A small but really annoying design disappointment from Porsche on the 991 Cab.

1) had soft top down, wind breaker up
2) my passenger chair titled a little bit more than usual.
3) stopped, try to put the roof up... and bang

surprise.
The Wind Deflector gets caught in the hook of the seat, pulls the hook out, and causes almost like an incision (but not really ripped) in the leather.
Any thoughts on leather conditioning (eg a paste / fluid)?

I was so upset i couldn't speak for a whole night. Hurt & painful!


All Porsche had to do is ensure that upon a certain tilt angle of the seat, the wind deflector cannot be operated.

 

btw don't try this at home - as the wind deflector is unstoppable and pulls with huge force - it will damage your seat, even if it meets obstacles (probably thinks it's "windy")

 

Thanks for the heads up, I've got short legs so should never have that problem but I'll keep an eye on my passenger seat.

 

Wow, thanks i'll keep that in mind. Also there is no sensor stopping the wind deflector from opening when someone is in the backseat. I recognize this mistake is unlikely to be made but Porsche should install one anyway.

 

I'd be surprised if there isn't any...otherwise Porsche would've screwed up big time. I'm assuming there're sensor built in the seats or at least when the seat belts are on.

 

I had my two girls in the back seat and activated the deflector no issue. Lucky for them they can sit under it No child booster seats in at the time - I know slightly irresponsible but it was a weekend test drive and they wanted to be part of it.

 

I was at the dealership testing this and I sat in the back seat with the seat belt on and the deflector still worked. The dealership didn't realize this as well and were as surprised as I was.

 

Hi!

If you put your fingers on the side bar while closing the door ... there isn´t a sensor as well ..... please .... owning a Porsche doesn´t mean to disable the brain ....

no offend .... but I heard that in american manuals you can find the advice not to put the cat inside the washer and so on ....


Best regards
Gregor

 

^ This ^

 

I heard as well that in the next issue of the american Porsche manuals you can find an entry which say not to stand at the front of the car while your wife starts the engine and put PDK to D ..... because there is no sensor at the front bumper ....

ouhh ... there is already a sensor ?? .... now you know why


Gregor

 

At such times, the familiar expression of law enforcement comes to mind: "I'm sorry for your loss, but..."

I am sorry you damaged the seat, really I am, but I have to say that I wish your considering it a design flaw were not so common among car owners. I really enjoyed reading my car's manual in the days when it said something. These days, every page is three-quarters filled with warnings and notices, and the occasional 'summary' even has to have a warning that it does not include the warnings and notices.

As for myself, I'd rather people were more careful -- and juries were not so gullible -- so I could read how my car works without being forced to wade through all the warnings about how this tool can be used wrong, like every other tool in this world.

For the record, the warning about this particular wrong way to use your car is on page seventy of the owners manual.

Gary

 

Could have bet an answer like yours was going to be on the cards.

By the way - did you read and "register" in your mind this detail before my forum post? I doubt it. The manual is like an encyclopedia.

Sure, one could argue "RTFM"... but i think it's a small design flaw because the system should be smart enough to prevent such an incident - simply because this isn't "common sense" (1) and (2) this function could cause damage to the car. It's the same reasons why the steering wheel cannot be turned endlessly or why the roof does not function above 60miles / hr.

Porsche has done well many other small details (such as - being unable to lock your car with key-less entry when the keys are inside the car) but missed it here......

 

PS - the tone of my last post is light / friendly (i know it could come across differently) - but anyway... just saying out of courtesy

 

I did actually. When I read your post, that paragraph came to mind. I didn't respond immediately because I had to spend half an hour finding it again and I couldn't spare the time until later.

On the other hand, I spent a career having to read engineering specifications whose "executive summary" was likely to be the size of a Porsche owners manual. I don't expect everyone to wade into a manual as I do as a matter of habit. I don't think buyers should have to do that.

My first objection is to the ratio of warnings/notices to real text. Almost anyone staggers to a halt after the fourth repetition of some phrase the lawyers decided has to be included each time a particular operation is mentioned. I think it's something like six times I read that a person or animal can be crushed when the powered seats or the top or the windstop are operated. And the engine gets hot! No kidding. What a shocker. That high a ratio of warnings to real instruction gets in the way of communication. As you say, "the manual is like an encyclopedia" but it should not be. Reduced to actual instruction in the use of the car systems, it would take less than forty pages.

My second objection is to the absolute number of the warnings. Someone remarked sarcastically that a warning is planned to caution us against standing in front of the car when it is put in gear. The problem is societal I know, but that doesn't change my annoyance at having to read through a page of crap to get a simple explanation of a switch just because some twit in Cucamonga might keep his Fabergé egg collection behind the passenger seat.

So I really am sorry you tore your leather, but my biggest objection of all is to the attitude that creates those objectionable conditions. The societal notion that designers should prevent us making mistakes "because they can." To design a device for great and glorious purposes or a mundane but useful life is hard enough. To insist it be designed to prevent every mistake someone somewhere might make is impossible, and the mere goal of moving in that direction as far as practical stifles design and innovation. It is sufficient -- and difficult enough -- to design to prevent mistakes that arise from transfer of experience. That is to protect us against injury because of habits learned on other devices or from the learning experiences of growing to adulthood.

We need to decide our personal judgment is sufficient and our devices need only avoid booby traps that a reasonable thoughtful person cannot avoid. Knifes cut, fires burn, and powered moving objects crush, break, or tear whatever gets in their way.

I honestly don't consider that problem with the seat to be a booby trap, though I understand your opinion will be different.

Gary

 

Thank you for the comprehensive reply.

Agree on most points, we're not too far away in opinions - but ask yourself another question:

Would you have noticed this problem if you didn't read the full manual and only the quick start?

I was used to just pull the button to bring back the top, without having to "check" how far back the seat is inclined. Even if I checked - how would i know the maximum incline...

Ah and whilst we're on this topic. Why Porsche changed the buttons just for the soft top functions I also don't get. Yes, i know they are mimicking a natural behavior but it's really uncomfortable to have to keep pressing the top whilst driving. Oh and putting it up it's also really uncomfortable - in terms of the usability buttons.