Planet-9 Porsche Forum banner

1 - 17 of 17 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
992 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Double Porsche Supertest...
Cayman S PDK
Ring 8:17min
Hockenheim 1.14,2min

Boxster S PDK
Ring 8:18min
Hockenheim 1.15,0min

Both cars on street tires.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,210 Posts
From day to day on the Ring it's hard to tell the conditions. Was the track open or closed to the public?

Jan Magnussen made a run in the ZR1 on day when it was open to the public. It was interesting.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
992 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
Must be a poor driver (or poor conditions) as the First Gen Cayman S ran a 8:11 ring time with a 6speed, I have to believe a second gen with PDK would be faster as Porsche shows that to be the case with other cars in the lineup.
Sport Auto always uses the same driver (Horst von Saurma), so the results are more reliable. They may not be the fastest times, but it removes the driver as a variable. He is usually slightly slower than Walther Rohrl.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,144 Posts
Geez, I wish my driving skills were as 'poor' as this! I'd be pretty happy if I could run an 8:18! ;)
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,006 Posts
Don't get me wrong the Ring is a great piece of tarmac, but honestly a shorter track in the 1-3 minute range (Like teh Hockenheim times) is a lot more telling, because consistancy is easier to achieve in a short time period and over a number of laps.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,219 Posts
Must be a poor driver (or poor conditions) as the First Gen Cayman S ran a 8:11 ring time with a 6speed, I have to believe a second gen with PDK would be faster as Porsche shows that to be the case with other cars in the lineup.
Just too many variables not known. I'f I'm not mistaken the 8:11 was turned by a CS equipped with PCCB, 19"s, etc,....and I believe a very basic version with just about no options pull a 8:22?

Maybe the suspension tweaks of the Gen II result in better all around street performance, but aren't better at the track.

Or maybe PDK doesn't offer much of a performance advantage compared to a well driven manual.

It would be great to see both present trannys compared at the ring with the same driver and equal equipment.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
311 Posts
Walter Rohrl did the 8:11 in the Gen 1 Cayman S. The car was equipped with PASM and 19" wheels, which he said were necessary to extract the most from the car. He did 8:18 in a Cayman S without these options.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24 Posts
Hi Jake, here is italy say that the cayman runs better with 18' wheels, and just do not understand why? So if Walter Rohrl said that I can continue with 19 wheels because I was thinking to change to 18' for the track wich are less expensive anyway .
Does anyone can expleine me where is the real dofference btw the two wheels?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,219 Posts
Walter Rohrl did the 8:11 in the Gen 1 Cayman S. The car was equipped with PASM and 19" wheels, which he said were necessary to extract the most from the car. He did 8:18 in a Cayman S without these options.
OK, I"ll take your word for it,....sounds about right!

I'm pretty sure the 8:11 car also had PCCB & SC also. So in other words the car without all the "performance" options (~$12,500 worth) was .9914425% the car as the fully loaded version. I would believe the PCCB would have been the biggest influence here with direct weight savings, unsprung weight benefit to the suspension, and outstanding breaking perf.

As far as the 18" vs 19" debate goes I believe Walter actually commented he liked driving on the 18" better, but the 19"s did do a little better for track purposes.
 

·
Caymaniac
Joined
·
5,658 Posts
Hi Jake, here is italy say that the cayman runs better with 18' wheels, and just do not understand why? So if Walter Rohrl said that I can continue with 19 wheels because I was thinking to change to 18' for the track wich are less expensive anyway .
Does anyone can expleine me where is the real dofference btw the two wheels?
I think PASM is the key, not the 19 inch wheels.

What is stunning about the ring times is how much quicker the Cayman is than a Boxster. So much for the claim that a Boxster can keep up with a Cayman. Clearly the Boxster is fine for a trip to Starbucks, but they don't belong on the track.

*****

Double Porsche Supertest...
Cayman S PDK
Ring 8:17min
Hockenheim 1.14,2min

Boxster S PDK
Ring 8:18min
Hockenheim 1.15,0min

Both cars on street tires.

******

:hilarious:

(Yes. I am joking. ;) )
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,219 Posts
I think PASM is the key, not the 19 inch wheels.

What is stunning about the ring times is how much quicker the Cayman is than a Boxster. So much for the claim that a Boxster can keep up with a Cayman. Clearly the Boxster is fine for a trip to Starbucks, but they don't belong on the track.

*****

Double Porsche Supertest...
Cayman S PDK
Ring 8:17min
Hockenheim 1.14,2min

Boxster S PDK
Ring 8:18min
Hockenheim 1.15,0min

Both cars on street tires.

******

:hilarious:

(Yes. I am joking. ;) )
Pretty funny,......

So with 10 HP more, and $3500 less (in your wallet) you gain .01 with a CS.
What a deal!!

Really though it just goes to show that all the 987 cars in any configuration are so closely matched that a 25lb driver weight difference could mean the difference.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
311 Posts
As far as the 18" vs 19" debate goes I believe Walter actually commented he liked driving on the 18" better, but the 19"s did do a little better for track purposes.
Yes, that's right. I've driven my Cayman on 18" and 19" wheels. The 18's do feel better...a bit more responsive to steering input with slightly less heavy steering. However, I don't doubt that the ultimate limits on the 19's may be a little higher, but for most of us that's not going to make much real difference.
 

·
I'm an excellent driver ....
Joined
·
1,628 Posts
Don't get me wrong the Ring is a great piece of tarmac, but honestly a shorter track in the 1-3 minute range (Like teh Hockenheim times) is a lot more telling, because consistancy is easier to achieve in a short time period and over a number of laps.
I disagree with that. The Ring is especially usefull to compare cars as it offers all kinds of cars to shine because it offers all different kinds of pieces of track. Most shorter tracks will just give the advantage to the more track oriented car, ie brakes, suspension and torque.

The Ring will test your suspension on a wider range of tight turns and full throttle neear top speed turns. Most cars will never reach their top speed on a shorter track.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
34,503 Posts
I disagree with that. The Ring is especially usefull to compare cars as it offers all kinds of cars to shine because it offers all different kinds of pieces of track. Most shorter tracks will just give the advantage to the more track oriented car, ie brakes, suspension and torque.

The Ring will test your suspension on a wider range of tight turns and full throttle neear top speed turns. Most cars will never reach their top speed on a shorter track.
I think you are both right, the 'Ring is a better overall test of a wider range of performance variables that a car has, BUT a shorter track is likely to produce more consistent times. If you dig into most 'Ring tests they run several laps that vary by at times 10-20 seconds or more and then choose their best lap. Sure if you get a pro that has driven the 'Ring countless times like Walter Rohl he can probably start achieving a fairly consistent average by his 3rd or 4th time around in a car, but even then he wouldn't have had time to try pressing the car at various points on the track to what might be limits he is unfamiliar with given a car that he isn't familiar with. So yes the driver learning curve and the time it takes to come up to consistency will be shorter with a shorter track vs. the 'Ring.

I suppose ultimately what you'd want is say 3 of the top 'Ring drivers in the world to spend a day each with a car, record all of the lap times and plot them out and see what is the shortest, the longest, the median, the mean, the standard deviation, etc. but I don't know any magazine or test group that goes to those lengths so we get what we get and speculate from there... :)
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,006 Posts
I disagree with that. The Ring is especially usefull to compare cars as it offers all kinds of cars to shine because it offers all different kinds of pieces of track. Most shorter tracks will just give the advantage to the more track oriented car, ie brakes, suspension and torque.

The Ring will test your suspension on a wider range of tight turns and full throttle neear top speed turns. Most cars will never reach their top speed on a shorter track.
I am simply talking about consistency in times based on conditions for a true comparison. Don't get me wrong the Ring provides a great track for "road" testing cars on, but I don't think the time is the biggest part of the comparison. I feel the real point of using the Ring is that a test driver can experience many type of real road conditions in one lap and provide feedback based on changes made.

In the lists which are out there showing ring times there is limited or no mention of ambient or track temps, but also how many times were done on public or closed session days and how much traffic was there to pass, all of which are a huge variables. The fact is more consistency will be had from using a smaller track, and if you were truly testing cars then you could test many cars in one day under the same conditions as opposed to a few.
 
1 - 17 of 17 Posts
Top