Prospective 981 GT4 Owners Discussion Forum.
Discussion
fioran0 said:
The Cayman has ABS, TC (in its various guises), active diff (using brakes, the LSD is there only to look cool), torque vectoring, proactive bias control etc all on there. While they can't give more than the tyre is capable of giving, they can pretty easily ensure all of the tyre is given having been designed for exactly that purpose. Each new generation of car comes with the control side to do this specific task even better than before.
Fioran0Edited by fioran0 on Tuesday 15th September 22:45
I am really interested in whether you think that the systems you mention above make a car faster. Given a professional driver.
Or do they just make a poor/average driver faster?
I am sure you know where I am coming from!
The systems fundamentally open up the bandwidth of the car to more people. This enables more people to extract more of the potential more of the time. The cars can also exist closer to the (preset) margins since proactive monitoring works to hold the line.
One would probably need to go through systems individually rather than as a whole to select what added to improved lap times and what simply made the performance accessible. Most would be in the latter category I would expect.
For those who are capable of working the inevitable gap between preset margin and actual margin (your professional driver example); there is definitely a potential for systems to hinder a lap time in some situations. What the net effect is when viewed on balance over an entire lap would actually be pretty interesting to research. Especially when viewed with alternatives the electronic version replaced. As things advance on the electronics side, the gap available between these margins seems to inevitably reduce however.
Improvements in tyre grip are the big driver in improved performance figures that come with each new generation of car. The two together also work to prevent the increasing weight cars carry from driving the performance figures backwards.
This was why the Jack Olsen v 991 GT3 video was so interesting. On a track layout where drag racing was minimised and the two cars were on similar rubber, multiple decades of advancements in chassis design, materials, manufacturing, electronics systems etc were only able to offset the extra weight carried by these advancements. Nothing more.
One would probably need to go through systems individually rather than as a whole to select what added to improved lap times and what simply made the performance accessible. Most would be in the latter category I would expect.
For those who are capable of working the inevitable gap between preset margin and actual margin (your professional driver example); there is definitely a potential for systems to hinder a lap time in some situations. What the net effect is when viewed on balance over an entire lap would actually be pretty interesting to research. Especially when viewed with alternatives the electronic version replaced. As things advance on the electronics side, the gap available between these margins seems to inevitably reduce however.
Improvements in tyre grip are the big driver in improved performance figures that come with each new generation of car. The two together also work to prevent the increasing weight cars carry from driving the performance figures backwards.
This was why the Jack Olsen v 991 GT3 video was so interesting. On a track layout where drag racing was minimised and the two cars were on similar rubber, multiple decades of advancements in chassis design, materials, manufacturing, electronics systems etc were only able to offset the extra weight carried by these advancements. Nothing more.
Edited by fioran0 on Tuesday 15th September 23:30
fioran0 said:
The systems fundamentally open up the bandwidth of the car to more people. This enables more people to extract more of the potential more of the time. The cars can also exist closer to the (preset) margins since proactive monitoring works to hold the line.
One would probably need to go through systems individually rather than as a whole to select what added to improved lap times and what simply made the performance accessible. Most would be in the latter category I would expect.
For those who are capable of working the inevitable gap between preset margin and actual margin (your professional driver example); there is definitely a potential for systems to hinder a lap time in some situations. What the net effect is when viewed on balance over an entire lap would actually be pretty interesting to research. Especially when viewed with alternatives the electronic version replaced. As things advance on the electronics side, the gap available between these margins seems to inevitably reduce however.
Improvements in tyre grip are the big driver in improved performance figures that come with each new generation of car. The two together also work to prevent the increasing weight cars carry from driving the performance figures backwards.
This was why the Jack Olsen v 991 GT3 video was so interesting. On a track layout where drag racing was minimised and the two cars were on similar rubber, multiple decades of advancements in chassis design, materials, manufacturing, electronics systems etc were only able to offset the extra weight carried by these advancements. Nothing more.
Very interesting post, cheers fioran0 One would probably need to go through systems individually rather than as a whole to select what added to improved lap times and what simply made the performance accessible. Most would be in the latter category I would expect.
For those who are capable of working the inevitable gap between preset margin and actual margin (your professional driver example); there is definitely a potential for systems to hinder a lap time in some situations. What the net effect is when viewed on balance over an entire lap would actually be pretty interesting to research. Especially when viewed with alternatives the electronic version replaced. As things advance on the electronics side, the gap available between these margins seems to inevitably reduce however.
Improvements in tyre grip are the big driver in improved performance figures that come with each new generation of car. The two together also work to prevent the increasing weight cars carry from driving the performance figures backwards.
This was why the Jack Olsen v 991 GT3 video was so interesting. On a track layout where drag racing was minimised and the two cars were on similar rubber, multiple decades of advancements in chassis design, materials, manufacturing, electronics systems etc were only able to offset the extra weight carried by these advancements. Nothing more.
Edited by fioran0 on Tuesday 15th September 23:30
mollytherocker said:
Fioran0
I am really interested in whether you think that the systems you mention above make a car faster. Given a professional driver.
Or do they just make a poor/average driver faster?
I am sure you know where I am coming from!
Most make you go slower, I have to turn them off to go faster.I am really interested in whether you think that the systems you mention above make a car faster. Given a professional driver.
Or do they just make a poor/average driver faster?
I am sure you know where I am coming from!
Tech to go faster is rws and the like not PSM , abs, torque vectoring, TC etc.
fioran0 said:
The systems fundamentally open up the bandwidth of the car to more people. This enables more people to extract more of the potential more of the time. The cars can also exist closer to the (preset) margins since proactive monitoring works to hold the line.
One would probably need to go through systems individually rather than as a whole to select what added to improved lap times and what simply made the performance accessible. Most would be in the latter category I would expect.
For those who are capable of working the inevitable gap between preset margin and actual margin (your professional driver example); there is definitely a potential for systems to hinder a lap time in some situations. What the net effect is when viewed on balance over an entire lap would actually be pretty interesting to research. Especially when viewed with alternatives the electronic version replaced. As things advance on the electronics side, the gap available between these margins seems to inevitably reduce however.
Improvements in tyre grip are the big driver in improved performance figures that come with each new generation of car. The two together also work to prevent the increasing weight cars carry from driving the performance figures backwards.
[b]This was why the Jack Olsen v 991 GT3 video was so interesting. On a track layout where drag racing was minimised and the two cars were on similar rubber, multiple decades of advancements in chassis design, materials, manufacturing, electronics systems etc were only able to offset the extra weight carried by these advancements. Nothing more.
I agree with much of what you say, but aren't you ignoring that the Jack Olsen car has been honed over many years for track use (and, I think, for that race track in particular), whereas the GT3 was an 'off the shelf' model, designed for road use?One would probably need to go through systems individually rather than as a whole to select what added to improved lap times and what simply made the performance accessible. Most would be in the latter category I would expect.
For those who are capable of working the inevitable gap between preset margin and actual margin (your professional driver example); there is definitely a potential for systems to hinder a lap time in some situations. What the net effect is when viewed on balance over an entire lap would actually be pretty interesting to research. Especially when viewed with alternatives the electronic version replaced. As things advance on the electronics side, the gap available between these margins seems to inevitably reduce however.
Improvements in tyre grip are the big driver in improved performance figures that come with each new generation of car. The two together also work to prevent the increasing weight cars carry from driving the performance figures backwards.
[b]This was why the Jack Olsen v 991 GT3 video was so interesting. On a track layout where drag racing was minimised and the two cars were on similar rubber, multiple decades of advancements in chassis design, materials, manufacturing, electronics systems etc were only able to offset the extra weight carried by these advancements. Nothing more.
Would there not be scope for setting up the GT3 to be much more track-focussed with the potential to save a few seconds (?) over a lap?
Everyone still forgets the huge advances in Aero ...... Downforce THE main reason why cars can go faster through corners ........ GT3 cats have had no power increase or weight loss but are 5-6 secs a lap faster than they were five years ago all down to the massive Improvements in aero.
Drove a Radical the other day and was great fun reminding me of old F3 years no Power , no electronics but fast with downforce and light weight.
Every new Porshce model we hear the words 200 kg extra rear wing downforce etc this is the real story with all the other bits ....
Lamborghini makes a Huracan GT3 and Trofeo , both lap within a sec of each other at the GP circuit but one the trofeo has a lot more power , more driver aids and is designed to be easier to drive for us Gentlemen drivers whereas the GT3 is for the pros , less power ( due to restrictors ) more downforce and less electronic intervention .
Drove a Radical the other day and was great fun reminding me of old F3 years no Power , no electronics but fast with downforce and light weight.
Every new Porshce model we hear the words 200 kg extra rear wing downforce etc this is the real story with all the other bits ....
Lamborghini makes a Huracan GT3 and Trofeo , both lap within a sec of each other at the GP circuit but one the trofeo has a lot more power , more driver aids and is designed to be easier to drive for us Gentlemen drivers whereas the GT3 is for the pros , less power ( due to restrictors ) more downforce and less electronic intervention .
hunter 66 said:
Everyone still forgets the huge advances in Aero ...... Downforce THE main reason why cars can go faster through corners ........ GT3 cats have had no power increase or weight loss but are 5-6 secs a lap faster than they were five years ago all down to the massive Improvements in aero.
Drove a Radical the other day and was great fun reminding me of old F3 years no Power , no electronics but fast with downforce and light weight.
Every new Porshce model we hear the words 200 kg extra rear wing downforce etc this is the real story with all the other bits ....
Not sure about the downforce part I have to say and I doubt it's enough to offset the weight differential. As has been said here by others, modern sports cars are pretty much now focused on being accelerative rocketships and gain big chunks of time out of corners much faster with seamless dual clutch gearboxes while stickier tyres keep braking and cornering at least on par with prior gen cars. Drove a Radical the other day and was great fun reminding me of old F3 years no Power , no electronics but fast with downforce and light weight.
Every new Porshce model we hear the words 200 kg extra rear wing downforce etc this is the real story with all the other bits ....
The 991 gt3 is giving up maybe 80kg vs the 997 gen 2 gt3 and hardly produces very much downforce per Sportauto supertest numbers. And even if it did the downforce really only gets relevant at say 80+mph and how many corners even at a really quick circuit like Spa are above that? 4 corners counting blanchimont as 2 corners?
Tires and gearboxes (and electronics) I'd suggest are the real reason for the 5-6s a lap faster times vs prior cars rather than aero downforce.
tonto1 said:
Just looking at options for trackers and insurers looking for TQA certified. What are others thinking with regards to having trackers fitted. I also don't think the PVTA system is a TQA one.
Just got a good quote from Admiral - and no tracker required. In my experience Trackers can be a pain regarding reliability and flattening batteries - as well as the expense of installation and subscriptions.stewy49 said:
Just got a good quote from Admiral - and no tracker required. In my experience Trackers can be a pain regarding reliability and flattening batteries - as well as the expense of installation and subscriptions.
Just make sure they agree to your car being repaired and glass replacement at the OPC as opposed to their 'recommended' under the arches garage in the event of a claim.Just one thing I found with Admiral was that they counted driver awareness courses as a conviction and you have to make them aware of them at time of taking out the policy. I insured a Ferrari a few years ago with them, did everything on line when the policy was issued on line I took the time to read it which was unusual for me and in the small print was a clause re driver awareness courses. i don't think they do track cover either.
Scooty100 said:
Does their insurance include track day cover too ?
Doesn't include track day cover so far as I know. The quote (£634) was less for 5k miles than 3k miles(?) and includes my one SP30. I've also been recommended to try Classicline, Porsche Insurance Services and my present insurer Marsh (who have always been excellent and are reorganising at the moment).Gassing Station | Porsche General | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff