bigmacsmallfries

How of much of this difference is due to tires? 24 seconds difference, maybe ~4 seconds of it is due to the 20hp increase. The Weissach package? Weight loss is not that much, maybe 2 seconds? What is the remaining 18 seconds attributable to?

Spring rates have almost doubled as well, so the suspension is very different through the corners. Hoping you guys can chime in and do a breakdown of every change and how much time it's saving.

aamersa

It was a driver with b...ls in ideal weather conditions.

Petevb

I'll through out some educated guesses:

Faster track: -2
Faster driver: -1
Tires, MPSC2 N2: -4
Tires, MPSC R: -7 (based on breakdown/ comments here: https://rennlist.com/forums/991-gt3-...l#post15015589)
Revised suspension (also required to make full use of the new tires): -2.5
Weight (especially wheels): -2
Downforce: -1.5
Horsepower: -3.5 (based on lap time vs hp trends)

GrantG

delete

Petevb

I gave 4 seconds between N1 and N2 in the above.

GrantG

Thanks, I saw that after a minute.

SanDiegoDavid

Do we know the Michelin SC2 R were used?

SCCAForums

fxz

Is because it revs until 9k rpm Lol

seriously firstly bettet motor and suspensions then combined with better aereo and tires

can t wait for .2 RS from Manthey

Petevb

I'd done some statistical analysis previously that indicates 3.5 seconds is actually pretty generous. It depends a lot on how traction limited the car is, but keep in mind the trends within the Porsche models below include things like wider tires, aero and improved suspension in addition to raw power. Isolating for power alone you'd likely be more like 2.5 seconds, so 3.5 seconds throws is some extra for area under the power curve and/ or under-rating.

enduro911

Pete, thanks very much for your thoughts. If you were allowing for the differences in tires alone, would the correlation be as linear for other cars? I'm thinking about whether a direct competitor like the AMG GT-R would benefit as much for these tires or whether Porsche's work with Michelin would allow them to gain more. 11 seconds between N1 (which is what I think the GTR ran in the hands of a journalist) would put the cars just about even.

Nick

The .2GT3 improved by 12 sec. on the Ring. Why is everyone trying to find reasons for the similar improvement of the RS other than the car itself? Porsche has done a spectacular job with both the .2GT3 and the RS.

Petevb

SCCAForums

Yes, same page... the only thing is it seems the '4.0' .2 motor is significantly underrated when compared to the .1 motor... along with the improved torque band. If you're giving -4 delta from GT3 to GT3RS.. I believe that only reinforces a -5 delta from .2 RS to .1 RS. As the '.2 GT3 motor has already proven it's making 20+ RWHP over a .1 RS and 30+ RWTQ over a .1 RS. Add another 20 HP for the RS and 10 TQ... and that's why the motor to me is ore of a delta.

Best Regards,
Dave

CRex

There's a very significant evolution in the front axle between the .1 and the .2. Some of it is spring rate, some of it is the additional rigidity in the uprights. It adds up to a significant difference in feel at the limit.

This is so clear that in the official one make series, experienced drivers at the beginning of this season were wondering if Michelin secretly changed our tire compound over the winter. (No, it really is the car)

The N2 compounds on the MPSC should be commercially available now. In time, a good driver from RL will put them on a Barney and tell us the delta...

My guess tho, and this is based on the Cups, is that tires are just one of many factors here.