blatting on Wale's finest tarmac, when wet sump I cracked the front edge, many others have too, the Cosworth DS is dimension ally the same as the wet sump in terms of ground clearance due to the location of the addition scavenge.
I've seen several cars that have suffered impact damage ranging from my own cracked sump to cracked blocks, ripped engine mounts and a few cases of bonnet damage to !
A significant kiss with a cats eye on a crowned road for a chassis mounted gaurd could well result in a trip to Arch for a chassis repair.....
Prevention is better than cure but James is correct there is a significant difference is cost better he two options.
...there is a significant difference is cost....
Which of course is why I opted to retain my wet sump and protect it with a guard.
Agreed, prevention is better than cure - that's why I've raised my car as a short-term fix and also why I hesitated to make the sump guard.
I'd certainly consider the Premier Power sump kit, do we know by how much it gains in terms of clearance? (Will anyway contact him about this in the next weeks)
It is meant to be circa 40mm Ben, which would be mega. (I believe it is the race line sump but with a different bell housing to remove the step)
I'm planning to head up to see Stuart in person some point soon. I'll feed the info back to you.
I like the sump guards too. The idea of trying to lift it up with a shallow angle rather than take the full brunt should mitigate any further damage if you can spread the force over enough chassis members and supports. The CSR's crucifix being beefier helps.
As 7 wonders days though, if possible, it is best to eliminate the requirement for it.
Not a straight forward decision though for all the reasons already discussed.
It's a percentages game, innit??
For me (though I do have a vested interest) the 'rise and glide' approach seemed sensible. Not a conventional sump guard in that it doesn't actually reduce clearance and, as has been noted above by SamC, the idea is to meet any impacting object at a shallow angle to reduce the risk of shock damage to either the sump or the chassis frame. Cost effective, too.
For me, that's where I chose to draw the line but I fully understand that others may draw it in a different place, and spend differently too!
Out of interest James, has the sump guard Ben unintentionally tested yet? If so, everything hold up as planned?
#15 this is Racelines package comprising DS kit and compact flywheel and bellhousing starter etc in short or CC length.
"Out of interest James, has the sump guard Ben unintentionally tested yet? If so, everything hold up as planned?"
I can't say for sure, Sam, as I sold that CSR around two years ago having driven it for around only 1000 miles with my fancy sump protector fitted. I had no need to test its efficacy during that time and I haven't heard of any concerns or tales from the current owner.
But here's a thing; I am buying another CSR (did I mention it? ) which is a very late factory build from 2015. From the few photos I have seen, it appears to have a completely different type of dry sump pan fitted, one that looks - on the photos, at any rate - to be a lot less 'low hanging' than the traditional Cosworth cliff face design. I'm keeping my fingers crossed...
40mm? Wow, that is a lot! Keep me posted.