981 CGTS vs 718 CGTS 4.0 steering

[James McScotty]

Schmed said:

Interesting vid.

I believe the 981 GT4's EPAS is a dialled down version from the other 981's so that you get more feedback through the steering wheel.

Strange that Steve Sutcliffe amongst others had no issues with the 718 GT4 steering throughout his track test of the car.

Also the 981 GT4 has the front suspension from the GT3, so I guess that might alter things in comparison to other 981s?

Steve Sutcliffe described the 981 GTS steering as "delicious".

[James McScotty]

Porsche911R said:

It’s seems on this thread knowing what the car is doing is not high up on the list of importance to a big % of owners.
So it will be the forever debate like the manual VS PDK debates which go round in circles, and now the much long gearing which again spits opinion for the last 20 years , Now only just become an issue !!! As it a sheep fashion to point it out these days.
You either turn a blind eye on all these issues or not I guess.

The voice of reason.

[James McScotty]

Porsche911R said:

The 991.1 and 981 cars were not good enough for me on a personal level to enjoy or push especially when it was wet.

It's never a good idea to "push" in a mid-engine Porsche on public roads in the wet.

Mid-engine cars have a tendency to snap oversteer, which is difficult to control or catch.

[James McScotty]

dunc_sx said:

Depends which ones, Cayman's are easy going in terms of manners in any conditions.

In fact any mid engine I've owned has been easily controlled imo

Dunc.

Snap oversteer is a handling characteristic of all mid engine cars. It's due to the low moment of inertia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mid-engine_design#Dr...

[James McScotty]

bcr5784 said:

That's definitely an oversimplication. Yes the lower moment of inertia makes it more difficult to make them benign - but modern stability controls outweigh that. Hot hatches of the past such as the first GTI Golfs or Peugeot 205s are FAR more likely to swap ends than the best modern mid engined cars (ask me how I know!) Even with everything switched off my A110 is more benign than those early hatches. Engineering development (as the 911 shows!) can outweigh basic weigh distribution issues.

Once grip is broken, stability aids have no effect.

It's simple physics that mid engine cars rotate faster than front or rear engine, it's also why they turn in faster as well as spin.

[James McScotty]

bcr5784 said:

No one is denying the laws of physics (Jim)!
You are assuming that when the rear starts to step out grip is "broken" - it isn't. Beyond a certain slip angle grip reduces, it doesn't suddenly disappear. It's perfectly possible to drive a RWD car round in circles on full opposite lock - people do it in autotests all the time. So while it is a simple law of physics that a mid engined car (whether front mid or rear mid for that matter) will have a lower moment of inertia to suggest it will defacto be more difficult to catch is simply not true.The setup, the suspension geometry and the tyre characteristices all affect the issue massively. You might expect from moment of interia considerations that any FWD would be benign - tell that to anyone who races serious FWD cars.

Edited by bcr5784 on Thursday 12th November 08:16

It's clearly never happened to you.

I don't think anyone disputes that break away is much more progressive and predictable in front- or rear-engine cars, hence easier to catch. The corollary is a faster turn-in. No such thing as a free lunch.

[James McScotty]

Everything else being equal, mid engine cars rotate faster than other cars. It's kind-of the whole point, for handling.

Front and rear engine cars rotate more slowly. It's physics,

[James McScotty]

bcr5784 said:

Isn't that what I actually said?

I think you were saying you're a brilliant driver.

What I'm taking about is the physics of mid engine cars when grip runs out.