Quote:
Rossi said:Quote:
MAVERICK said:Quote:
Crash said:
The 997TT just isn't designed with the Nring in mind anymore it would seem.
With what in mind is it now designed?
To be the egg-laying-wool-milk-pig from Porsche.
Apr 22, 2007 12:20:40 AM
Apr 22, 2007 12:24:04 AM
Quote:
SoCalHoosier said:
Dare I say it? Porsche has made the 997TT faster in a straight line at lower speeds. Thus the happy consumer reaction.
Isn't this what the Vette was good at? Now it seems that GM is breeding their cars to go fast on the ring while Porsche goes drag racing.
Quote:
aah986 said:Quote:
KresoF1 said:
...and von Saurma achieved 7.56min in 996tt!
Horst von Saurma is excellent driver and I trust him.
Do you know how many laps W.Rohrl needed to achive that 7.49min? Better not to ask...
Sure, your excellent driver achieved the same time in a car with less weight, 60 hp more and almost 100 ft/lb of torque more (that's 120 Nm for you), explain that to me, maybe he woke up on the wrong foot that day
Quote:
Crash said:Quote:
Rossi said:Quote:
MAVERICK said:Quote:
Crash said:
The 997TT just isn't designed with the Nring in mind anymore it would seem.
With what in mind is it now designed?
To be the egg-laying-wool-milk-pig from Porsche.
Well, yes .
Maverick, the 997TT is still an awesome car, both on country roads and on the Autobahn.
Quote:
MKSGR said:Quote:
Crash said:Quote:
Rossi said:Quote:
MAVERICK said:Quote:
Crash said:
The 997TT just isn't designed with the Nring in mind anymore it would seem.
With what in mind is it now designed?
To be the egg-laying-wool-milk-pig from Porsche.
Well, yes .
Maverick, the 997TT is still an awesome car, both on country roads and on the Autobahn.
The guys who developed the 997TT without keeping a close eye on the NBR/track performance should be fired immediately. If the developers were forced to focus on other objectives (and making the car slower) during development of the car those who forced them should be fired instead.
One thing is for sure: every manufacturer, if not run by complete idiots, should be aware of the testing practices of the car press. It is widely known, not only in this forum, that track performance of new cars is tested and published nowadays. How could Porsche miss that important point? Very, very strange. As said above some people at Porsche should get fired
Quote:
eclou said:
Von Saurma's time is 6 seconds slower than Walter's official time and 14 seconds slower than the Motortrend test. I would tend to view the fastest (MT) and slowest (SA) figures as outliers. SA's number should be judged against other SA tests. For example, SA's GT3/RS numbers of 7:48 are also slower than the official Porsche GT3/RS ring times of 7:39 and 7:42, a difference of 6 seconds on the RS.
This reminds me of the differences between dynamometer measurements. They are best used for comparisons between the same dyno and the same car over time. Testing parameters would also help explain the discrepancies.
Quote:
eclou said:
Von Saurma's time is 6 seconds slower than Walter's official time and 14 seconds slower than the Motortrend test. I would tend to view the fastest (MT) and slowest (SA) figures as outliers. SA's number should be judged against other SA tests. For example, SA's GT3/RS numbers of 7:48 are also slower than the official Porsche GT3/RS ring times of 7:39 and 7:42, a difference of 6 seconds on the RS.
This reminds me of the differences between dynamometer measurements. They are best used for comparisons between the same dyno and the same car over time. Testing parameters would also help explain the discrepancies.
Quote:
Crash said:Quote:
eclou said:
Von Saurma's time is 6 seconds slower than Walter's official time and 14 seconds slower than the Motortrend test. I would tend to view the fastest (MT) and slowest (SA) figures as outliers. SA's number should be judged against other SA tests. For example, SA's GT3/RS numbers of 7:48 are also slower than the official Porsche GT3/RS ring times of 7:39 and 7:42, a difference of 6 seconds on the RS.
This reminds me of the differences between dynamometer measurements. They are best used for comparisons between the same dyno and the same car over time. Testing parameters would also help explain the discrepancies.
eclou,
I do believe that it is possible for the Turbo to break below 7:50 (as WR did), but if it takes even the driver who was present during development of the car dozens of laps to set a good time, it just doesn't fly IMO.
Quote:
MKSGR said:Quote:
Crash said:Quote:
eclou said:
Von Saurma's time is 6 seconds slower than Walter's official time and 14 seconds slower than the Motortrend test. I would tend to view the fastest (MT) and slowest (SA) figures as outliers. SA's number should be judged against other SA tests. For example, SA's GT3/RS numbers of 7:48 are also slower than the official Porsche GT3/RS ring times of 7:39 and 7:42, a difference of 6 seconds on the RS.
This reminds me of the differences between dynamometer measurements. They are best used for comparisons between the same dyno and the same car over time. Testing parameters would also help explain the discrepancies.
eclou,
I do believe that it is possible for the Turbo to break below 7:50 (as WR did), but if it takes even the driver who was present during development of the car dozens of laps to set a good time, it just doesn't fly IMO.
Even if that was possible: WR would probably also get below 7:50 in a F430 and below 7:45 in a Gallardo then
My point is: we are not complaining about the absolute figure but about the relative performance of this car compared to other sportscars. And there the HvS test results can indeed be compared It's the best objective benchmark available to date
Apr 22, 2007 9:11:39 PM
Quote:
SoCalHoosier said:
You honestly believe that these guys wouldn't know. Or is it the Porsche kool-aid speaking.
Apr 22, 2007 10:11:48 PM
Quote:
Dock (Atlanta) said:Quote:
SoCalHoosier said:
You honestly believe that these guys wouldn't know. Or is it the Porsche kool-aid speaking.
What I do know is that none of us know enough about the test specifics to be able to say anything definitive about the lap time. There are SO many variables that could account for the particular lap time that assuming none of them altered the outcome would be short sighted.
Quote:
KresoF1 said:
7.40min in Motor Trend is pure SF!
Or CRAP; BS or whatever... Motor Trend stuff never get to the Nordschliefe with 997tt. Their time(7.40min) is a pure speculation based on the fact that some Porsche guy told them that new 997tt is faster on Nordschleife then old one.
Come on! Motor Trend journalist faster in 997tt on the Ring then von Saurma or W.Rohrl??!!
Pure SF CRAP IMHO!
Apr 23, 2007 6:40:37 AM
Quote:
Dock (Atlanta) said:Quote:
SoCalHoosier said:
You honestly believe that these guys wouldn't know. Or is it the Porsche kool-aid speaking.
What I do know is that none of us know enough about the test specifics to be able to say anything definitive about the lap time. There are SO many variables that could account for the particular lap time that assuming none of them altered the outcome would be short sighted.
Quote:
mp said:
1. 7'42" 997GT3 RS Sport Auto - Walter Rohrl
2. 7'43" 996GT3 RS - again by WR
Again, no measurable improvement!
As someone else said, Porsche may have reached a plataue. Don't forget, the CGT (basically a racing car) achieved a time of 7'36", marginally better than the 997GT3 RS's 7'39". And don't forget, the CGT is not for amateurs - only racing car drivers need apply (re: Ring). Does that make CGT owners lose sleep at night - surely NOT. But it demonstrates the REALITY of what is achievable vs what we desire.
Quote:
andrea said:Quote:
mp said:
1. 7'42" 997GT3 RS Sport Auto - Walter Rohrl
2. 7'43" 996GT3 RS - again by WR
Again, no measurable improvement!
As someone else said, Porsche may have reached a plataue. Don't forget, the CGT (basically a racing car) achieved a time of 7'36", marginally better than the 997GT3 RS's 7'39". And don't forget, the CGT is not for amateurs - only racing car drivers need apply (re: Ring). Does that make CGT owners lose sleep at night - surely NOT. But it demonstrates the REALITY of what is achievable vs what we desire.
I never heard about 7.39 GT3 RS time....and also 7.42 is too optimistic....