Comparing 991.2 GT3 with prior R/RS models shows .2 superior?
05-04-2017, 04:10 PM
#196
Drifting
05-04-2017, 10:32 PM
#197
Nordschleife Master
05-04-2017, 11:30 PM
#198
Nordschleife Master
Originally Posted by Waxer View Post
.2 GT3 has "better" tires.
Thank you for agreeing with me.
Your welcome
.2 GT3 revs to 9000 as opposed to 8500. Higher RPMs are the "better" part. To the extent that really matters to most of us which it REALLY does not since most of us are not competing for money and trophies.
Make up your mind. Is higher rev better or not. Are lower Ring times better or not. If we are not competing for money and trophies why did you purchase such a race derived car? I don't think anyone competes for money and trophies with an RS. So, that isn't a relevant argument.
One can fairly argue as I do:
RS is better because...well RS.
Which is almost as good as a .2GT3. Which will almost be as good as the .2RS. Notice the trend?
That's always been the trend if you are talking just "track times". However, the .2 has less aero and better tires and had optimal weather. The RS had damp weather during its Ring outing. Less areo at the Ring is an advantage since you have less drag and it is a very high speed circuit. The Evo non-Ring track times had the two within 2 tenths of second! That's driver error my friend. Put new Cup 2's on the RS then run them. Bet the RS knocks down a faster time.
As you just said, I purchased a race dervived car (ah hah! Motorsport!). I think the RS is better because it is (a) amazing to look at (b) sounds amazing (c) peforms amazingly (d) is part of a special subset of Porsches known as RS/Renn Sport and (e) makes my heart beat faster just looking at it. That's my "better" which is not nullified because some other non RS Porsche threw down a faster Ring time. Doesn't outweigh the rest, at least not to me
RS is better because ....well just look at it.
I don't even know how to respond to this. This is as vague and subjective as you can get. I guess I can say the RS looks like a Civic from Fast and the Furious. Does that help? Not so much.
Yes, exactly. It is subjective. That's the point. "Better" is subjective depending on your criteria and weighting of criteria
RS is better because it has all RS "specialness" like wider track and hips, side vents, carbon panels, mag roof.... It just oozes specialness.
Agreed on all points.
Thank you for agreeing with me
Don't know the difference between "pure" Motorsport and Motorsport. Perhaps you can enlighten us. I guess if there is a "pure" Motorsport then "pure" would be preferred. ? I guess. But in reality makes 0 reality difference to the cars performance and quailty. RS and R as sound and reliable.
I don't know and neither do you. More importantly, we don't need to know. Clearly, you purchased your RS based on engineers' input whom are infinitely more sophisticated than both of us. Since you rely on them for your RS purchase, let's do the same for the GT3 purchase. Please read EVERY single article stating how the GT3 engine has been IMPROVED over the RS. Furthermore, I think we can both agree that you KNOW not GUESS that you would prefer the "pure" Motorsport as you have clearly stated you prefer the "special" parts of the RS.
Agreed. I don't know what the difference is but then again I didn't know there was such a term as "pure Motorsport" and thoiught you apparently did since you were the one that used it. I asked you to enlighten me as I admitted my ignorance. You then admitted yours. To me there is just "Motorsport" which is PAG Motorsport which is a motor utilized by PAG in competition vehicles they use for factory teams or sold to customers such as the Cups or GT3R. Basically motors used for compeition purposes.
I am sure PAG made improvements in the engine. I would be disappointed if they didn't. Doesn't render the .1 4.0 junk or any prior GT motor. Does it?
So by your logic .2GT3 is "better" than CGT, '73 RS, 997 4.0RS and others because it throws down a better Ring time?
Seems like your definition of "better" is somewhat myoptic. But...that's OK, its your defiinition of better not mine or others. Nope. That inference is a huge logical leap not supported by what I said. I have never compared any of those cars to any other car. I gave very specific,objective reasons why the .2GT3 is better than the .1RS.
Yes you did. But those specific concrete objective reasons also logically make the .2 "better" then the others I listed unless you now can explain the apparent inconsistency of how there are some slower cars (which those prior gen cars are clearly slower) that are still "better" then the .2GT3 but the .1RS while also being slower is "not better".
By that logic, can we just say EVERYTHING in life is based on perception? Certainly, there are some quantifiable measures of some stuff in life.
Yes, precisely. I think the RS is "better" because it is an "RS" which is special in and of itself. Being an RS is clearly objective, real and concrete in and of itself is it not? Just as real as any mechanical change.
This brings into focus the advantage tires play.
Evo track time differences between RS and .2 was 2 TENTHS of a second. Negligble. That's nothing. Driver error. Put new Sport Cup 2's on RS so they have the same sneakers and compare times. My bet is RS is faster since it's spec tires are wider.
.2 GT3 has "better" tires.
Thank you for agreeing with me.
Your welcome
.2 GT3 revs to 9000 as opposed to 8500. Higher RPMs are the "better" part. To the extent that really matters to most of us which it REALLY does not since most of us are not competing for money and trophies.
Make up your mind. Is higher rev better or not. Are lower Ring times better or not. If we are not competing for money and trophies why did you purchase such a race derived car? I don't think anyone competes for money and trophies with an RS. So, that isn't a relevant argument.
One can fairly argue as I do:
RS is better because...well RS.
Which is almost as good as a .2GT3. Which will almost be as good as the .2RS. Notice the trend?
That's always been the trend if you are talking just "track times". However, the .2 has less aero and better tires and had optimal weather. The RS had damp weather during its Ring outing. Less areo at the Ring is an advantage since you have less drag and it is a very high speed circuit. The Evo non-Ring track times had the two within 2 tenths of second! That's driver error my friend. Put new Cup 2's on the RS then run them. Bet the RS knocks down a faster time.
As you just said, I purchased a race dervived car (ah hah! Motorsport!). I think the RS is better because it is (a) amazing to look at (b) sounds amazing (c) peforms amazingly (d) is part of a special subset of Porsches known as RS/Renn Sport and (e) makes my heart beat faster just looking at it. That's my "better" which is not nullified because some other non RS Porsche threw down a faster Ring time. Doesn't outweigh the rest, at least not to me
RS is better because ....well just look at it.
I don't even know how to respond to this. This is as vague and subjective as you can get. I guess I can say the RS looks like a Civic from Fast and the Furious. Does that help? Not so much.
Yes, exactly. It is subjective. That's the point. "Better" is subjective depending on your criteria and weighting of criteria
RS is better because it has all RS "specialness" like wider track and hips, side vents, carbon panels, mag roof.... It just oozes specialness.
Agreed on all points.
Thank you for agreeing with me
Don't know the difference between "pure" Motorsport and Motorsport. Perhaps you can enlighten us. I guess if there is a "pure" Motorsport then "pure" would be preferred. ? I guess. But in reality makes 0 reality difference to the cars performance and quailty. RS and R as sound and reliable.
I don't know and neither do you. More importantly, we don't need to know. Clearly, you purchased your RS based on engineers' input whom are infinitely more sophisticated than both of us. Since you rely on them for your RS purchase, let's do the same for the GT3 purchase. Please read EVERY single article stating how the GT3 engine has been IMPROVED over the RS. Furthermore, I think we can both agree that you KNOW not GUESS that you would prefer the "pure" Motorsport as you have clearly stated you prefer the "special" parts of the RS.
Agreed. I don't know what the difference is but then again I didn't know there was such a term as "pure Motorsport" and thoiught you apparently did since you were the one that used it. I asked you to enlighten me as I admitted my ignorance. You then admitted yours. To me there is just "Motorsport" which is PAG Motorsport which is a motor utilized by PAG in competition vehicles they use for factory teams or sold to customers such as the Cups or GT3R. Basically motors used for compeition purposes.
I am sure PAG made improvements in the engine. I would be disappointed if they didn't. Doesn't render the .1 4.0 junk or any prior GT motor. Does it?
So by your logic .2GT3 is "better" than CGT, '73 RS, 997 4.0RS and others because it throws down a better Ring time?
Seems like your definition of "better" is somewhat myoptic. But...that's OK, its your defiinition of better not mine or others. Nope. That inference is a huge logical leap not supported by what I said. I have never compared any of those cars to any other car. I gave very specific,objective reasons why the .2GT3 is better than the .1RS.
Yes you did. But those specific concrete objective reasons also logically make the .2 "better" then the others I listed unless you now can explain the apparent inconsistency of how there are some slower cars (which those prior gen cars are clearly slower) that are still "better" then the .2GT3 but the .1RS while also being slower is "not better".
By that logic, can we just say EVERYTHING in life is based on perception? Certainly, there are some quantifiable measures of some stuff in life.
Yes, precisely. I think the RS is "better" because it is an "RS" which is special in and of itself. Being an RS is clearly objective, real and concrete in and of itself is it not? Just as real as any mechanical change.
This brings into focus the advantage tires play.
Evo track time differences between RS and .2 was 2 TENTHS of a second. Negligble. That's nothing. Driver error. Put new Sport Cup 2's on RS so they have the same sneakers and compare times. My bet is RS is faster since it's spec tires are wider.
Last edited by Waxer; 05-05-2017 at 12:02 AM.
05-05-2017, 02:26 AM
#202
Drifting
Did seem interesting with 35 posts per day and seemed to jump right into threads/conversations...
05-05-2017, 06:36 AM
#203
The .2 is technically superior if we look at the recent track time at the Nürburgring and understanding that it offers more comfort level than the .1 RS and with no visually heavy aero-kit at the same time.
Track time and comfort level don't normally go along and when you have both its clearly a winner.
Some people are very attached to the RS branding so you can never rationalise to them how a normal GT3 can be better than the RS.
From a sentimental point of view the RS will win out because well it is an RS.
Track time and comfort level don't normally go along and when you have both its clearly a winner.
Some people are very attached to the RS branding so you can never rationalise to them how a normal GT3 can be better than the RS.
From a sentimental point of view the RS will win out because well it is an RS.
05-05-2017, 08:50 AM
#205
Drifting
TGIF ALL! 
05-05-2017, 09:27 AM
#206
Rennlist Member
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Mid-Atlantic (on land, not in the middle of the ocean)
Posts: 13,060
Received 4,372 Likes
on
2,487 Posts
.1 RS and .2 GT3 both have the N1 tires. Different sizes, but probably the same compound. My guess is that they intentionally gave the .1 GT3 the N0 and the RS the N1 in order maintain a lap time gap, and now it's the .2 GT3's turn to leapfrog the RS with the help of the N1 tire.
The GT3 is probably faster because of broader torque, equal or more power, decent aero, refinements to suspension, and tuning of diff, RWS, etc.
The RS may better be able to hang with the new GT3 on tracks where aero has more benefit (long fast turns), like Watkins Glen.
"Better" is subjective. If I had to pick today at equal cost, I'd go with the GT3 because of the new engine and evident lap time performance. But I like the RSness of the RS also. On day, perhaps I too will have an RS.
The GT3 is probably faster because of broader torque, equal or more power, decent aero, refinements to suspension, and tuning of diff, RWS, etc.
The RS may better be able to hang with the new GT3 on tracks where aero has more benefit (long fast turns), like Watkins Glen.
"Better" is subjective. If I had to pick today at equal cost, I'd go with the GT3 because of the new engine and evident lap time performance. But I like the RSness of the RS also. On day, perhaps I too will have an RS.
05-05-2017, 09:58 AM
#208
As explained in another thread the compounds are diff. This is the newest Cup 2 compound. It isn't quite to the MB GTR cheater tire but its a step on from the RS's compound from 2 years ago.
05-05-2017, 10:27 AM
#209
Rennlist Member
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Mid-Atlantic (on land, not in the middle of the ocean)
Posts: 13,060
Received 4,372 Likes
on
2,487 Posts
A question though with extra sticky tires is how long they last. Gaining a bit of lap time improvement at the expense of tires lasting only say half as long isn't worth it to me, given how expensive these tires are.
05-05-2017, 10:54 AM
#210
Drifting
Link? If the tire is really that much better, it should enable to the .1 GT3 to pretty much keep up with the .1 RS, since those two were only about 5 secs apart at the 'ring.
A question though with extra sticky tires is how long they last. Gaining a bit of lap time improvement at the expense of tires lasting only say half as long isn't worth it to me, given how expensive these tires are.
A question though with extra sticky tires is how long they last. Gaining a bit of lap time improvement at the expense of tires lasting only say half as long isn't worth it to me, given how expensive these tires are.
https://rennlist.com/forums/991-gt3-...l#post14161327
Porsche/Michelin do the N rating differently even within the same tire family, i.e. Cup2s.
They have different 'N rating' depending on the sizing, 918/GT3RS, regular 911 and the GT4.
The N0 in the biggest size is only reserved for the 918, as they are ECO rated. They came out with a different compound and called that N1 for the GT3RS.
The N0 rating on the middle size (for 911s) are NOT ECO rated. They are the normal sticky versions. Same tires on the .1 GT3 and the 911R. The new GT3 is wearing an improved version of these, hence the N1 rating. And these N1s are more advanced than the GT3RS N1s.
A bit confusing at first but simple after one look at them more closely.