If the 911's rear motor config is so bad.. Please explain this
#31
06-03-2010, 12:20 PM
#32
06-03-2010, 12:34 PM
The disadvantage to a rear weight bias is that the car can become unstable and tend to oversteer when decelerating (whether braking or lifting off the throttle). In turns, this tendency is much more pronounced, to the point that even letting off the throttle slightly while turning can cause the rear tires to suddenly lose grip, and the vehicle to slide rear-first (see lift-off oversteer). When this happens, rotational inertia dictates that the added weight away from the axis of rotation (generally the steering wheels) will be more likely to maintain the spin, especially under braking. This is an inherent instability in the design, making it easier to induce and more difficult to recover from a slide than in a less rear-weight-biased vehicle. All cars regardless of drivetrain layout obey the same laws of physics and can do this, but it is much easier to do and harder to correct in MR and RR vehicles, with the result that many are unsafe to drive to their limits by average drivers (notable examples include the early Porsche 911, earlier years of the Toyota MR2, and the Chevrolet Corvair). A skilled driver, however, can corner faster by taking advantage of this tendency to oversteer, and is also more likely to take turns at a correct speed by braking before turning, and maintaining slight acceleration through the turn. At the end of the turn, the rear weight bias allows for increased rear traction when accelerating, allowing the driver to accelerate sooner, a major advantage in racing.
#33
06-03-2010, 12:40 PM
I see your point, but I will give an alternative scenario which may be of value.
I think that the mistake everyone seems to make is to rely on "The Ring" as some kind of scientific test. My opinion is that it is really a "my dork is bigger than yours" test among manufacturers. The Ring is the most often quoted bunch of numbers amongst forum members, yet it is not a scientific test in the largest areas. The problems include: the ring is huge and has many, many straights (miles of them, in fact). The temps and barometric pressures are different on each test day, and some times are obtained with traffic on the course, whilst others are on a closed day. There is no sanctioning body that conducts the tests and there is no oversight. The car/driver makes the decision on what to report regarding tires and such. No one verifies the cars being stock. I'll stop there, but basically I just blew away the importance of "Ring times". They are cute and fun, as there are lists and lists of those times, but how do we compare times from years apart as well? (current tire technology allows a minivan to keep up with some sports cars from 20 years ago!)
Now, when cars are on same track, same day, same drivers, things shape up differently, don't they?
In C&D, a stock Cayman posted the same (exact) lap times as a stock 911..both S models. Odd, yet true. (barber motorspors park, I believe)
In motor trend, factory Porsche 911 driver Randy Pobst admitted the superiority of a mid engined chassis. (Best Drivers car test) Odd for a guy who makes a living racing the 911 chassis.
In another C&D test a stock 911 gets whomped by a stock M3.
We could also get into the R8 and how many smack downs it has handed out in independent tests around the same track, same day, same drivers. We have tests by R&T, C&D and motor trend that all say the same thing. We can either believe those multitudes of tests, or sit around and read lists of the ring, and claim that every magazine is biased or doesn't know how to drive! My feeling is that porsche will quietly continue to move from 38/62% to 45/55%, whether they keep the engine rearish or not!
One more note of interest that should give some thought: If the rear engine design was so great, why has no one else adopted it? (for racing or street)
I think that the mistake everyone seems to make is to rely on "The Ring" as some kind of scientific test. My opinion is that it is really a "my dork is bigger than yours" test among manufacturers. The Ring is the most often quoted bunch of numbers amongst forum members, yet it is not a scientific test in the largest areas. The problems include: the ring is huge and has many, many straights (miles of them, in fact). The temps and barometric pressures are different on each test day, and some times are obtained with traffic on the course, whilst others are on a closed day. There is no sanctioning body that conducts the tests and there is no oversight. The car/driver makes the decision on what to report regarding tires and such. No one verifies the cars being stock. I'll stop there, but basically I just blew away the importance of "Ring times". They are cute and fun, as there are lists and lists of those times, but how do we compare times from years apart as well? (current tire technology allows a minivan to keep up with some sports cars from 20 years ago!)
Now, when cars are on same track, same day, same drivers, things shape up differently, don't they?
In C&D, a stock Cayman posted the same (exact) lap times as a stock 911..both S models. Odd, yet true. (barber motorspors park, I believe)
In motor trend, factory Porsche 911 driver Randy Pobst admitted the superiority of a mid engined chassis. (Best Drivers car test) Odd for a guy who makes a living racing the 911 chassis.
In another C&D test a stock 911 gets whomped by a stock M3.
We could also get into the R8 and how many smack downs it has handed out in independent tests around the same track, same day, same drivers. We have tests by R&T, C&D and motor trend that all say the same thing. We can either believe those multitudes of tests, or sit around and read lists of the ring, and claim that every magazine is biased or doesn't know how to drive! My feeling is that porsche will quietly continue to move from 38/62% to 45/55%, whether they keep the engine rearish or not!
One more note of interest that should give some thought: If the rear engine design was so great, why has no one else adopted it? (for racing or street)
What about SCCA World Challenge? They are a sanctioning body and 911's won there several years in a row too.
Simply put the people complaining are not the ones driving. 911's have won in every major competition they've been in all over the world and are the reason Porsche sells the most race cars of any manufacturer.
Do your homework, Porsche tried to make a Mid-engine 911 to race and it was called the GT1 and it got raped by Mercedes and only won Lemans because the Mercedes broke down.
As far as ring times go you can't get any more radical than MC12's, Enzo's, CCX's, CGT's and the GT2 spanked all of them.
The rear engine has it's limits, but beating mid/front-engine cars isn't one of them. Pretty funny that you disclaim ring times and then quote C&D as a legitimate source of factual information.
No one else has adopted the rear engine design because at this point no one wants to be known as a follower, so they go and make their mid-engine cars only to get smacked down by the next 911.
You can't argue with results.
#34
06-03-2010, 12:51 PM
Look what happened when they took that engine and stuffed it into the rear end of the 911 chassis. Every 911 with that powerplant in the last decade has run the 'ring <8:00. Each progression in chassis design has improved times by about 20 seconds per generation...with the same relative powerplant.
#35
06-03-2010, 01:34 PM
#36
06-03-2010, 01:46 PM
Also the 911 has some huge advantages in the hands of a capable driver, as far as able to dive way deeper in the braking zones and punch out of corners harder due to the available traction. However those advantages are only advantages in the hands of a driver that knows what they are doing and how to get the front end to turn in smoothly without making the car transition into understeer. One bad thing ( for great drivers) is the way Porsche sets up the cars from the factory to understeer as kind of a built in safety net.
And cars of all setups have dominated in respective areas of motorsports even those that are not rear engine. Like the Audi Quattros that dominated rallying, the Corvettes that dominated GT1, and the mid engine PORSCHE 917s that dominated Can Am.
The 911 is damn good as production based race cars go, but again Porsche did see advantages to the mid engine layout. They can't do anything but continue to refine the 911's layout due to hard core loyalists like you guys and the desire to make sure the 911 has its own distinct identity and feel compared to the Boxster.
I doubt this car would have much trouble with a GT2 RS, if Porsche's main goal was to do a clean sheet design to run the ring in the fastest possible time.
Oh and by the way its road legal in certain configurations. And 6:11 as far as I know is far ahead of any 911 at the " Ring " race car, modified or otherwise.
And cars of all setups have dominated in respective areas of motorsports even those that are not rear engine. Like the Audi Quattros that dominated rallying, the Corvettes that dominated GT1, and the mid engine PORSCHE 917s that dominated Can Am.
The 911 is damn good as production based race cars go, but again Porsche did see advantages to the mid engine layout. They can't do anything but continue to refine the 911's layout due to hard core loyalists like you guys and the desire to make sure the 911 has its own distinct identity and feel compared to the Boxster.
I doubt this car would have much trouble with a GT2 RS, if Porsche's main goal was to do a clean sheet design to run the ring in the fastest possible time.
Oh and by the way its road legal in certain configurations. And 6:11 as far as I know is far ahead of any 911 at the " Ring " race car, modified or otherwise.
Last edited by germeezy1; 06-03-2010 at 01:53 PM.
#37
06-03-2010, 02:51 PM
Comon, what does that thing weigh? That does no more to prove a point than comparing a gumpert apollo to a GT2 RS. Anyone can make a fast kit car. Heck, the radical SR8 (or maybe it was the Donkvoort) that ran faster is "technically" street legal, but we are not talking about passenger cars here. Those cars weigh between 600 and 800 lbs less than a GT2 RS. I'm sure Porsche could make a CF monocoque 911 and beat those too.
But it does say a lot for the 911 when you have to look past the real street mid engine cars and to kit cars to find one that's faster.
But it does say a lot for the 911 when you have to look past the real street mid engine cars and to kit cars to find one that's faster.
Last edited by heavychevy; 06-03-2010 at 02:56 PM.
#38
06-03-2010, 02:57 PM
I had no idea Porsche built kit cars, those are Porsche built 962's. As was the one that ran 6:11 at the Ring. I just thought if we were going to include race cars that we would look at the whole picture and all of the Porsche race cars. In a pure race car obviously mid engine has advantages.
As I said the 911 if were talking about production based race cars, or production cars is obviously a formidable and hard to beat opponent. Trust me I am currently losing sleep over how the GT2 RS slaps around any production car even downforce cars like the ACR and beasts like the ZR1.
As I said the 911 if were talking about production based race cars, or production cars is obviously a formidable and hard to beat opponent. Trust me I am currently losing sleep over how the GT2 RS slaps around any production car even downforce cars like the ACR and beasts like the ZR1.
#39
07-17-2010, 08:03 PM
I think the fact that all Porsche prototype race cars are mid-engined says something for mid-engine placement. The first Porsche was mid-engined but Ferdinand wanted room for the kiddies so it became rear engined. I believe that tradition dictates the continued rear engine placement in the 911. True that the 911 continues to whip Ferrari, Corvette, etc., but the competition does seem to be getting closer. It will be interesting to see if the 911 can continue it's impressive reign in GT racing.
#40
07-17-2010, 08:33 PM
I think the fact that all Porsche prototype race cars are mid-engined says something for mid-engine placement. The first Porsche was mid-engined but Ferdinand wanted room for the kiddies so it became rear engined. I believe that tradition dictates the continued rear engine placement in the 911. True that the 911 continues to whip Ferrari, Corvette, etc., but the competition does seem to be getting closer. It will be interesting to see if the 911 can continue it's impressive reign in GT racing.
For me a 911 is a short wheelbase all-in-the-rear design. The next 911 (991) may be less so, with its long (longer than the Cayman's) wheelbase.
#41
07-17-2010, 10:20 PM
I think the fact that all Porsche prototype race cars are mid-engined says something for mid-engine placement. The first Porsche was mid-engined but Ferdinand wanted room for the kiddies so it became rear engined. I believe that tradition dictates the continued rear engine placement in the 911. True that the 911 continues to whip Ferrari, Corvette, etc., but the competition does seem to be getting closer. It will be interesting to see if the 911 can continue it's impressive reign in GT racing.
Prototype? You mean like the Spyder? How exactly do you make one of those rear engine? The layout of a prototype dictates it be mid engine, too low in the front and behind axle to fit an engine. Prototypes rely far more on aero dynamics and placing an engine anywhere other than where it is would ultimately ruin the aero dynamics. Which is why ALL prototypes and open wheel cars are mid-engine. However for production based cars, Porsche has clearly proven the rear engine is more than capable of winning.
Porsche's attempt at Mid engine GT racing failed as they got ran into submission by Mercedes.
If the double standard were a two way street, the same people would have been crying for Ferrari to switch to rear engine after getting their butts handed to them for 10 of the last 11 years all over the place.
I don't know what fantasy land some people live in, but if anyone actually thinks that Porsche wouldn't still be facing close racing if they were racing a mid-engine car are just kidding themselves.
You can't argue with results, but people try to do it anyways.
#43
07-17-2010, 11:20 PM
No need to join the loyalists... go out, buy another car, mid-engine or whatever turns you on.
#44
07-18-2010, 12:24 AM
You couldn't give me a Nissan GTR, and if you gave me a V10 R8 I might keep it... for about a week.
Give me a rear-engined Porsche 997.2.... unless you want to give me a 918.
Give me a rear-engined Porsche 997.2.... unless you want to give me a 918.
#45
07-18-2010, 08:19 AM
Porsche wouldn't have been nearly as successful as they are today with a mid engine design. The success of the Porsche today hinges on the 911 having a back seat so guys can tote their kids around if need be and still have a sporty car, and the fact that the 911 is the most popular race car EVER sold.
Porsche would have faded into the abyss of low production mid-engine car makers with designs that nearly all look the same.
And if you study the history books, its still far more likely that Porsche would have tried a front engine design before a mid engine. And Porsche actually made those, but nobody bought them. It looked just like every other car people could buy.
So let's not talk about loyalists, people of those current times just didn't want the other versions of what Porsche tried to sell.
FACE IT, THERE IS NO WAY PORSCHE COULD SELL AS MANY CARS, AND FOR THE SAME PRICES AND BE AS SUCCESSFUL WITH A MID-ENGINE 911!!!!
Porsche's mid engine vehicles have been just what they should be, small volume, low production cars. Even at significantly lesser cost, Porsche still sells less Cayman's and Boxsters combined than they do 911's. That should tell you something.