GT3 RS 1st road test.
Discussion
IMI A said:
In the hands of a someone who can peddle there probably wouldn't be much in it between manual vs PDK. Wouldn't be surprised if manual actually quicker for a racing driver but I accept 99% of us would be quicker in PDK.
Perhaps a sequential box would be comparable to a PDK, but a traditional manual will be slower even for the best drivers, there's too much time lost in shifting.isaldiri said:
Am amazed people take journalist reviews quite so seriously. Catchpole's review really turned your opinion of the car which was not so positive prior due to the Harris one......?
Agree. New car launches are all the same. Discount 90% of what they say and look at the pretty pictures. Journo views tend to become more honest and objective after 5-10 years. (Not saying the RS is not a great car, BTW. It probably is.).
boxerTen said:
IMI A said:
In the hands of a someone who can peddle there probably wouldn't be much in it between manual vs PDK. Wouldn't be surprised if manual actually quicker for a racing driver but I accept 99% of us would be quicker in PDK.
Perhaps a sequential box would be comparable to a PDK, but a traditional manual will be slower even for the best drivers, there's too much time lost in shifting.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTgXky5ntEo
On the subject of the inexorable rise of big power and all-in-one powertrain control systems, I spent the past week driving through the Brecons in a 560bhp M5.
Lovely roads, great weather, monster car. I couldn't help regretting that the golden age of motoring is well and truly over - and not just because roads are congested and traffic-calmed, but also because car manufacturers seem obligated to compete in power wars that necessitate protecting people with money from their lack of talent.
It struck me that the perfect car for that family jaunt would have had a manual box, narrower tyres, less intrusive electronics, 2-300kg less weight and about 150-200bhp less. Which just happens to be the spec of an E39 M5.
Lovely roads, great weather, monster car. I couldn't help regretting that the golden age of motoring is well and truly over - and not just because roads are congested and traffic-calmed, but also because car manufacturers seem obligated to compete in power wars that necessitate protecting people with money from their lack of talent.
It struck me that the perfect car for that family jaunt would have had a manual box, narrower tyres, less intrusive electronics, 2-300kg less weight and about 150-200bhp less. Which just happens to be the spec of an E39 M5.
Harris_I said:
On the subject of the inexorable rise of big power and all-in-one powertrain control systems, I spent the past week driving through the Brecons in a 560bhp M5.
Lovely roads, great weather, monster car. I couldn't help regretting that the golden age of motoring is well and truly over - and not just because roads are congested and traffic-calmed, but also because car manufacturers seem obligated to compete in power wars that necessitate protecting people with money from their lack of talent.
It struck me that the perfect car for that family jaunt would have had a manual box, narrower tyres, less intrusive electronics, 2-300kg less weight and about 150-200bhp less. Which just happens to be the spec of an E39 M5.
Amen to that....just add a tubi exhaust Lovely roads, great weather, monster car. I couldn't help regretting that the golden age of motoring is well and truly over - and not just because roads are congested and traffic-calmed, but also because car manufacturers seem obligated to compete in power wars that necessitate protecting people with money from their lack of talent.
It struck me that the perfect car for that family jaunt would have had a manual box, narrower tyres, less intrusive electronics, 2-300kg less weight and about 150-200bhp less. Which just happens to be the spec of an E39 M5.
Harris_I said:
It struck me that the perfect car for that family jaunt would have had a manual box, narrower tyres, less intrusive electronics, 2-300kg less weight and about 150-200bhp less. Which just happens to be the spec of an E39 M5.
+1! Still by a long way my favourite 4 door saloon, while there have been (far) more powerful or more comfortable cars produced since, as an overall package they are just about perfect imo.isaldiri said:
+1! Still by a long way my favourite 4 door saloon, while there have been (far) more powerful or more comfortable cars produced since, as an overall package they are just about perfect imo.
Had one and loved it. For me, after that it was a decline in my BMW ownership....went to a 645i manual, then a V10 M6....and then....nothing. I had had many BMWs all the way back to the eighties, and for me, I felt that my experience had peaked with the E39. A truly classic BMW.boxerTen said:
Perhaps a sequential box would be comparable to a PDK, but a traditional manual will be slower even for the best drivers, there's too much time lost in shifting.
Certainly that is what marketing would have you believe.Here are three extracts of data. Same track, same driver (me, and I am not that good).
The section shown covers a 5-2nd gear change into a fairly tricky corner, a long run after that takes you all the way to 6th gear before a section of corners that requires a change back down from 6th to 2nd.
Cars are i) 430 challenge (paddle shift, ecu controlled and ~150ms shift time), ii) 997 Cup (manual sequential, clutch and manual blip on downshifts, flat upshifts) and iii) a 997 Cup running an H pattern box. My lap time in each is pretty much even in all 3 cars. The level of effort in each in order to achieve it is quite different though as can be seen from the data.
One can see the shifts taking place on the orange and red G traces; and on the green throttle trace too for the H pattern and the sequential downshifts.
The blue speed trace however remains much less impacted by the shifts, the result of which is that the time taken through the section by each car is pretty much identical.
Edited by fioran0 on Monday 1st June 13:51
fioran0 said:
boxerTen said:
Perhaps a sequential box would be comparable to a PDK, but a traditional manual will be slower even for the best drivers, there's too much time lost in shifting.
Certainly that is what marketing would have you believe.
fioran0 said:
Here are three extracts of data. Same track, same driver (me, and I am not that good).
The section shown covers a 5-2nd gear change into a fairly tricky corner, a long run after that takes you all the way to 6th gear before a section of corners that requires a change back down from 6th to 2nd.
Cars are i) 430 challenge (paddle shift, ecu controlled and ~150ms shift time), ii) 997 Cup (manual sequential, clutch and manual blip on downshifts, flat upshifts) and iii) a 997 Cup running an H pattern box. My lap time in each is pretty much even in all 3 cars. The level of effort in each in order to achieve it is quite different though as can be seen from the data.
One can see the shifts taking place on the orange and red G traces; and on the green throttle trace too for the H pattern and the sequential downshifts.
The blue speed trace however remains much less impacted by the shifts, the result of which is that the time taken through the section by each car is pretty much identical.
In the third trace in green there are downward spikes where the throttle is closed. That's time lost (say 2/10ths of a sec spent coasting at 60 mph between gears instead of an extra 1/10 of a sec spent at 120 mph). On a typical circuit that probably adds up to a few tenths of a second per lap everything else being equal.The section shown covers a 5-2nd gear change into a fairly tricky corner, a long run after that takes you all the way to 6th gear before a section of corners that requires a change back down from 6th to 2nd.
Cars are i) 430 challenge (paddle shift, ecu controlled and ~150ms shift time), ii) 997 Cup (manual sequential, clutch and manual blip on downshifts, flat upshifts) and iii) a 997 Cup running an H pattern box. My lap time in each is pretty much even in all 3 cars. The level of effort in each in order to achieve it is quite different though as can be seen from the data.
One can see the shifts taking place on the orange and red G traces; and on the green throttle trace too for the H pattern and the sequential downshifts.
The blue speed trace however remains much less impacted by the shifts, the result of which is that the time taken through the section by each car is pretty much identical.
Edited by fioran0 on Monday 1st June 13:51
As I said in my post. The visual clues of my shifts can be seen in the traces for longitudinal G (orange), G sum (red) and throttle (green) with increasing clarity as the shift mechanism becomes more "old fashioned".
The trace of interest however is the blue one in the second window of each image. This is vehicle speed. The increasing visual signs of the shift (up and down) taking place are not mirrored in the vehicle speed traces. There is no cruising along as the cars shift increasingly slowly.
As an aside, the time taken for each car respectively to travel from from the exit of turn 3 (same track distance marker, all cars 100% throttle) until the end of the straight (again same track distance marker) is 16.677s, 16.883s and 16.662s.
The time taken to go from exit turn 3 until the exit of turn 5 (again same track distance markers used), covering the run from 2nd gear up to 6th gear and back down to 2nd for each car is 25.071s, 24.937s and 24.891s respectively.
Of course there are platform differences to contend with and my shoddy driving so take that for what it is. 3 plots of data from 3 laps in 3 different cars. Nothing more than that.
The point was simply that while it is increasingly less effort the more that shifting is automated, the measurable outcome is perhaps less of a slam dunk away from paper. Even when the visual signs of a shift taking place can be clearly seen in isolated data traces, the impact this has on speed isnt mirrored in quite the same way.
For manufacturer acceleration numbers, this is often hidden behind the shorter gear ratios of the PDK type boxes.
As a last note. I certainly couldnt do 10 laps back to back within a few tenths of a second of each other. I am nowhere close to that level of driving skill. Any shift time advantage, even if realised in its entirety would be more than swallowed up by my natural lap time variation. While I would be more sweaty post laps in the manual and the potential for a mistake on a shift exists, ultimately I am no slower because of the interface.
But we are now way off reservation. I am not anti PDK type boxes nor is my disinterest in owning a 991 RS related to its having PDK.
The trace of interest however is the blue one in the second window of each image. This is vehicle speed. The increasing visual signs of the shift (up and down) taking place are not mirrored in the vehicle speed traces. There is no cruising along as the cars shift increasingly slowly.
As an aside, the time taken for each car respectively to travel from from the exit of turn 3 (same track distance marker, all cars 100% throttle) until the end of the straight (again same track distance marker) is 16.677s, 16.883s and 16.662s.
The time taken to go from exit turn 3 until the exit of turn 5 (again same track distance markers used), covering the run from 2nd gear up to 6th gear and back down to 2nd for each car is 25.071s, 24.937s and 24.891s respectively.
Of course there are platform differences to contend with and my shoddy driving so take that for what it is. 3 plots of data from 3 laps in 3 different cars. Nothing more than that.
The point was simply that while it is increasingly less effort the more that shifting is automated, the measurable outcome is perhaps less of a slam dunk away from paper. Even when the visual signs of a shift taking place can be clearly seen in isolated data traces, the impact this has on speed isnt mirrored in quite the same way.
For manufacturer acceleration numbers, this is often hidden behind the shorter gear ratios of the PDK type boxes.
As a last note. I certainly couldnt do 10 laps back to back within a few tenths of a second of each other. I am nowhere close to that level of driving skill. Any shift time advantage, even if realised in its entirety would be more than swallowed up by my natural lap time variation. While I would be more sweaty post laps in the manual and the potential for a mistake on a shift exists, ultimately I am no slower because of the interface.
But we are now way off reservation. I am not anti PDK type boxes nor is my disinterest in owning a 991 RS related to its having PDK.
Edited by fioran0 on Monday 1st June 22:12
fioran0 said:
As I said in my post. The visual clues of my shifts can be seen in the traces for longitudinal G (orange), G sum (red) and throttle (green) with increasing clarity as the shift mechanism becomes more "old fashioned".
The trace of interest however is the blue one in the second window of each image. This is vehicle speed. The increasing visual signs of the shift (up and down) taking place are not mirrored in the vehicle speed traces. There is no cruising along as the cars shift increasingly slowly.
There is "cruising along". Physically it can't be otherwise, just the trace has not sufficient resolution to show it. A trace of acceleration would show big downward spikes during gear changes, spikes that would not be present in a PDK-equipped car.The trace of interest however is the blue one in the second window of each image. This is vehicle speed. The increasing visual signs of the shift (up and down) taking place are not mirrored in the vehicle speed traces. There is no cruising along as the cars shift increasingly slowly.
fioran0 said:
The point was simply that while it is increasingly less effort the more that shifting is automated, the measurable outcome is perhaps less of a slam dunk away from paper. Even when the visual signs of a shift taking place can be clearly seen in isolated data traces, the impact this has on speed isnt mirrored in quite the same way.
I agree the difference between manual and PDK over a single run will be swamped by vehicle differences, differences between runs, etc., we are after all talking about perhaps 0.1 second difference for each period of acceleration. But averaged over many runs there will be a PDK advantage.fioran0 said:
As a last note. I certainly couldnt do 10 laps back to back within a few tenths of a second of each other. I am nowhere close to that level of driving skill. Any shift time advantage, even if realised in its entirety would be more than swallowed up by my natural lap time variation. While I would be more sweaty post laps in the manual and the potential for a mistake on a shift exists, ultimately I am no slower because of the interface.
But we are now way off reservation. I am not anti PDK type boxes nor is my disinterest in owning a 991 RS related to its having PDK.
Personally I prefer manuals despite my apparent championing of PDK here.But we are now way off reservation. I am not anti PDK type boxes nor is my disinterest in owning a 991 RS related to its having PDK.
What's interesting is that will all of the journo articles, thousands and thousands of posts, myriad opinions of admiration and dismissal, arguments, fights, positions taken, we are still awaiting full track tests with some timed laps for instance. Would love to see a timed lap of the Ring, of Spa and a few others. It has become fashionable recently to say that these don't matter. They do, though, not because any of us mortals could achieve those times, but as a comparator with other choices we might make. For instance, let's assume the RS was no quicker the the GT3?...or the 997 4.0?
Of course anecdotally it appears to be a performer, but I personally like to see the numbers,
Of course anecdotally it appears to be a performer, but I personally like to see the numbers,
RDMcG said:
What's interesting is that will all of the journo articles, thousands and thousands of posts, myriad opinions of admiration and dismissal, arguments, fights, positions taken, we are still awaiting full track tests with some timed laps for instance. Would love to see a timed lap of the Ring, of Spa and a few others. It has become fashionable recently to say that these don't matter. They do, though, not because any of us mortals could achieve those times, but as a comparator with other choices we might make. For instance, let's assume the RS was no quicker the the GT3?...or the 997 4.0?
Of course anecdotally it appears to be a performer, but I personally like to see the numbers,
That assumes all things are equal, driver, tyre condition, track conditions etc etc. And in practice they aren't, so what looks like an objective test, isn't necessarily. Of course anecdotally it appears to be a performer, but I personally like to see the numbers,
For those reasons, lap times are directional and not definitive in my view. Unless the differences in time are big enough, done over many laps, or one car is consistently quicker than another over a number of tracks, it's just a bit of fun we all have comparing times.
Still, I am looking forward to some times, which should be interesting.
Alpinestars said:
That assumes all things are equal, driver, tyre condition, track conditions etc etc. And in practice they aren't, so what looks like an objective test, isn't necessarily.
For those reasons, lap times are directional and not definitive in my view. Unless the differences in time are big enough, done over many laps, or one car is consistently quicker than another over a number of tracks, it's just a bit of fun we all have comparing times.
Still, I am looking forward to some times, which should be interesting.
Trust the figures the manufacturers quote,,, Porsche do not do backwards as far as numbers are concerned. Feel...... a different & that is a highly subjective ball gameFor those reasons, lap times are directional and not definitive in my view. Unless the differences in time are big enough, done over many laps, or one car is consistently quicker than another over a number of tracks, it's just a bit of fun we all have comparing times.
Still, I am looking forward to some times, which should be interesting.
Alpinestars said:
That assumes all things are equal, driver, tyre condition, track conditions etc etc. And in practice they aren't, so what looks like an objective test, isn't necessarily.
For those reasons, lap times are directional and not definitive in my view. Unless the differences in time are big enough, done over many laps, or one car is consistently quicker than another over a number of tracks, it's just a bit of fun we all have comparing times.
Still, I am looking forward to some times, which should be interesting.
Agree on that. I particularly like the Supertest in Sport Auto when it comes, as it usually has wet and dry handling, a fair amount of Ring time and so on, and lots and lots of quantitative information.It is far from being the only criterion , but it is a data point among many..For those reasons, lap times are directional and not definitive in my view. Unless the differences in time are big enough, done over many laps, or one car is consistently quicker than another over a number of tracks, it's just a bit of fun we all have comparing times.
Still, I am looking forward to some times, which should be interesting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSX7EGZ5reY
interesting review i thought, quite nice to see a car being driven hard without the insane disregard for rear tyres as seen from... nearly anyone else.
interesting review i thought, quite nice to see a car being driven hard without the insane disregard for rear tyres as seen from... nearly anyone else.
Gassing Station | Porsche General | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff