Crown

Spyderidol:

They had a once-in-a-lifetime chance of freeing themselves from the 911 straight jacket by opting for a mid-engine car. The opportunity would then have arisen to produce a road going version with racing pedigree. A real Fe-Fi .

The 911 is not a straight jacket, it is a blessing. This is what you don't seem to realize. Porsche made the mistake once (928), never again.

Instead they opted to continue with the 911 ...but....decided to move the engine and gearbox, thus making it no longer a true 911.

What 911 did you drive again?  

Then they had the chance to show-off and further develop their already substantial turbo chops...but ...instead they decided to stick to a NA engine...even though both Ferrari and Ford have turbo engines. Both these makes will carry a lot of weight in "influencing" future rules ...especially around turbo's.

Here, I agree but I am happy Porsche stuck to the n/a engines...

I don't get it at all...but that's why I'm just a fan and not a Porsche Motorsport genius.

Also probably (not sure) no 911 driver.  To appreciate the 911, you need to own/drive one. However, the love doesn't always come on first sight. My first 911, a 993, was a disappointment and my real love started actually with the 996 Turbo. See? A turbo. 

RC (Germany) - Rennteam Editor Porsche 991 Carrera 4 GTS Cabriolet, Porsche Macan Turbo, Ford Mustang GT500 Shelby SVT (2014), Mini JCW (2015), Jeep Grand Cherokee SRT (2014)

RC:

Spyderidol:

They had a once-in-a-lifetime chance of freeing themselves from the 911 straight jacket by opting for a mid-engine car. The opportunity would then have arisen to produce a road going version with racing pedigree. A real Fe-Fi .

The 911 is not a straight jacket, it is a blessing. This is what you don't seem to realize. Porsche made the mistake once (928), never again.

It is a straight jacket in racing terms. That is what you don't seem to realize.

Instead they opted to continue with the 911 ...but....decided to move the engine and gearbox, thus making it no longer a true 911.

What 911 did you drive again?  

 

Are you telling me the engine and gearbox placement of a 911 is not one of it  main characteristics.?

I was sitting in a 911 by the age of 7 and did so for all of my life until I moved from my family . I am now 56. You?

Then they had the chance to show-off and further develop their already substantial turbo chops...but ...instead they decided to stick to a NA engine...even though both Ferrari and Ford have turbo engines. Both these makes will carry a lot of weight in "influencing" future rules ...especially around turbo's.

Here, I agree but I am happy Porsche stuck to the n/a engines...

I don't get it at all...but that's why I'm just a fan and not a Porsche Motorsport genius.

Also probably (not sure) no 911 driver.  To appreciate the 911, you need to own/drive one. However, the love doesn't always come on first sight. My first 911, a 993, was a disappointment and my real love started actually with the 996 Turbo. See? A turbo. 

You once again misunderstand. This is not about not appreciating the 911 . It is about the best Motorsport tool to beat the competition. If the 911 is the one, then so be it. If it is not, then get the right one.

Spyderidol:

RC:

Spyderidol:

They had a once-in-a-lifetime chance of freeing themselves from the 911 straight jacket by opting for a mid-engine car. The opportunity would then have arisen to produce a road going version with racing pedigree. A real Fe-Fi .

The 911 is not a straight jacket, it is a blessing. This is what you don't seem to realize. Porsche made the mistake once (928), never again.

It is a straight jacket in racing terms. That is what you don't seem to realize.

I understood you very well but how do you expect Porsche to sell 911 street legal cars without the motorsport background, which is still quite a sales argument for Porsche.

Instead they opted to continue with the 911 ...but....decided to move the engine and gearbox, thus making it no longer a true 911.

What 911 did you drive again?  

 

Are you telling me the engine and gearbox placement of a 911 is not one of it  main characteristics.?

I was sitting in a 911 by the age of 7 and did so for all of my life until I moved from my family . I am now 56. You?

I wasn't asking in which car you were/are sitting. I was asking what car you are driving? 

Well, a true 911 needs to have a rear engine, everything else (seems) to be debatable. 
 

Then they had the chance to show-off and further develop their already substantial turbo chops...but ...instead they decided to stick to a NA engine...even though both Ferrari and Ford have turbo engines. Both these makes will carry a lot of weight in "influencing" future rules ...especially around turbo's.

Here, I agree but I am happy Porsche stuck to the n/a engines...

I don't get it at all...but that's why I'm just a fan and not a Porsche Motorsport genius.

Also probably (not sure) no 911 driver.  To appreciate the 911, you need to own/drive one. However, the love doesn't always come on first sight. My first 911, a 993, was a disappointment and my real love started actually with the 996 Turbo. See? A turbo. 

You once again misunderstand. This is not about not appreciating the 911 . It is about the best Motorsport tool to beat the competition. If the 911 is the one, then so be it. If it is not, then get the right one.

I understood you very well but the 911 is the Porsche used in Motorsports, some sort of Motorsports icon, even if there are and were maybe even more prestigious models which may or may not have gotten enough attention. 

If Porsche really wanted to enter Motorsports big time, they could enter the Formula One (which would be a huge mistake in my opinion but...). Their attempts in the past were quite successful but nowadays, the competition is pretty strong (and loaded with huge budgets) and they need to think very well about their racing involvements. Porsche cannot afford to lose in a prestigious racing series...

RC (Germany) - Rennteam Editor Porsche 991 Carrera 4 GTS Cabriolet, Porsche Macan Turbo, Ford Mustang GT500 Shelby SVT (2014), Mini JCW (2015), Jeep Grand Cherokee SRT (2014)

RC, I actually agree with Spyderidol.

1. Your first point far transcends the motorsport angle because it goes to the heart of their product strategy and  achievable price points. The question is this: is there enough profitable room for a model above the 911 (and far below the 918 supercar), in other words a mid-engine car to compete with the likes 488, R8 and Huracan. The price of the 488 at just above € 200k is a huge challenge for Porsche, because a mid-engine car in the same league would need to be substantially more expensive to justify its existence. This is probably where the curtain came down within the VW group, and the VW brass did not want an in-house competitor for the R8/Huracan.

2. I am a die-hard 911 enthusiast and I have had a whole plethora of them, incuding the current 991 GT3 RS. However, its iconic shape and configuration are associated with a number of very fundamental drawbacks (in addition to some inherent advantages like traction) which Porsche has been striving to neutralize. The most obvious remaining one is weight distribution. Moving the engine and gearbox forward, and having to get a waiver for that from the FIA/ACO, is an indirect admisson of the 911 inherent limitations.

3. In the GT3 privateer class, the GT3 R wil remain NA for the time being anyway, so GT3/NA enthusiasts will get get what they are clamoring for. That does not mean that in the top GTE works categrory, sticking with NA is the right thing to do.

4. What is wrong with turbos anyway from a brand/marketing perspective, if most of your own product line is turbo and the competition has gone turbo as well?

Thank you Ollie.

1 -The fact that the GTE car would not be based on a 911 does in no way mean that the 911 would not have a motorsport background.  As Ollie explained in his point #3

2 - You make many assumptions based on no knowledge base. I have driven many of them. 

You cant make a rear engined car without putting the gear box before it.

3 - If you think F1 is the only big time Motorsport, then I'm afraid you are completely out of your depth in this discussion.

Just for information: http://www.grandprix247.com/2016/02/24/wec-for-porsche-and-audi-more-expensive-than-f1/

"In an interview announcing that his company has no interest in entering Formula 1 in it’s current state of flux, VW Group motorsport boss chief Wolfgang Durheimer also revealed that the company’s World Endurance Championship (WEC) campaigns for Audi and Porsche cost more than running a F1 team."

there is no doubt that porsche would choose a midengined configuration for motorsport if they could start from scratch and without the burden of having a marketing need of tying the 911 to motorsport. for us non-professional drivers this means little though. we have a choice now...good thing.

Between the torque of turbo engines and balance of mid-engined layout, which do you think Porsche needs more?  Seems the current GT3 Rs have a hard time winning races.  In Long Beach this past weekend, a Cadillac beat a McLaren for the win, with a works driver in a GT3 R as third.

I am not so sure mid engine is needed to be competitive.

The only advantage of a mid engine layout is that it is inherently unstable and can change directions easier.

The advantage of a rear engine layout is that it has great traction on acceleration, so it can put the power down earlier than in other layouts for corner exits, downside is that the front is relatively light and hampers turn-ins. But that's what weight transfers are for.

Going turbo will I guess would magnify the advantage of a rear engine layout, much more torque can be put down on corner exits.

But a race car design is much more than this simple things, I suspect the Motorsports cars are just not as well sorted or designed.

Whoopsy:

The only advantage of a mid engine layout is that it is inherently unstable and can change directions easier.

Eeh, what?  Could you elaborate on that please.

2015 981 Cayman GT4 | White | Full Bucket Seats | Sport Chrono
2014 991 Carrera 4S | Dark Blue Metallic | PDK | Sport Chrono | SPASM

If I remember right there was an old post from Futch explaning real life differences between the 458 and the GT3RSR. I believe he said that there was a world of difference in terms of balance and how easy one was vs the other. That is not the same as one being faster than the other, but I understood this so that one has to be a) a damn good driver to drive the GT3R as fast as the 458 and b) the risk of mistakes are higher in the GT3R ... Edit GT3 RSR. 

Could be interesting to have your view Futch.

bluelines:

Whoopsy:

The only advantage of a mid engine layout is that it is inherently unstable and can change directions easier.

Eeh, what?  Could you elaborate on that please.

Low polar moment of inertia. It likes to change direction easily. Doesn't take much to rotate the car.

Saying it is inherently unstable is not a negative description. Just describing the fact.

Best description is supermarket shopping cart. Empty but with a case of pop. Where the case is on the cart makes a big difference to how the cart handles.

Put it in the front and the cart is hard to turn, put it in the rear it will be easier to turn, but it in the middle and the cart is also easier to turn, but sometimes it just yaw instead of turning. So basically the cart is wobbling on it's trajectory.

Porsche are the best to exploit loopholes. The choice of engine has not been confirmed yet but the new RSR will be mid engined. Think cayman chassis with a 911 body. Many waivers will indeed be used. And no, Mid engined is not unstable at all, on the contrary. The 911 platform has reached its limit and porsche knows it. It needs a radical change to compete in the GTE class. The car is fast thanks to a good BOP and/or wet weather. 

It's not the first mid engined 911 anyway, porsche won in 98 with the 911GT1. 

The rest of the 911 race cars will remain rear engined, the cup and the GT3R. 

Thanks Futch!

Whoopsy:

bluelines:

Whoopsy:

The only advantage of a mid engine layout is that it is inherently unstable and can change directions easier.

Eeh, what?  Could you elaborate on that please.

 

Low polar moment of inertia. It likes to change direction easily. Doesn't take much to rotate the car.

Saying it is inherently unstable is not a negative description. Just describing the fact.

Best description is supermarket shopping cart. Empty but with a case of pop. Where the case is on the cart makes a big difference to how the cart handles.

Put it in the front and the cart is hard to turn, put it in the rear it will be easier to turn, but it in the middle and the cart is also easier to turn, but sometimes it just yaw instead of turning. So basically the cart is wobbling on it's trajectory.

Ok, yes. Got all that  I was just not clear with the term "inherently unstable". I think the word we are looking for is "agile" 

2015 981 Cayman GT4 | White | Full Bucket Seats | Sport Chrono
2014 991 Carrera 4S | Dark Blue Metallic | PDK | Sport Chrono | SPASM

bluelines:

Whoopsy:

bluelines:

Whoopsy:

The only advantage of a mid engine layout is that it is inherently unstable and can change directions easier.

Eeh, what?  Could you elaborate on that please.

 

Low polar moment of inertia. It likes to change direction easily. Doesn't take much to rotate the car.

Saying it is inherently unstable is not a negative description. Just describing the fact.

Best description is supermarket shopping cart. Empty but with a case of pop. Where the case is on the cart makes a big difference to how the cart handles.

Put it in the front and the cart is hard to turn, put it in the rear it will be easier to turn, but it in the middle and the cart is also easier to turn, but sometimes it just yaw instead of turning. So basically the cart is wobbling on it's trajectory.

Ok, yes. Got all that  I was just not clear with the term "inherently unstable". I think the word we are looking for is "agile" 

I purposely didn't use that word, didn't want to give you a bigger head, it's already too big.

bluelines:

Whoopsy:

The only advantage of a mid engine layout is that it is inherently unstable and can change directions easier.

Eeh, what?  Could you elaborate on that please.

Whoopsy, you just did my day  

The cool thing about a 911 is that it is either inherently unstable (foot off the gas) or very stable (foot on the gas).  The thing that comes with time is having the balls and forethought to make the car stable even in the face of a scary situation (pressing the gas when scared instead of the brake).

16 Cayman GT4, 73 Carrera RS 2.7 Carbon Fiber replica (1,890 lbs), 06 EVO9 with track mods. Former: 73 911S, Two 951S's, 996 C2, 993 C2, 98 Ferrari 550, 79 635CSi

Grant:

The thing that comes with time is having the balls and forethought to make the car stable even in the face of a scary situation (pressing the gas when scared instead of the brake).

+911  

olli:

RC, I actually agree with Spyderidol.

1. Your first point far transcends the motorsport angle because it goes to the heart of their product strategy and  achievable price points. The question is this: is there enough profitable room for a model above the 911 (and far below the 918 supercar), in other words a mid-engine car to compete with the likes 488, R8 and Huracan. The price of the 488 at just above € 200k is a huge challenge for Porsche, because a mid-engine car in the same league would need to be substantially more expensive to justify its existence. This is probably where the curtain came down within the VW group, and the VW brass did not want an in-house competitor for the R8/Huracan.

2. I am a die-hard 911 enthusiast and I have had a whole plethora of them, incuding the current 991 GT3 RS. However, its iconic shape and configuration are associated with a number of very fundamental drawbacks (in addition to some inherent advantages like traction) which Porsche has been striving to neutralize. The most obvious remaining one is weight distribution. Moving the engine and gearbox forward, and having to get a waiver for that from the FIA/ACO, is an indirect admisson of the 911 inherent limitations.

3. In the GT3 privateer class, the GT3 R wil remain NA for the time being anyway, so GT3/NA enthusiasts will get get what they are clamoring for. That does not mean that in the top GTE works categrory, sticking with NA is the right thing to do.

4. What is wrong with turbos anyway from a brand/marketing perspective, if most of your own product line is turbo and the competition has gone turbo as well?

Very well put Olli, and I agree 100%.

2003 BMW M3 CSL (sold) / 2008 Porsche 911 GT3 RS / 2013 MINI John Cooper Works GP / 2014 BMW Alpina D3 biturbo Touring

When I saw Nick's comment that the mid-engine was inherently unstable I honesty felt it was a typo. He has too much experience with cars to make such a generalized statement. Maybe he was thinking of something else?

Of little, to make much: That is the dream of a human life.

nberry:

When I saw Nick's comment that the mid-engine was inherently unstable I honesty felt it was a typo. He has too much experience with cars to make such a generalized statement. Maybe he was thinking of something else?

All other things being equal, mid-engined cars are in fact inherently more stable when compared with front- or rear-engined cars.
Nevertheless, they do have a reputation for being a potential handful  -  particularly in the hands of the unwary  -  due to the fact that their high inherent stability results in them not signalling so clearly in advance that they are about to "let go", and when they do let go it is consequently at a higher speed and likely at both ends around the same time, making them that much more difficult to catch. 

fritz

nberry:

When I saw Nick's comment that the mid-engine was inherently unstable I honesty felt it was a typo. He has too much experience with cars to make such a generalized statement. Maybe he was thinking of something else?

As you can see above, I avoid using the word 'agile'.

But yeah, mid engine cars are more adapt at changing directions, be it intended or not, simply due to physics, with all the weight in the middle.

fritz:

nberry:

When I saw Nick's comment that the mid-engine was inherently unstable I honesty felt it was a typo. He has too much experience with cars to make such a generalized statement. Maybe he was thinking of something else?

All other things being equal, mid-engined cars are in fact inherently more stable when compared with front- or rear-engined cars.
Nevertheless, they do have a reputation for being a potential handful  -  particularly in the hands of the unwary  -  due to the fact that their high inherent stability results in them not signalling so clearly in advance that they are about to "let go", and when they do let go it is consequently at a higher speed and likely at both ends around the same time, making them that much more difficult to catch. 

Makes sense. I suspect Nick was thinking along the same lines.

Of little, to make much: That is the dream of a human life.

There is also another big issue with the rear engine car: The current GTE rules allow very large diffusers in the rear. These make a huge difference to the aero. The 911 (in its current format) is unable to fit such a large diffuser.

very good point. note that they have already put a half-hearted diffuser in the R and on the GT2RS mule.

peter

this is actually the 2015 car, but I think one gets the general drift ..

The Ford GT diffuser is impressive!

Maybe it can be used to other things than just being a diffuser?

Here is a better angle to show the Aston WEC diffuser and the space needed.