997RS A real RS or another badged marketing Ploy?
Discussion
Bit of a side bar, but how do the afficionados' define a 'real' RS ? I'd assumed the argument is around how extensive the go-faster changes from the cooking model should be to earn the badge.
Employing that logic, I would have thought the GT3 should have been badged the 996 RS - There were even comfort, lightweight and club sport specs in true RS fashion. I guess at the end of the day, maketing wins over engineering and Porsche restrict the badge to low production volumes to retain the exclusivity.
Not sure how the 997 fits into all that - What is the 997 RS going to be ?
Employing that logic, I would have thought the GT3 should have been badged the 996 RS - There were even comfort, lightweight and club sport specs in true RS fashion. I guess at the end of the day, maketing wins over engineering and Porsche restrict the badge to low production volumes to retain the exclusivity.
Not sure how the 997 fits into all that - What is the 997 RS going to be ?
gr4 said:
Bit of a side bar, but how do the afficionados' define a 'real' RS ? I'd assumed the argument is around how extensive the go-faster changes from the cooking model should be to earn the badge.
Employing that logic, I would have thought the GT3 should have been badged the 996 RS - There were even comfort, lightweight and club sport specs in true RS fashion. I guess at the end of the day, maketing wins over engineering and Porsche restrict the badge to low production volumes to retain the exclusivity.
Not sure how the 997 fits into all that - What is the 997 RS going to be ?
An RS needs to be lighter than a standard 911. The GT3 was heavier than a standard 996 despite all the (very extensive) go faster changes. The GT3 RS only earned its RS stripes once it had lost some weight.
A true RS should be devoid of all niceties and luxuries in the quest to save weight. Look to an F40 to see how it should be done - Plastic windows, manual winders, no A/C, No carpets, minimal sound insulation, lots of nice carbon/kevlar etc.....That, In my opinion would make a true RS - The problem is, it's a Porsche, and those nice marketing men don't think we could live without all the extras. To be fair, I think they're probably right. You've only to look at the 'road race' cars that exist today to realise that the ones spec'd without the optional A/C, have become 'undesirable'. (BTW - I'm not a fan, but, Ferrari could pull it off!) So, in truth, they'll give us what the masses want, and pay lip services to the true enthusiast....
Maybe, but not many people would argue that a comfort spec '73 RS isn't a true RS because it's got some comfy bits put back. You usually need to go 'RSR' to get to the purity you describe. I guess it's whatever the marketing guys decide. The 3.2 CS satisfied most of the criteria but didn't get the badge.
Edited to say I was responding to mbutchers - JS, yours is RSR spec isn't it ? so most of the bits you highlight are over and above factory RS
>> Edited by gr4 on Friday 10th February 10:00
Edited to say I was responding to mbutchers - JS, yours is RSR spec isn't it ? so most of the bits you highlight are over and above factory RS
>> Edited by gr4 on Friday 10th February 10:00
johnny senna said:Johnny - I love the RS's - I would have one in my million pound garage, but I don't think there should be anything 'nice' about them. My point is they could've made them lighter still. The last RS incarnation was less of one than the 993,and the 993 less than the 964..
My 993 RS has no carpet, has a carbon rear wing, full welded in cage, 6 point harnesses, airjacks, holy moly loud exhaust......but retains air con and electric windows which is bizarre but nice. Still very much an RS though.
I suspect that the next car will be, more or less, in line with the current RS. The question is, would enough customers put up their hard earned cash for a car 'without' all the goodies. I'm not sure I would if it was going to be my only 'fast' car.....
gr4 said:
Maybe, but not many people would argue that a comfort spec '73 RS isn't a true RS because it's got some comfy bits put back. You usually need to go 'RSR' to get to the purity you describe. I guess it's whatever the marketing guys decide. The 3.2 CS satisfied most of the criteria but didn't get the badge.
Edited to say I was responding to mbutchers - JS, yours is RSR spec isn't it ? so most of the bits you highlight are over and above factory RS
>> Edited by gr4 on Friday 10th February 10:00
Yes, it's RS CS spec (we called this version of the 993 RS the RSR in this country, but RSRs are technically a different car althogether with bolted on wide wheel arches etc like a GT2) but my car started as a "normal" 993 RS that had all the 993 RS CS goodies added....and the carpet removed....later in its life. It's unique!
>> Edited by johnny senna on Friday 10th February 10:16
RS is all about a lightweight racing philosophy, IMO... the silly things that race teams do to gain a tenth of a second appearing on road cars.
E.g. the 964RS has no interior courtesy light which makes finding the ignition barrel difficult after dark. Saves what, 1 or 2 grammes? It has a rear window demist filament but the 'wiring was too heavy' so they left it out and the filaments don't work. The screenwash bottle is 1 litre not 3 litres to save 2kgs, although you never had to fill the larger one, did you?
I have even seen a 964RS at the ring that had been customised to include drilled door handles, saving the weight of a few ounces of swarf...
It's the philosophy, and the character that results, that makes them special...
E.g. the 964RS has no interior courtesy light which makes finding the ignition barrel difficult after dark. Saves what, 1 or 2 grammes? It has a rear window demist filament but the 'wiring was too heavy' so they left it out and the filaments don't work. The screenwash bottle is 1 litre not 3 litres to save 2kgs, although you never had to fill the larger one, did you?
I have even seen a 964RS at the ring that had been customised to include drilled door handles, saving the weight of a few ounces of swarf...
It's the philosophy, and the character that results, that makes them special...
Historically speaking, RS versions were lighter and frequently devoid of luxury items. But in the Porsche tradition of *form following function*, they were made lighter with the objectives to: make the car faster, handle better, and be more economical to driver input as these were all factors in racing.
The impact of technology cannot, however, be underestimated.
The technology in the early '70s meant that engineers resorted to removing weight to make the car lighter in order to improve performance. This is the cheapest and most economical way for what were road/production cars (although limited in number). The trade off is that cars were quiet crude (aka "unfiltered driving experience" and "pure" for diehard drivers who didn't care about personal comfort).
The technology in the early '90s followed the successful ingredients of the '70s but added technologically more complex items like thinner glass, more advanced engines and transmission componentry over their "normal" road brethren. Interestingly, Porsche felt it necessary to offer more luxurious (heavy) items like leather interiors, A/C as driver comfort became a more important issue. Perhaps this was a sign that the profile of the target driver was changing: hardcore drivers who might have settled for string backed driving gloves 20 years earlier now preferred nomex lined suede gloves.
The advance into the 21st century has proven no different, but the immense advance in technology (think 5.25/3.5" floppy disks of the early '90s vs. 200gb floating head hard drives today) has given Porsche engineers a LOT more options in achieving the desired objectives of increased performance, better handling, and increased economy of driver input (reduced driver fatigue = greater safety). Witness the usage of carbon/plastic composite materials, increasingly cheaper metals like titanium, hollowed components achievable through advanced laser CNC manufacturing processes, flow/hydroform components etc. Computing power has enabled the exponential use of computerised dynamic modelling to simulate/analyse real world driving dynamics without having to go through the entire manufacturing process. The advance in componentry has benefitted the broader auto supply industry at large, and it has allowed fewer compromises in driver comfort and safety.
This last point is critical as the previous generations that focused on wholesale weight reduction is now a thing of the past. Porsche have worked hard on reducing weight *where it most counts* as in reducing the weight of moving parts core to the efficiency of the engine. In my mind, this type of weight reduction is far more complex and admirable for the engineering excellence that Porsche can imlpement/enable in their road cars. Increased focus on driver safety means a focus on structural rigidity (higher speeds = higher impact protection requirements). Increased safety also demands reduced driver error by increasing driver comfort (witness water cooled F1 driving suits, mandatory A/C in Le Mans racing for 2006). A/C is a boon to any driver who has had to drive long distances or under competitive conditions.
So, back to the original question. With all the above in mind, the "RS" characteristics are evolving in terms of *the means to the same end*. But to discuss the RS, we must discuss the newest genre of Porsches... the GT3. The GT3 is, without a doubt, the first generation of Porsche's new foray into competitive road cars optimised as focussed drivers cars with the same objectives of better performance, better handling, and greater economy of driver input. In fact, to go one step further, the GT3 was engineered with the race track firmly in mind, hence the GT3 race series. The dilemma is that the method in which Porsche went about achieving the same objectives via the GT3 jarred the sensitivities of diehard RS-fans who were misty-eyed about the RSes of old. Given the capabilities and ethos of the GT3, questions of whether the "RS" is just a marketing ploy is highly plausible.
Has the "RS" badge been surpassed by the GT3? The difference between an RS and a regular production car is now far less given the GT3. New RSes are only a marginal increase of the envelope of what the GT3 achieves... (ahem, "GT3 RS"
. They are an exclamation point to what is Porsche's greatest modern car, to implement the very best of what they are capable of engineering, and a good excuse for them to push the marketing envelope to leverage hallowed brands. And why not? More money for Porsche benefits us all in continuous development of our favourite cars...
>> Edited by polarexpress on Friday 10th February 10:37
>> Edited by polarexpress on Friday 10th February 10:43
The impact of technology cannot, however, be underestimated.
The technology in the early '70s meant that engineers resorted to removing weight to make the car lighter in order to improve performance. This is the cheapest and most economical way for what were road/production cars (although limited in number). The trade off is that cars were quiet crude (aka "unfiltered driving experience" and "pure" for diehard drivers who didn't care about personal comfort).
The technology in the early '90s followed the successful ingredients of the '70s but added technologically more complex items like thinner glass, more advanced engines and transmission componentry over their "normal" road brethren. Interestingly, Porsche felt it necessary to offer more luxurious (heavy) items like leather interiors, A/C as driver comfort became a more important issue. Perhaps this was a sign that the profile of the target driver was changing: hardcore drivers who might have settled for string backed driving gloves 20 years earlier now preferred nomex lined suede gloves.
The advance into the 21st century has proven no different, but the immense advance in technology (think 5.25/3.5" floppy disks of the early '90s vs. 200gb floating head hard drives today) has given Porsche engineers a LOT more options in achieving the desired objectives of increased performance, better handling, and increased economy of driver input (reduced driver fatigue = greater safety). Witness the usage of carbon/plastic composite materials, increasingly cheaper metals like titanium, hollowed components achievable through advanced laser CNC manufacturing processes, flow/hydroform components etc. Computing power has enabled the exponential use of computerised dynamic modelling to simulate/analyse real world driving dynamics without having to go through the entire manufacturing process. The advance in componentry has benefitted the broader auto supply industry at large, and it has allowed fewer compromises in driver comfort and safety.
This last point is critical as the previous generations that focused on wholesale weight reduction is now a thing of the past. Porsche have worked hard on reducing weight *where it most counts* as in reducing the weight of moving parts core to the efficiency of the engine. In my mind, this type of weight reduction is far more complex and admirable for the engineering excellence that Porsche can imlpement/enable in their road cars. Increased focus on driver safety means a focus on structural rigidity (higher speeds = higher impact protection requirements). Increased safety also demands reduced driver error by increasing driver comfort (witness water cooled F1 driving suits, mandatory A/C in Le Mans racing for 2006). A/C is a boon to any driver who has had to drive long distances or under competitive conditions.
So, back to the original question. With all the above in mind, the "RS" characteristics are evolving in terms of *the means to the same end*. But to discuss the RS, we must discuss the newest genre of Porsches... the GT3. The GT3 is, without a doubt, the first generation of Porsche's new foray into competitive road cars optimised as focussed drivers cars with the same objectives of better performance, better handling, and greater economy of driver input. In fact, to go one step further, the GT3 was engineered with the race track firmly in mind, hence the GT3 race series. The dilemma is that the method in which Porsche went about achieving the same objectives via the GT3 jarred the sensitivities of diehard RS-fans who were misty-eyed about the RSes of old. Given the capabilities and ethos of the GT3, questions of whether the "RS" is just a marketing ploy is highly plausible.
Has the "RS" badge been surpassed by the GT3? The difference between an RS and a regular production car is now far less given the GT3. New RSes are only a marginal increase of the envelope of what the GT3 achieves... (ahem, "GT3 RS"
. They are an exclamation point to what is Porsche's greatest modern car, to implement the very best of what they are capable of engineering, and a good excuse for them to push the marketing envelope to leverage hallowed brands. And why not? More money for Porsche benefits us all in continuous development of our favourite cars... >> Edited by polarexpress on Friday 10th February 10:37
>> Edited by polarexpress on Friday 10th February 10:43
domster said:
I have even seen a 964RS at the ring that had been customised to include drilled door handles, saving the weight of a few ounces of swarf...
What's wrong with that....I sourced a lightweight childseat for the RS...every little bit of weight saved helps.
FWIW, I drove a GT3 RS a couple of weeks ago and was able to give it some beans, albeit not as hard as I'd like through the bends. Sure, it felt heavier than the 964 RS, but that same old grinding diff/sharp turn-in/normally aspriated poke in the back/go-kart feel was still there - certainly a car worthy of the RS badge IMHO
johnny senna said:To be fair though Johnny, the GT3RS isn't really significantly lighter than a 'standard' GT3. Once you spec aircon (as most did) the only lighter parts are the carbon bonnet and rear wing, plastic rear window and lighter flywheel. Then add in the weight of the roll cage ...
An RS needs to be lighter than a standard 911. The GT3 was heavier than a standard 996 despite all the (very extensive) go faster changes. The GT3 RS only earned its RS stripes once it had lost some weight.
Referring back to the original post, I think there may be some truth that the 997RS may be a marketing ploy in some respects.
In the area that matters for an RS compared to it's 997 peers I am sure it will have perhaps the best normally aspirated 911 production engine we have seen up to now and an increase in mechanical grip over the 996 GT3RS.
For the RS purists amongst us I think it may well disappoint slightly, apart from technology I think this is mainly due to the accountants.
For example on previous RS even comfort versions an expensive aluminium bonnet was fitted.....ok it saved "some" weight but added to RS kudos in the track day pit more than anything.
We can see a good example of marketing ploy with the Gt3RS....NO I didn't specifically mean the paint job!
e.g. Taken from Porsches own technical bulletin on GT3RS,
"Front Hood; The front hood is only painted on the outside and is manufactured from the material CFRP (carbon fibre reinforced plastic). The inside is finished in carbon look. The Porsche emblem is adhered on in film form."
"Engine compartment lid; The engine compartment lid is as on the GT3 model.On this the large carbon look rear wing is mounted.
"Rearview mirrors, the rear view mirrors are finished in carbon look."
So the accountants opted for carbon look components on a GT3RS, if you have electric windows and other luxuries in the car does this really matter?
It does seem a bit of a marketing ploy to me, I wouldn't expect RUF to fit carbon look components for a second and I am sure it's valued clintele would be happy to pay up for proper carbon components at the relevant cost.
A Gt3RS made to a purists spec would never have made got past the accountants in these times, so I doubt the 997RS will be any different in that respect.
* I am a huge fan of the GT3RS, a car I have driven and aspire to own oneday, would leave the carbon look components on as Porche intended
In the area that matters for an RS compared to it's 997 peers I am sure it will have perhaps the best normally aspirated 911 production engine we have seen up to now and an increase in mechanical grip over the 996 GT3RS.
For the RS purists amongst us I think it may well disappoint slightly, apart from technology I think this is mainly due to the accountants.
For example on previous RS even comfort versions an expensive aluminium bonnet was fitted.....ok it saved "some" weight but added to RS kudos in the track day pit more than anything.
We can see a good example of marketing ploy with the Gt3RS....NO I didn't specifically mean the paint job!
e.g. Taken from Porsches own technical bulletin on GT3RS,
"Front Hood; The front hood is only painted on the outside and is manufactured from the material CFRP (carbon fibre reinforced plastic). The inside is finished in carbon look. The Porsche emblem is adhered on in film form."
"Engine compartment lid; The engine compartment lid is as on the GT3 model.On this the large carbon look rear wing is mounted.
"Rearview mirrors, the rear view mirrors are finished in carbon look."
So the accountants opted for carbon look components on a GT3RS, if you have electric windows and other luxuries in the car does this really matter?
It does seem a bit of a marketing ploy to me, I wouldn't expect RUF to fit carbon look components for a second and I am sure it's valued clintele would be happy to pay up for proper carbon components at the relevant cost.
A Gt3RS made to a purists spec would never have made got past the accountants in these times, so I doubt the 997RS will be any different in that respect.
* I am a huge fan of the GT3RS, a car I have driven and aspire to own oneday, would leave the carbon look components on as Porche intended
Clubsport,
I too, Paul, really like the GT3 RS. It is one of only a very few cars that I would consider swapping my 993 RS for. They look like rude value as well. They will be extraordinary value when the 997 version comes out. The best bit about the 996 GT3 RS is the engine. I love the way that on rolling roads they all seem to make 400-405 BHP. Great power unit. If I had one of those in the back of my car I would be in heaven.
I too, Paul, really like the GT3 RS. It is one of only a very few cars that I would consider swapping my 993 RS for. They look like rude value as well. They will be extraordinary value when the 997 version comes out. The best bit about the 996 GT3 RS is the engine. I love the way that on rolling roads they all seem to make 400-405 BHP. Great power unit. If I had one of those in the back of my car I would be in heaven.
Gassing Station | Porsche General | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff