Chris Harris speaks the GT3 marketplace
Discussion
jackal said:
lemmingjames said:
Can imagine the 996.1 owners frothing and bubbling away after reading that 
He really doesn't like the mk1 does he !Secondly, if the 991 GT3 was available with a stick, I would still have chosen the PDK for this car....shocking as a stick fanatic, but it just wouldn't work in this particular variant.
I've taken time to re read the article. Very poor in my opinion omitting the absolute fundamentals that are;
A) the 996 and (to a lesser extent) the 997 GT3 relied on driver input as a central factor in the extraction of their performance and had exquisite feedback as a result
B) The 996 and 997 had what is arguably one of the very best engines in automotive history.
C) The 991 is fundamentally different in philosophy and feel because it relies heavily on electronic driver aids and torque vectoring to extract its performance leaving the driver much less important.
In short the 996 and 997 were MUCH purer driving tools than the 991. It is a fundamental not mentioned anywhere in the article and majored in the central point that the GT3 has simply got better with every incarnation. From a drivers ( as opposed to a 'point and squirter's' perspective, this is simply not true.
Instead he majored in the only issue that would currently be of relevance to Porsche which is a manual gearbox.
This looks like an article written by somebody who is ensuring that his relationship with Porsche is not compromised. We are all used to reading twaddle from motoring journalists but from Mr Harris I expected better.
A) the 996 and (to a lesser extent) the 997 GT3 relied on driver input as a central factor in the extraction of their performance and had exquisite feedback as a result
B) The 996 and 997 had what is arguably one of the very best engines in automotive history.
C) The 991 is fundamentally different in philosophy and feel because it relies heavily on electronic driver aids and torque vectoring to extract its performance leaving the driver much less important.
In short the 996 and 997 were MUCH purer driving tools than the 991. It is a fundamental not mentioned anywhere in the article and majored in the central point that the GT3 has simply got better with every incarnation. From a drivers ( as opposed to a 'point and squirter's' perspective, this is simply not true.
Instead he majored in the only issue that would currently be of relevance to Porsche which is a manual gearbox.
This looks like an article written by somebody who is ensuring that his relationship with Porsche is not compromised. We are all used to reading twaddle from motoring journalists but from Mr Harris I expected better.
Edited by Steve Rance on Wednesday 28th January 07:46
Some proper twaddle in this thread. Has anyone considered that the article wasn't written for the ph pedants to dissect under their microscopes. It must be a nitemare being in harris's position having his every word poured over for historical, technical and philosophical 'accuracy' , not to mention the subtle conspiracy theories, by hordes of people who don't seem to have anything better to do with their time.
thegreenhell said:
I'm not sure about that. After selling the 4.0 he bought the 512 TR, which has gone up quite a bit since he bought it. He also used to own one of the seven RHD 993 GT2 road cars, which he sold a few years ago for a tiny fraction of their current market value. If there's any car that hindsight says he should have kept it's that one.
If I recall correct, "THE 4.0", was for sale for some time at an ask of 165k, missed out on the best part of 200k in what 18 months, don't think 512s went up that much...PR36 said:
Some proper twaddle in this thread. Has anyone considered that the article wasn't written for the ph pedants to dissect under their microscopes. It must be a nitemare being in harris's position having his every word poured over for historical, technical and philosophical 'accuracy' , not to mention the subtle conspiracy theories, by hordes of people who don't seem to have anything better to do with their time.
Exactly. The inference that you needed to be a 'real driver' to extract maximum performance and feedback from what was quite clearly a compromised model initially and under 'development', and anyone preferring the later incarnations are simply Hedge funders who lunch at the Fat Duck, is also starting to grate.
There are hand wringers that will always fall at the feet of their chosen nomex cladded 'forum messiah', dribbling over their keyboards and struggling to type through tears of gratitude that their 'chosen one' has spared a little time to grace the forum with their infinite wisdom.
'Chris' has many swivel eyed disciples , but so it seems do a few on this thread.
However, without kneeling and reverting to first name terms, to think Harris has an 'agenda' is delusional.
Robbo66 said:
PR36 said:
Some proper twaddle in this thread. Has anyone considered that the article wasn't written for the ph pedants to dissect under their microscopes. It must be a nitemare being in harris's position having his every word poured over for historical, technical and philosophical 'accuracy' , not to mention the subtle conspiracy theories, by hordes of people who don't seem to have anything better to do with their time.
Exactly. The inference that you needed to be a 'real driver' to extract maximum performance and feedback from what was quite clearly a compromised model initially and under 'development', and anyone preferring the later incarnations are simply Hedge funders who lunch at the Fat Duck, is also starting to grate.
There are hand wringers that will always fall at the feet of their chosen nomex cladded 'forum messiah', dribbling over their keyboards and struggling to type through tears of gratitude that their 'chosen one' has spared a little time to grace the forum with their infinite wisdom.
'Chris' has many swivel eyed disciples , but so it seems do a few on this thread.
However, without kneeling and reverting to first name terms, to think Harris has an 'agenda' is delusional.
Robbo66 said:
Exactly.
The inference that you needed to be a 'real driver' to extract maximum performance and feedback from what was quite clearly a compromised model initially and under 'development', and anyone preferring the later incarnations are simply Hedge funders who lunch at the Fat Duck, is also starting to grate.
There are hand wringers that will always fall at the feet of their chosen nomex cladded 'forum messiah', dribbling over their keyboards and struggling to type through tears of gratitude that their 'chosen one' has spared a little time to grace the forum with their infinite wisdom.
'Chris' has many swivel eyed disciples , but so it seems do a few on this thread.
However, without kneeling and reverting to first name terms, to think Harris has an 'agenda' is delusional.
The inference that you needed to be a 'real driver' to extract maximum performance and feedback from what was quite clearly a compromised model initially and under 'development', and anyone preferring the later incarnations are simply Hedge funders who lunch at the Fat Duck, is also starting to grate.
There are hand wringers that will always fall at the feet of their chosen nomex cladded 'forum messiah', dribbling over their keyboards and struggling to type through tears of gratitude that their 'chosen one' has spared a little time to grace the forum with their infinite wisdom.
'Chris' has many swivel eyed disciples , but so it seems do a few on this thread.
However, without kneeling and reverting to first name terms, to think Harris has an 'agenda' is delusional.
I take it its raining in the valley's this morning.....
lemmingjames said:
Can imagine the 996.1 owners frothing and bubbling away after reading that
I can see how the comments fit with the view that the 996.1 is the nicest road car for UK roads though. For the Porsche engineers on their German roads and the 'ring, it isn't powerful enough, the brakes are 'poor' and suspension soft, but those things are what help make the 996.1 more accessible and exploitable on UK roads.No-one has to froth!
braddo said:
lemmingjames said:
Can imagine the 996.1 owners frothing and bubbling away after reading that
I can see how the comments fit with the view that the 996.1 is the nicest road car for UK roads though. For the Porsche engineers on their German roads and the 'ring, it isn't powerful enough, the brakes are 'poor' and suspension soft, but those things are what help make the 996.1 more accessible and exploitable on UK roads.No-one has to froth!
Robbo66 said:
PR36 said:
Some proper twaddle in this thread. Has anyone considered that the article wasn't written for the ph pedants to dissect under their microscopes. It must be a nitemare being in harris's position having his every word poured over for historical, technical and philosophical 'accuracy' , not to mention the subtle conspiracy theories, by hordes of people who don't seem to have anything better to do with their time.
Exactly. The inference that you needed to be a 'real driver' to extract maximum performance and feedback from what was quite clearly a compromised model initially and under 'development', and anyone preferring the later incarnations are simply Hedge funders who lunch at the Fat Duck, is also starting to grate.
There are hand wringers that will always fall at the feet of their chosen nomex cladded 'forum messiah', dribbling over their keyboards and struggling to type through tears of gratitude that their 'chosen one' has spared a little time to grace the forum with their infinite wisdom.
'Chris' has many swivel eyed disciples , but so it seems do a few on this thread.
However, without kneeling and reverting to first name terms, to think Harris has an 'agenda' is delusional.
PR36 said:
Some proper twaddle in this thread. Has anyone considered that the article wasn't written for the ph pedants to dissect under their microscopes. It must be a nitemare being in harris's position having his every word poured over for historical, technical and philosophical 'accuracy' , not to mention the subtle conspiracy theories, by hordes of people who don't seem to have anything better to do with their time.
A fair bit of this I fear. The notion that each successive GT3 is somehow not as good as the previous incarnation and has lost that "Je ne sais quoi"a) smacks slightly of living in the past and wishful thinking
and
b) possibly only relevant the top couple of percent, of the top couple of percent of Porsche buyers who actually buy a GT3 who have very specific wants
I get that Steve may prefer a more old school car because of his experience and be able to legitimately say that on the ragged edge a 996.1 may be more <insert something good here> than later generations, but the GT3 market is not that rarefied and buyers are not all Steves.
You only have to watch Preuninger's Evo mag interview and a few other bits and pieces of him to work out that he is a bigger geek with a better grasp of GT3 design than anyone here (probably why he has the job), and has a better idea of the way forward than any of us. Yes, his vision may not benefit the top fraction of GT3 buyers, but then it's not meant to as they are massively in the minority and you'll always disappoint some people. For that, there's the RS, or what Steve's doing which is putting his money where his mouth is and fashioning a GT3 himself to his tastes
Edited by Mario149 on Wednesday 28th January 10:21
Vacationboy said:
I thought the Mk2 was more compliant, is it the other way around? Had the impression the 2 was dumbed down and softened abit for US markets.
Mk1 dampers more compliant front and rear, spring rates much reduced on the rear, 10% on the front.
Vacationboy said:
Slippydiff has been waxing lyrically about the 1.s magical "it" in relation to the .2 in other threads dontcha know
I have, it's superior and nicer road car. lemmingjames said:
996.1 owner I take it :wink:
Indeed, love 'em. On my fourth now. Hopefully that's not a problem ? But I guess it's possible it lends my views some validity and credence compared with those of a journalist driving an example (and frequently a poorly maintained/set up one at that) fleetingly for a day or two, especially when it appears said journalist appears to have with some kind of agenda.APOLO1 said:
I take it its raining in the valley's this morning.....
Isn't it always ?
Robbo66 said:
'Chris' has many swivel eyed disciples
Would it be fair to say that based on your jottings, you include yourself amongst them ?Robbo66 said:
The inference that you needed to be a 'real driver' to extract maximum performance
I don't recall anyone saying that ? I did however note your previous comments on another thread about the 964 RS being "boring" to drive because of it's horsepower deficit compared with the more modern cars. It struck me then that you might rather be missing the point !
Funny your the comment made about the Mk1 tramlining, I appreciate you dine with the driving gods whilst the rest of us mere mortals feast on the crumbs on the floor around your table
but you should try driving one with the wheels pointing at the correct angles relative to the road, along with correctly/accurately adjusted rake and ride heights 
But I understand you don't like them, and that's your prerogative
A certain lanky German chap who can pedal a bit, and if I may be so bold as to say so, whose views I value consider more valid than either those of the Monkey or indeed yours good sir, rates them rather highly. But say what you like, nothing will change my views that Harris does regrettably appear to have an agenda when it comes to the Mk1. It's a far, far superior car to a 993 RS, yet Harris seems blind to the fact that the Mk1 GT3 was a game changing car for Porsche on so many levels.
Still, it's his loss. But let's move on, I'd not speak to you face to face in the withering manner you've chosen to on this thread, so perhaps we could try and keep thing civil on here for a change eh ?
Edited by Slippydiff on Wednesday 28th January 10:42
Harris does seem to have a 96 1 vs 2 agenda. The Gt3/RS lineage is littered with subjective favouring for an older variant over a more modern. There are plenty of folk who have stated that they prefer the 997.1 over the 997.2 or RS. There are whole continents of people who wouldn't even go near a 991 variant. And quite a few 964RS devotees had a 993RS and were left wondering what all the fuss was about.
So why single out the 96 mk1/mk2 thing as a piece of mythology and the only piece of mythology when it comes to GT3's ? Smacks of a bee in a bonnet or trolling and it's not the first time he's banged on about it. Why keep throwing the technical papers at us ? You can do that with virtually any car to "prove" that its "better" than the model which preceeded it.
It's a car ... emotion, aesthetics and nostalgia will play more of a part than the spec sheet in determining who thinks whats best. There's a bit more to it than a set of bigger calipers and a few more ponies.
For me, as far as factory spec goes the key to the mk1 can be summed up by a word that I believe the late Russell Bulgin coined "MELD". The softer spring rate, the give in the chassis, the bite at the front. It's a very complete car that never forces a pause or a break in the flow of continuity. On UK roads it has a magic and a fluidity to it which is very compelling and distinctly divorced from the somewhat spiky nature of the mk2. That's before you've even started to talk about the looks.
But hey, they are both greats sitting in the last fractional percentile. You can easily make a mk2 handle like a mk1 and you can make a mk1 as strong at the top end as a mk2 and fit a set of 6 pots to boot so .... WGAF ? Why bring it up (again). My 993 has even less power and smaller brakes again but is better than both of them.
So why single out the 96 mk1/mk2 thing as a piece of mythology and the only piece of mythology when it comes to GT3's ? Smacks of a bee in a bonnet or trolling and it's not the first time he's banged on about it. Why keep throwing the technical papers at us ? You can do that with virtually any car to "prove" that its "better" than the model which preceeded it.
It's a car ... emotion, aesthetics and nostalgia will play more of a part than the spec sheet in determining who thinks whats best. There's a bit more to it than a set of bigger calipers and a few more ponies.
For me, as far as factory spec goes the key to the mk1 can be summed up by a word that I believe the late Russell Bulgin coined "MELD". The softer spring rate, the give in the chassis, the bite at the front. It's a very complete car that never forces a pause or a break in the flow of continuity. On UK roads it has a magic and a fluidity to it which is very compelling and distinctly divorced from the somewhat spiky nature of the mk2. That's before you've even started to talk about the looks.
But hey, they are both greats sitting in the last fractional percentile. You can easily make a mk2 handle like a mk1 and you can make a mk1 as strong at the top end as a mk2 and fit a set of 6 pots to boot so .... WGAF ? Why bring it up (again). My 993 has even less power and smaller brakes again but is better than both of them.
Edited by jackal on Wednesday 28th January 11:15
Steve Rance said:
Speed read but didnt see a mention of the M engine. If no mention then a very big omission - IMHO a far bigger issue than the 'Stick'. Then there's Torque vectoring diffs and every driver aid know to man.. Another elephant in a very small room..
Forgotten or left out for another reason??
Absolutely spot on . I read on and on and thought "what about the engines" then a little more and thought"...and the electronics , steering etc?"Forgotten or left out for another reason??
Massive glaring omissions
when you have got 2.7RS owner's moving on to the likes of a 991GT3 and not looking back, says more than any jurno can, well in my eyes anyway....as for an agenda, yep I do think there is one, nothing to do with a GT3 though, more like something in order to attract viewing numbers.....
Edited by APOLO1 on Wednesday 28th January 11:24
Steve Rance said:
I've taken time to re read the article. Very poor in my opinion omitting the absolute fundamentals that are;
A) the 996 and (to a lesser extent) the 997 GT3 relied on driver input as a central factor in the extraction of their performance and had exquisite feedback as a result
B) The 996 and 997 had what is arguably one of the very best engines in automotive history.
C) The 991 is fundamentally different in philosophy and feel because it relies heavily on electronic driver aids and torque vectoring to extract its performance leaving the driver much less important.
In short the 996 and 997 were MUCH purer driving tools than the 991. It is a fundamental not mentioned anywhere in the article and majored in the central point that the GT3 has simply got better with every incarnation. From a drivers ( as opposed to a 'point and squirter's' perspective, this is simply not true.
Instead he majored in the only issue that would currently be of relevance to Porsche which is a manual gearbox.
This looks like an article written by somebody who is ensuring that his relationship with Porsche is not compromised. We are all used to reading twaddle from motoring journalists but from Mr Harris I expected better.
Nail on the head there Steve A) the 996 and (to a lesser extent) the 997 GT3 relied on driver input as a central factor in the extraction of their performance and had exquisite feedback as a result
B) The 996 and 997 had what is arguably one of the very best engines in automotive history.
C) The 991 is fundamentally different in philosophy and feel because it relies heavily on electronic driver aids and torque vectoring to extract its performance leaving the driver much less important.
In short the 996 and 997 were MUCH purer driving tools than the 991. It is a fundamental not mentioned anywhere in the article and majored in the central point that the GT3 has simply got better with every incarnation. From a drivers ( as opposed to a 'point and squirter's' perspective, this is simply not true.
Instead he majored in the only issue that would currently be of relevance to Porsche which is a manual gearbox.
This looks like an article written by somebody who is ensuring that his relationship with Porsche is not compromised. We are all used to reading twaddle from motoring journalists but from Mr Harris I expected better.
Edited by Steve Rance on Wednesday 28th January 07:46
Not sure if there is much in the Harris:Porsche special arrangement; care to enlighten the unenlightened 
It certainly sometimes looks like he is on the Porsche books but his earnings are based on his findings so an element of feathering is to be expected. I'd be surprised if it really went any further than the keys to a few days fun in latest Pork and the odd decent lunch though. Gassing Station | Porsche General | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff