Sport Suspension Cross Braces back in stock
10-19-2015, 06:35 PM
#91
Rennlist Member
Carl, i have more race days in the car than anyone. ive been racing the car for many years a a speed and force that is even greater than when andreson was in full tilt racing mod (early 2000s). the FACT that ive run a 1:36.1 and on the same day , he ran 1:33.7 (2.4sec diff) shows that im putting the car through higher forces, because of having 200hp less. going back to the days of early year 2000s, im running 4 seconds faster. (1:40.1 speedvision vs my best time of 1:36, and average mid 1:37s. on DOTs and similar weight). the point is, even if the track was totally responsible for it, it doesnt matter, the fact is, i ran around the circut faster and the car had to be subjected to greater forces and it survived and is still surving. 80 race days, nothing broken or move.
how does the workshop manual mention the cross brace? only that you cant jack the car up without it connected? that hardly shows proof that it cant handle racing forces.
HOWEVER, I just went out to the garage and looked at my old beat up cross brace. it is a little bent up, so maybe you have something there I dont know how it bent, or the chassis did move, but if it did you might be right. I might have to get one of your cross braces and see if it changes the handling. in fact, if you send me one.. ill test it this weekend at Thunderhill and see if it helps in racing conditions. it also might be interesting to see video of under the hood at a track like laguna or thunderhill with HUGE g loading turns to see what the shock towers do under duress.
I dont see camber changes and again, i do pull far more Gs at the track than you are right now, and am doing it with 335 slicks and DOT Slicks both.
the fact that i DO race with one platform year after year for 1000s of racing laps is a HUGE advantage... .you should take advantage of that fact so i can help you prove some of your claims. the cross bar is just one of them.
Ill have a go pro to play with this weekend so let me know where i should put it to show things move under racing conditions.
Mk
how does the workshop manual mention the cross brace? only that you cant jack the car up without it connected? that hardly shows proof that it cant handle racing forces.
HOWEVER, I just went out to the garage and looked at my old beat up cross brace. it is a little bent up, so maybe you have something there I dont know how it bent, or the chassis did move, but if it did you might be right. I might have to get one of your cross braces and see if it changes the handling. in fact, if you send me one.. ill test it this weekend at Thunderhill and see if it helps in racing conditions. it also might be interesting to see video of under the hood at a track like laguna or thunderhill with HUGE g loading turns to see what the shock towers do under duress.
I dont see camber changes and again, i do pull far more Gs at the track than you are right now, and am doing it with 335 slicks and DOT Slicks both.
the fact that i DO race with one platform year after year for 1000s of racing laps is a HUGE advantage... .you should take advantage of that fact so i can help you prove some of your claims. the cross bar is just one of them.
Ill have a go pro to play with this weekend so let me know where i should put it to show things move under racing conditions.
Mk
Kibort:
Your "everything stock is perfect in all situations" mantra is tiring and not proven out by real-world experiences. This cross-brace is a good example. They are frequently bent, and even Porsche mentions it in the WSM. But - not good enough for you, right? So: a car designed for touring should be able to go racing box-stock, is that it? Right....
BTW: The cross-brace is in tension and compression BOTH. It gets bent under compression. I liken it to the rear camber discussion. Stick with the stock rear tires... no issue. Start going wider than stock, grippier than stock... well now we start to see trouble... rubber rear link bushings fail, camber out of alignment, stuff like that. Similar story in front. Do the bent cross braces appear on cars that are driven hard with big grippy front tires? Yes. Do we see bent ones on standard 928's with stock tires that are driven gently as a touring car? No, not so much.
Here's another example: the driveshaft clamp for automatics. Many hundreds of automatics never experience a problem. BUT - add wide rear tires, hard driving, maybe a HP adder or two: yep, now its a problem leading to TBF. The combination of the owner/driver and the modifications to the car have taken the car beyond its initial engineering design and intended use. A change is needed. Welcome to the world of after-market parts!
As to your driving analysis: The fact that your race car is the same race after race after race is a HUGE benefit. As a parts developer, I rarely have seat-time with the same parts and the same setup. But please - take videos from A and compare them to B - I cant do it - and make all the unsubstantiated ****-measuring claims you want. You seem to think your good at it.
Your "everything stock is perfect in all situations" mantra is tiring and not proven out by real-world experiences. This cross-brace is a good example. They are frequently bent, and even Porsche mentions it in the WSM. But - not good enough for you, right? So: a car designed for touring should be able to go racing box-stock, is that it? Right....
BTW: The cross-brace is in tension and compression BOTH. It gets bent under compression. I liken it to the rear camber discussion. Stick with the stock rear tires... no issue. Start going wider than stock, grippier than stock... well now we start to see trouble... rubber rear link bushings fail, camber out of alignment, stuff like that. Similar story in front. Do the bent cross braces appear on cars that are driven hard with big grippy front tires? Yes. Do we see bent ones on standard 928's with stock tires that are driven gently as a touring car? No, not so much.
Here's another example: the driveshaft clamp for automatics. Many hundreds of automatics never experience a problem. BUT - add wide rear tires, hard driving, maybe a HP adder or two: yep, now its a problem leading to TBF. The combination of the owner/driver and the modifications to the car have taken the car beyond its initial engineering design and intended use. A change is needed. Welcome to the world of after-market parts!
As to your driving analysis: The fact that your race car is the same race after race after race is a HUGE benefit. As a parts developer, I rarely have seat-time with the same parts and the same setup. But please - take videos from A and compare them to B - I cant do it - and make all the unsubstantiated ****-measuring claims you want. You seem to think your good at it.
10-19-2015, 07:02 PM
#92
Archive Gatekeeper
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
a a speed and force that is even greater than when andreson was in full tilt racing mod (early 2000s). the FACT that ive run a 1:36.1 and on the same day , he ran 1:33.7 (2.4sec diff) shows that im putting the car through higher forces, because of having 200hp less.
10-19-2015, 08:04 PM
#94
Rennlist Member
Rob,
you are not doing the comparison that i was . completely different.
BUT, to answer your question, it happens when one car is slower and the other car is faster, but the slower car has 200less HP. it means the forces have to be near the same. Again, thats not the comparison
the comparison is when he only had 420rwhp, where he ran 1:40.1 as a best time for the weekend. (he had been there plenty of times and had registered slick times of 1:36 before speedvision)
I run on the same tires, (DOT, and with 200 less HP and run 4 seconds faster , i.e. 1:36.1 than that time over 10 years ago. ) the point is not dirver to driver comparison. its the car running around the track at 1:36.1 with average weekends in the 1:37s for years and years of running this.
this means, regardless if the track is better, better pavement, etc, the car is being forced to be subjective to higher chassis g loading. doing it with less brakes, and less aero and less suspension (no motons).
when we ran together at speedvision or Speed GT, yes, he was about 4 seconds faster when we raced. 1:34s vs my 1:40s.. but by the way, thats when my car had only 320rwhp... almost 250hp less flywheel HP!!
most recently, when we ran a pro race at laguna together. the rain race i was about the same lap time (with in tenths but won our race) , and in the dry, i ran 1:36.1 and he ran 1:33.7 but on real slicks, 100lbs ligher and 200hp more. So, yes in that case, i would say, my car has to be subjected to near the forces of his, certainly more forces than the platform when he was racing all the time and back in the early 2000s. thats the point. Im not saying my car could survive with 520rwhp and 335 new slicks , but im saying with DOTs and 375-400rwhp, the 928 platform can survive anything you can toss at it, besides blatant abuse (i.e. mis matched revs for downshifts, senseless redlining, etc
EDIT: as far as the comparisons. use the race times, and realize that in '03 i had a good car, but in '04 , i got hit and had to run the race with damage.
prior years i had run the 1984 928S with the 5 liter and 280rwhp and then later 290rwhp. with smaller tires and no aero but the GTS wing.
as a note, i didnt run practice hard as ageneral rule , and qualifying there was problems with the car a couple of those race weekends. (got one lap due to a jumped timing belt at laguna..... forgot the year)
so, as i said, with all the differnces in our cars, my car was down 200 to 250flywheel hp and didnt have any of the wings, brakes and motons that everyone "says" is valuable. so, yes, based on his car in many prior years, the car is being subjected to at least the same g loadings as it was before it was set up with the 520hp (i.e. the original 420rwhp engine ),
SO... the real differenences are in the race
'01 sears 4.4
'01 laguna 3.8 seconds both above are for the old 84 with the 5 liter at 280-290hp
'03 laguna 4.3 seconds
'04 laguna 5.7...seconds but i got hit on the first lap and damageed the rear suspension. running times all season long here in the high 1:39s and this was 1:41.5
so, generally, about 4 seconds a lap... .whats nice about the above comparison... especially the last two lagunas, is that we are near the same weight and tires.
so the differecnce is driver and 200rwhp , motons, wings and brakes.
you are not doing the comparison that i was . completely different.
BUT, to answer your question, it happens when one car is slower and the other car is faster, but the slower car has 200less HP. it means the forces have to be near the same. Again, thats not the comparison
the comparison is when he only had 420rwhp, where he ran 1:40.1 as a best time for the weekend. (he had been there plenty of times and had registered slick times of 1:36 before speedvision)
I run on the same tires, (DOT, and with 200 less HP and run 4 seconds faster , i.e. 1:36.1 than that time over 10 years ago. ) the point is not dirver to driver comparison. its the car running around the track at 1:36.1 with average weekends in the 1:37s for years and years of running this.
this means, regardless if the track is better, better pavement, etc, the car is being forced to be subjective to higher chassis g loading. doing it with less brakes, and less aero and less suspension (no motons).
when we ran together at speedvision or Speed GT, yes, he was about 4 seconds faster when we raced. 1:34s vs my 1:40s.. but by the way, thats when my car had only 320rwhp... almost 250hp less flywheel HP!!
most recently, when we ran a pro race at laguna together. the rain race i was about the same lap time (with in tenths but won our race) , and in the dry, i ran 1:36.1 and he ran 1:33.7 but on real slicks, 100lbs ligher and 200hp more. So, yes in that case, i would say, my car has to be subjected to near the forces of his, certainly more forces than the platform when he was racing all the time and back in the early 2000s. thats the point. Im not saying my car could survive with 520rwhp and 335 new slicks , but im saying with DOTs and 375-400rwhp, the 928 platform can survive anything you can toss at it, besides blatant abuse (i.e. mis matched revs for downshifts, senseless redlining, etc
EDIT: as far as the comparisons. use the race times, and realize that in '03 i had a good car, but in '04 , i got hit and had to run the race with damage.
prior years i had run the 1984 928S with the 5 liter and 280rwhp and then later 290rwhp. with smaller tires and no aero but the GTS wing.
as a note, i didnt run practice hard as ageneral rule , and qualifying there was problems with the car a couple of those race weekends. (got one lap due to a jumped timing belt at laguna..... forgot the year)
so, as i said, with all the differnces in our cars, my car was down 200 to 250flywheel hp and didnt have any of the wings, brakes and motons that everyone "says" is valuable.
so, yes, based on his car in many prior years, the car is being subjected to at least the same g loadings as it was before it was set up with the 520hp (i.e. the original 420rwhp engine ),SO... the real differenences are in the race
'01 sears 4.4
'01 laguna 3.8 seconds both above are for the old 84 with the 5 liter at 280-290hp
'03 laguna 4.3 seconds
'04 laguna 5.7...seconds but i got hit on the first lap and damageed the rear suspension. running times all season long here in the high 1:39s and this was 1:41.5
so, generally, about 4 seconds a lap... .whats nice about the above comparison... especially the last two lagunas, is that we are near the same weight and tires.
so the differecnce is driver and 200rwhp , motons, wings and brakes.
10-19-2015, 08:22 PM
#95
Rennlist Member
Rob,.... you are right... not 2.4..... 2.7 seconds.
In a car we put together in marks garage in 2 days out of junkyard chassis (but a nice stroker motor)
Mark would have gotten 3rd in the dry race if he hadnt got hit. it started out wet and then was dry for the last 10 laps or so.
Ill be honest here, mark at his best and me at my best in our cars is more like 4 seconds here too. And im very proud to be that close to him in my old machine by the way!
GTGP RACE at laguna Saturday and Sunday:
Dry race
Car # Driver Car Sponsor Fastest Lap Class
14 James Soforonas Porsche WC-997 GT3 Cup GMG / Stoptech / BBS 1:26.549 GT1
8 Andy Pilgrim Volvo S60R K-Pax Racing / Volvo 1:27.539 GT1
99 John Trefethan Porsche 996 GT3 Cup TBD 1:34.635 GT3
47 Greg Ross Porsche 996 GT3 Cup TBD 1:35.331 GT3
22 Darren Rushin Porsche 997 GT3 RSR 911 Design 1:33.751 GT1
28 Mark Anderson Porsche 928 GTR 928 International 1:33.427 GT1
15 Brad Sofronas Porsche 996 GT3 GBR / GMG 1:37.684 GT4
19 Mark Kibort TBD TBD 1:36.135 GT4
46 Guy Dreier Porsche 997 GT3 Cup Dreier Design / 911 Design 1:34.480 GT2
56 Mike Courtney Porsche 964 Cup TBD 1:41.424 GT4
55 Fernando Pena Porsche 996 Cup TBD 1:41.550 GT3
71 Dan Davis Porsche 911 Turbo 911 Design 1:55.129 GT1
54 Chris Finn BMW M3 BMW CCA 2:00.614 GT4
4 Dino Crescentini Porsche WC-997 GT3 Cup GMG Racing DNS GT1
44 Brent Holden Porsche 997 GT3 Cup GMG Racing DNS GT2
TBD Peter LeSarfe Porsche 997 GT3 Cup FusionTrade DNS GT2
TBD Dan Aspesi Porsche 997 Turbo Speed Gallery DNS GT2
Rain race
Car # Driver Name Manufacturer/Model Team Sponsors Class Lap Time Laps
45 Rob Morgan Porsche 997 WC-GT3 Cup Truspeed Truspeed GT1 1.40.022 20
14 James Sofronas Porsche 997 WC-GT3 Cup GMG GMG/Stoptech/BBS GT1 1.41.070 20
8 Andy Pilgrim Volvo 60S-R 3R K-Pax/ Volvo GT1 1.39.827 20
54 Chris Finn BMW E36 M3 Gruppe N Finn Motorsport Finn Motorsport/BMW CCA GT4 1.51.540 19
19 Mark Kibort Porsche 928 S4 928 International 928 International GT4 1.53.814 19
15 Brad Sofronas Porsche 996 GT3 GMG GBR/GMG GT4 1.53.814 19
20 Loren Beggs Porsche 997 GT3 RSR 911 Design 911 Design GT1 1.42.114 18
22 Darren Rushin Porsche 997 GT3 RSR 911 Design 911 Design GT1 1.45.491 18
47 Greg Ross Porsche 996 GT3 Cup Ross Motorsport Ross Motorsport GT3 1.48.213 18
46 Guy Drier Porsche 997 GT3 Cup 911 Design Drier Designs GT2 1.47.674 16
55 Fernando Pena Porsche 996 GT3 Cup Fernando Pena Racing Fernando Pena Racing GT3 1.49.584 15
56 Mark Courtney Porsche 964 Cup Mark Courtney Mark Courtney Racing GT4 1.54.158 15
28 Mark Anderson Porsche 928 GTS 928 International 928 International GT1 1.53.553 10
71 Dan Davis Porsche 993 Turbo 911 Design 911 Design GT1 1.52.811 4
86 Steve Eguina Porsche 996 GT2 FMR POC-OCR GT4 DNS 0
88 John Krieg Porsche 997 GT3 Cup Aasco Aasco GT2 DNS 0
85 Robert Darymple Porsche 997 GT3RSR BBI Darymple Productions GT1 DNS 0
4 Dino Crescentini Porsche 997 WC-GT3 Cup GMG Stoptech /Centric Gt1 DNS 0
In a car we put together in marks garage in 2 days out of junkyard chassis (but a nice stroker motor)
Mark would have gotten 3rd in the dry race if he hadnt got hit. it started out wet and then was dry for the last 10 laps or so.
Ill be honest here, mark at his best and me at my best in our cars is more like 4 seconds here too. And im very proud to be that close to him in my old machine by the way!
GTGP RACE at laguna Saturday and Sunday:
Dry race
Car # Driver Car Sponsor Fastest Lap Class
14 James Soforonas Porsche WC-997 GT3 Cup GMG / Stoptech / BBS 1:26.549 GT1
8 Andy Pilgrim Volvo S60R K-Pax Racing / Volvo 1:27.539 GT1
99 John Trefethan Porsche 996 GT3 Cup TBD 1:34.635 GT3
47 Greg Ross Porsche 996 GT3 Cup TBD 1:35.331 GT3
22 Darren Rushin Porsche 997 GT3 RSR 911 Design 1:33.751 GT1
28 Mark Anderson Porsche 928 GTR 928 International 1:33.427 GT1
15 Brad Sofronas Porsche 996 GT3 GBR / GMG 1:37.684 GT4
19 Mark Kibort TBD TBD 1:36.135 GT4
46 Guy Dreier Porsche 997 GT3 Cup Dreier Design / 911 Design 1:34.480 GT2
56 Mike Courtney Porsche 964 Cup TBD 1:41.424 GT4
55 Fernando Pena Porsche 996 Cup TBD 1:41.550 GT3
71 Dan Davis Porsche 911 Turbo 911 Design 1:55.129 GT1
54 Chris Finn BMW M3 BMW CCA 2:00.614 GT4
4 Dino Crescentini Porsche WC-997 GT3 Cup GMG Racing DNS GT1
44 Brent Holden Porsche 997 GT3 Cup GMG Racing DNS GT2
TBD Peter LeSarfe Porsche 997 GT3 Cup FusionTrade DNS GT2
TBD Dan Aspesi Porsche 997 Turbo Speed Gallery DNS GT2
Rain race
Car # Driver Name Manufacturer/Model Team Sponsors Class Lap Time Laps
45 Rob Morgan Porsche 997 WC-GT3 Cup Truspeed Truspeed GT1 1.40.022 20
14 James Sofronas Porsche 997 WC-GT3 Cup GMG GMG/Stoptech/BBS GT1 1.41.070 20
8 Andy Pilgrim Volvo 60S-R 3R K-Pax/ Volvo GT1 1.39.827 20
54 Chris Finn BMW E36 M3 Gruppe N Finn Motorsport Finn Motorsport/BMW CCA GT4 1.51.540 19
19 Mark Kibort Porsche 928 S4 928 International 928 International GT4 1.53.814 19
15 Brad Sofronas Porsche 996 GT3 GMG GBR/GMG GT4 1.53.814 19
20 Loren Beggs Porsche 997 GT3 RSR 911 Design 911 Design GT1 1.42.114 18
22 Darren Rushin Porsche 997 GT3 RSR 911 Design 911 Design GT1 1.45.491 18
47 Greg Ross Porsche 996 GT3 Cup Ross Motorsport Ross Motorsport GT3 1.48.213 18
46 Guy Drier Porsche 997 GT3 Cup 911 Design Drier Designs GT2 1.47.674 16
55 Fernando Pena Porsche 996 GT3 Cup Fernando Pena Racing Fernando Pena Racing GT3 1.49.584 15
56 Mark Courtney Porsche 964 Cup Mark Courtney Mark Courtney Racing GT4 1.54.158 15
28 Mark Anderson Porsche 928 GTS 928 International 928 International GT1 1.53.553 10
71 Dan Davis Porsche 993 Turbo 911 Design 911 Design GT1 1.52.811 4
86 Steve Eguina Porsche 996 GT2 FMR POC-OCR GT4 DNS 0
88 John Krieg Porsche 997 GT3 Cup Aasco Aasco GT2 DNS 0
85 Robert Darymple Porsche 997 GT3RSR BBI Darymple Productions GT1 DNS 0
4 Dino Crescentini Porsche 997 WC-GT3 Cup GMG Stoptech /Centric Gt1 DNS 0
10-19-2015, 08:42 PM
#96
Former Sponsor
You are using actual data from the same day, in the same event! That's not viable! You can't use that crap.
That's completely different than the one time Kibort went faster, when Anderson was cruising around because it was pouring rain!
Completely different from what Anderson did 10 years ago, compared to what Kibort can do today....completely different!
Don't be trying to confuse people with real data!!!!
Kibort is clearly.....uh....well....slower.
10-19-2015, 08:54 PM
#97
Former Sponsor
BTW...
I think Carl's cross brace is a beautiful product. Yes, probably "bling" for a large percentage of the 928 world (street cars with anywhere near stock size tires), but probably functional for another percentage. (I can see this working on street cars with wider, stickier tires.)
Try to keep in mind that the stock cross brace was designed for 1978 tires.....
And even if it there is a "bling" factor......why not? Everybody buys "bling" for all other vehicles....why not for the 928?
I'm trying to imagine Carl sending Kibort a cross brace to try....after Kibort beats on Carl for 6 solid pages, on this thread.
I'm guessing that is not going to happen!
I think Carl's cross brace is a beautiful product. Yes, probably "bling" for a large percentage of the 928 world (street cars with anywhere near stock size tires), but probably functional for another percentage. (I can see this working on street cars with wider, stickier tires.)
Try to keep in mind that the stock cross brace was designed for 1978 tires.....
And even if it there is a "bling" factor......why not? Everybody buys "bling" for all other vehicles....why not for the 928?
I'm trying to imagine Carl sending Kibort a cross brace to try....after Kibort beats on Carl for 6 solid pages, on this thread.
I'm guessing that is not going to happen!
10-19-2015, 08:59 PM
#98
Rennlist Member
FWIW I just ordered one, logo included. What can I say, I like logos. Must be my ricer background 
10-19-2015, 09:03 PM
#99
Rennlist Member
greg, that is the point. you keep on turning this into a driver comparison.... its a car g force comparison.. .but i like your spirit.... Get geeked up for the competition at willows my friend!
you see, 15 years ago, Anderson was your top rated driver. running the car you built him to a tune of 1:40.1 at Laguna when on DOTs Ive run, with a car with 200less hp to a 1:40.... that very next year. hmmmm interesting. bu, was able to run 1:36.1 10 years later. (with more power and posibly other changes) it doesnt matter what the changes were Greg, why are you bing so stubborn...... the fact remains... i ran 1:36.1.... PERIOD. that means the car can withstand forces far greater than when mark was Running his car the most. Sure, with yet another 100hp added to that, (and i added 50) im still 4 seconds slower on any given day. thats "an eternity" as i know but for a car with 250 less flywheel hp, no slicks, 100lbs lighter weight, less wing, no Motons, big brakes, etc, its pretty on par and reasonable to say the car is being driven hard. Now, compared to its form 10 years ago, im MUCH harder on it. because you cant drive around a track faster (4 seconds faster) if you are not putting more forces on the car ( Marks speedvision 1:40.1 vs my today's 1:37 to 1:36 time range) its just not possible Greg, even if its all track and tires that caused the differences. the facts are the facts and i hate to confuse you with the facts.'
we run head to head on the same weekend... you see the times.. 4 seconds difference. we run head to head at GTGP...... same thing about 4 seconds vs his best. (although in the race, same race, DRY CONDITIONS GREG!, it was 2.7 seconds .. in the rain.... near the same time... but thats another discussion )
Here is the real data Greg.... Saturday was rain... sunday was Dry (or green track)
SO as i said......... the real differences are in the race and this is still the same day same race BUT, dont you think you should look at what i was driving? 84S?
or if i got in an accident during the first lap? hey, i wonder why '02 was left out. wasnt that when anderson got hit too? i wonder what his time looked like when his tire was all cambered out for impact?
'01 sears 4.4
'01 laguna 3.8 seconds both above are for the old 84 with the 5 liter at 280-290hp
'03 laguna 4.3 seconds
'04 laguna 5.7...seconds but i got hit on the first lap and damageed the rear suspension. running times all season long here in the high 1:39s and this was 1:41.5
you see, 15 years ago, Anderson was your top rated driver. running the car you built him to a tune of 1:40.1 at Laguna when on DOTs Ive run, with a car with 200less hp to a 1:40.... that very next year. hmmmm interesting. bu, was able to run 1:36.1 10 years later. (with more power and posibly other changes) it doesnt matter what the changes were Greg, why are you bing so stubborn...... the fact remains... i ran 1:36.1.... PERIOD. that means the car can withstand forces far greater than when mark was Running his car the most. Sure, with yet another 100hp added to that, (and i added 50) im still 4 seconds slower on any given day. thats "an eternity" as i know but for a car with 250 less flywheel hp, no slicks, 100lbs lighter weight, less wing, no Motons, big brakes, etc, its pretty on par and reasonable to say the car is being driven hard. Now, compared to its form 10 years ago, im MUCH harder on it. because you cant drive around a track faster (4 seconds faster) if you are not putting more forces on the car ( Marks speedvision 1:40.1 vs my today's 1:37 to 1:36 time range) its just not possible Greg, even if its all track and tires that caused the differences. the facts are the facts and i hate to confuse you with the facts.'
we run head to head on the same weekend... you see the times.. 4 seconds difference. we run head to head at GTGP...... same thing about 4 seconds vs his best. (although in the race, same race, DRY CONDITIONS GREG!, it was 2.7 seconds .. in the rain.... near the same time... but thats another discussion )
Here is the real data Greg.... Saturday was rain... sunday was Dry (or green track)
SO as i said......... the real differences are in the race and this is still the same day same race BUT, dont you think you should look at what i was driving? 84S?
or if i got in an accident during the first lap? hey, i wonder why '02 was left out. wasnt that when anderson got hit too? i wonder what his time looked like when his tire was all cambered out for impact?
'01 sears 4.4
'01 laguna 3.8 seconds both above are for the old 84 with the 5 liter at 280-290hp
'03 laguna 4.3 seconds
'04 laguna 5.7...seconds but i got hit on the first lap and damageed the rear suspension. running times all season long here in the high 1:39s and this was 1:41.5
Yeah, what the hell, Rob!
You are using actual data from the same day, in the same event! That's not viable! You can't use that crap.
That's completely different than the one time Kibort went faster, when Anderson was cruising around because it was pouring rain!
Completely different from what Anderson did 10 years ago, compared to what Kibort can do today....completely different!
Don't be trying to confuse people with real data!!!!
Kibort is clearly.....uh....well....slower.
You are using actual data from the same day, in the same event! That's not viable! You can't use that crap.
That's completely different than the one time Kibort went faster, when Anderson was cruising around because it was pouring rain!
Completely different from what Anderson did 10 years ago, compared to what Kibort can do today....completely different!
Don't be trying to confuse people with real data!!!!
Kibort is clearly.....uh....well....slower.
10-19-2015, 09:10 PM
#100
Rennlist Member
BTW...
I think Carl's cross brace is a beautiful product. Yes, probably "bling" for a large percentage of the 928 world (street cars with anywhere near stock size tires), but probably functional for another percentage. (I can see this working on street cars with wider, stickier tires.)
Try to keep in mind that the stock cross brace was designed for 1978 tires.....
And even if it there is a "bling" factor......why not? Everybody buys "bling" for all other vehicles....why not for the 928?
I'm trying to imagine Carl sending Kibort a cross brace to try....after Kibort beats on Carl for 6 solid pages, on this thread.
I'm guessing that is not going to happen!
I think Carl's cross brace is a beautiful product. Yes, probably "bling" for a large percentage of the 928 world (street cars with anywhere near stock size tires), but probably functional for another percentage. (I can see this working on street cars with wider, stickier tires.)
Try to keep in mind that the stock cross brace was designed for 1978 tires.....
And even if it there is a "bling" factor......why not? Everybody buys "bling" for all other vehicles....why not for the 928?
I'm trying to imagine Carl sending Kibort a cross brace to try....after Kibort beats on Carl for 6 solid pages, on this thread.
I'm guessing that is not going to happen!
This is not a personal thing... its strictly performance discussion.
Carl is passionate about his manufacturing and designing stuff. Im passionate about driving and racing...together we might be able to make somethings that make a difference.
Im racing at thunderhill this weekend... there is time to bolt somethings on for the last races of the seasons
Pick your GoPro camera placement. suspension, oil temp, oil pressure gauge, RPM, IPHONE program, etc etc.
10-19-2015, 09:21 PM
#102
Rennlist Member
this one sure would look nice!!
10-19-2015, 09:21 PM
#103
Instructor
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Tasmania
Posts: 246
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Where do you find the time for all this typing Mark? I end up just skimming through it all. Its just a tad wearisome now.
Nice cross brace Carl.
The stock ones look nice polished as well.
Nice cross brace Carl.
The stock ones look nice polished as well.
10-19-2015, 11:18 PM
#104
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Forgive the on-topic post, but I'll mention that I installed a 928 MS cross brace (with the branding!) 3+ years ago. I liked it then, I like it now.
With the right powder coating, the branding is nice and subtle.
For me, it was a great match for my engine bay, branding or not. At least it uses a Porsche-ish font.
With the right powder coating, the branding is nice and subtle.
For me, it was a great match for my engine bay, branding or not. At least it uses a Porsche-ish font.
