Irishdriver

OK, well the good point is I fitted the cup pipe, the K&N filter and the strut brace. This improved my poor little C4 and we had good fun in Hockenheim at the slalom yesterday.

The bad... is that the 993s were 3 seconds quicker. They were even quicker than most of the 996s. Only RSs, GTs, and modified cars were quicker. The 285 PS with the Bilstein kit seems to be the erogenous zone of whichever insect or animal you prefer. Is it time to buy an 993?

The ugly.. two cars hit the wall and the expensive one will probably never be slaloming again. The Boxter is sore but will probably live to fight again.

rutz964C4

3 seconds quicker!!!!! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="eek.gif" /> <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="eek.gif" /> <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="eek.gif" />

OK It´s time to change the suspension.....

<img border="0" alt="[cheers]" title="" src="graemlins/beerchug.gif" />

ALEX

Irishdriver

The H&R springs and the koni sport adustables are already in.....they helped but I can't do any more without being thrown into the modified class.

Greg_L

Could it be that the 993's were using road legal slicks? like yoko 32R's perhaps. This could account for a 3 sec lead if you were using S02's for example . . ?

robmug

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">Originally posted by Greg_L:
<strong>Could it be that the 993's were using road legal slicks? like yoko 32R's perhaps. This could account for a 3 sec lead if you were using S02's for example . . ?</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">Greg - nice optimism!

joey bagadonuts

Irish,

Could you describe this slalom event. Is it similar to an autocross? How long did it take to complete the course? What were top speeds? Did you get into 3rd gear?

Overcoming a three second differential on a four mile track may require different remedies than a 60-second(?) slalom. And yes, I agree with Greg L, that rubber compound is the big equalizer.

Irishdriver

The slalom was a series of cones on average about 30M apart over 2.5 Kilometers of the Hockenheim Grand Prix track. We did two laps and we (the 964's) turned in times of 2.02....the 993 (3 of them) using michelin Pilots and bridgestones all did 1.59

All on roughly equal rubber - all have enough experience and can be quick - and depending on how long you could bear to stay on the limit in second we used third gear two or three times per lap. (The Boxter hit the wall at about 100km/hr and tested the airbags).

would the 25ps and the few kilos be enough to account for the difference? if so I need a 993.

BrokeAss

Two cars smacking the wall though - geez! I'd rather come in DFL (Dead F****g Last) than have to take a ride home on a wrecker!

There isn't any prize money on the line, there are no million dollar endorsement deals - it's all just supposed to be fun.

Sounds to me like event organizers did a poor job of ensuring the safety of the cars and drivers.
<img border="0" alt="[nono]" title="" src="graemlins/nono.gif" />

Douglas_T

Good point Terry, no way you should have been able top smack a wall...

joey bagadonuts

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">Originally posted by Irishdriver:
<strong>would the 25ps and the few kilos be enough to account for the difference? if so I need a 993.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">Aside from actually buying a 993, one way to determine if it's car or driver is to swap cars at the next slalom. See if anyone can do better in your car and vice versa.

Of course, there's the issue of car familiarity but the two are so similar that I don't think that will be much of a problem. Also, you may want to make note of suspension mods, alignment specs, tires, etc. to ensure it's an apples-to-apples comparision, i.e. similarly modified cars.

3 seconds over a two-minute course is relatively significant but the cars are very even and I've managed to get the better of my share of 993's AND 996's at autocross, so it's not just about power and weight. I guess the challenge is trying to determine if the difference is simply car performance or driver ability.

I'm not suggesting anything about your driving, Irish, but I know if Hans Stuck or Derek Bell got behind the wheel of my C4, they'd definitely be able to produce better times than me: driving is everything. So before you part with a decent chunk of change, I'd suggest you investigate further.
<img border="0" alt="[cheers]" title="" src="graemlins/beerchug.gif" />

Irishdriver

well, the cars were weighed as part of scrutineering so we know thay had a weight advantage.

I've no worries about my driving, as the other 964 is a C2 driven by a past champion and he did the same time as my (heavier) C4. So I don't think we were slow. Also the 996 drivers are no fair weather cruisers and they were beaten by the 993s even when they have more power. Maybe it was just a 993 course.

As for the two cars that were damaged - over 40 other cars were not damaged. We were using the GP track so this is not a open airfield. Can you really expect on a track venue to eliminate every possibility of hitting something? The main reason was the drivers kept the power in too long after they had lost the car - trying to recover it from what motorbike guys would call a "Tank Slapper".

If I read Terry R's mail again I can't help but think you guys expect someone else (the event organisers?) to take responsibility for you and your driving. This is not driver education - this is a national championship.

joey bagadonuts

Is it possible the gearing worked against you? I'm not certain how the 993's are set up, but I am familiar with the E36 M3 and they usually have an advantage at tight autocrosses because their first gear is short by comparison and they can play all day in second.

Speaking of which, I was also wondering if the cup pipe cost you some torque. I specifically switched to a secondary bypass to improve low-end torque for autocrossing. The cup pipe which used to be on my car was slower from 0-60 by 0.3 - 0.4 seconds, according to my G-Tech. To be clear, I reinstalled my primary muffler and replaced the secondary muffler with a bypass/g pipe. It's a cheap mod and definitely worth considering if you're after more torque.

Other than that, you are probably right that it was a 993 course but I'm not sure it was the weight-to-hp ratio. I think gearing might be a better guess--just an opinion.

BrokeAss

IrishDriver I'm going to have to stand by my original comments!

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">Originally posted by Irishdriver:
<strong>This is not driver education - this is a national championship.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">I re-read your original post and I didn't see where you mentioned that this was a "national championship". IMHO that makes it all the worse! I'd like to think that participants in a "national championship" would have the skills to not put their cars in a situation that was clearly beyond their control. Furthermore I would expect national caliber drivers to have the skills to recover their cars without hitting the wall.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">Originally posted by Irishdriver:
<strong>The main reason was the drivers kept the power in too long after they had lost the car - trying to recover it from what motorbike guys would call a "Tank Slapper". </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">That kind of thing just doesn't sound like the kind of mistake a national champion should be making. To me, it sounds like the speeds were too high to provide adequate room spin and recover.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">Originally posted by Irishdriver:
<strong>If I read Terry R's mail again I can't help but think you guys expect someone else (the event organisers?) to take responsibility for you and your driving.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">No that wasn't my point at all and I'm sorry if I gave you that impression. I think we can agree that Motorsport is inherently dangerous. And no, I don't think someone else should be responsible for a drivers poor decisions. All driver's CHOOSE to participate in an event. They always have the option of loading back on the trailer if conditions make them feel unsafe.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica"><strong>As for the two cars that were damaged - over 40 other cars were not damaged. .... Can you really expect on a track venue to eliminate every possibility of hitting something? </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">In "amateur" and "enthusiast" events like this one - I believe that ALL driver's should go home without bent sheet metal. I hope that we can agree on this point at least! There's little excuse for wadding your car up in solo competition. I firmly believe that it's the event organizers responsibility to provide a circuit the mitigates the risk to the drivers and their cars to greatest extent possible. That's why race tracks have run off areas, deformable barriers and sand traps. Did the event organizers do all they could to provide you and your fellow participants a safe course? If the cones had been closer together, the speeds would have been lower and PERHAPS the two unfortunate driver's would have stayed off the wall. As I mentioned before, lower speeds would have given the drivers more room to recover their cars.

IrishDriver, you were there, I wasn't. Based on the information that you've shared - my first impression is that more could have been done to provide a safer course. It appears that you feel the course was "sufficiently safe". Perhaps it was and the two drivers that bent up their cars were simply "overly-exuberant". But I have to believe that more could have been done to provide a safer course.
<img border="0" alt="[byebye]" title="" src="graemlins/wave.gif" />

Irishdriver

Terry,

you are identifying the basic problem of any event. Yes - it could have been designed down to a speed where it would have been impossible to hit the walls/barriers. But given that this is a track with limited run off that speed would have to be down below 30km/hr - 20MPH. Who wants to do a slalom at this level?

Maybe on a bicycle or roller blades but for a Porsche?

BTW - Tuesday evenings you can roller blade around Hockenheim !!

johnfm

I think Joey may be on the right track with gear ratios. Here is a plot of speed in each gear for the 964 tip, 964 5 speed and ROW 6 speed.

<img src="http://boards.rennlist.com/upload/gears.jpg" alt=" - " />

First & second gear in the 993 will give marked acceleration advantage.