PDCC: "reduction in fun", "buzzkiller"?
08-25-2012, 03:56 AM
#31
Race Director
08-25-2012, 11:34 AM
#32
Race Car
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,972
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's personal preference. If you enjoy man/machine interaction, active anti-roll systems take away all direct suspension communication and replace it with lines of computer code. Makes for more grip by reducing weight transfer, therefore keeping all four tires more evenly loaded, which results in faster lap times. But for some of us, less enjoyment.
The 'problem' with pdcc is that a computer is constantly altering the stiffness of the suspension adding to a certain degree of artificiality.
I'd pass personally; I've driven a pdcc S twice now.
08-25-2012, 03:18 PM
#33
I also saw and was impressed by the reference to body roll in the article. There's no mention anywhere in the video MT posted of the testing or in the text of the article about PDCC. My assumption was that they would have talked about PDCC specifically if the car had it. In the spec box for the 991S from the article they refer to struts, adjustable shocks, anti roll bar front, and coil springs, adjustable shocks, multi-link, anti-roll bar rear. No reference to adjustable anti-roll bars. Based on this, I don't think the car had PDCC.
For me PDCC had too many things stacked against it...
Weight/complexity (50lbs?...pump, lines, maintenance)
First year design on 911
Cost
Artificial feel (I have driven two examples now)
Sure, it might exact .01 more Gs or a 10th of a second here and there at the track, but I just found so many other options that would be much more enjoyable on a daily basis. Given that the car is soooo good on it it's own, it would have been a waste of money to me.
And who knows,....maybe a PDCC car would not have faired as well depending on the driver/writer as not everyone has thought it to be a good option. Maybe Porsche did not want a PDCC car in the comparison. Remember, this was all about car feel and fun to drive abilities, not just techno wizardry, the GTR has enough of that to go around.
Last edited by Rocket_boy; 08-25-2012 at 03:24 PM. Reason: Add material
08-25-2012, 08:21 PM
#34
Race Director
You might be right, it's hard to tell. The front spolier lip looks a bit more aggressive to me, which is part of the package when you get SPASM, but I'm not sure. It would be nice if MT showed a complete option list for the car.....
08-28-2012, 09:32 PM
#35
Rennlist Member
Took a close look at the pictures on the site. The full front shot taken in front of the yellow and black retaining wall shows a non sports chin. Doubt it would have PDCC with PASM. So the stock suspension rocks! That is a good thing.
08-28-2012, 11:30 PM
#37
Aventardor has a racing push rod suspension but it is managed to get only 3rd.
Without PDCC I would not think that 911 can make this much different from those supercars. Even on porsche official website show the big different in body rolls between the car with PDCC and without. Can someone ask Motortrend about it? I did not say that the car without PDCC cannot achieve this but just my curiosity to know the fact.
PS. My car has normal PASM + PDCC and the ride comfort is excellent even when the sport plus + sport suspension is on.
Last edited by iambon; 10-20-2012 at 08:55 AM.
08-29-2012, 02:04 AM
#38
The MotorTrend test had me wondering as well. It's a shame they dropped the ball on this critical issue in an otherwise very entertaining and informative comparison test.
My suspicion is that the car was equipped with PDCC (but without SPASM). The comments from the road test editor about "we thought our equipment was broken" and the low roll angle seem to indicate that it was. Also, compare the roll angle figure from the GT3 RS from the 2011 BDC test @ 1.4' vs. the 991's 0.4. The GT3 RS is an already fairly aggressively suspended car and the 991 is registers a full degree less roll.
Also, compare the lap time data (same driver in Pobst) and it's easy to see the GT3 is making most of its lap time advantage on the straights with higher terminal speeds before the braking zones.
If it was equipped with PDCC, it didn't seem to be getting in the way of Pobst's enjoyment of the car in a track environment at least.
http://www.motortrend.com/features/p...r/viewall.html
My suspicion is that the car was equipped with PDCC (but without SPASM). The comments from the road test editor about "we thought our equipment was broken" and the low roll angle seem to indicate that it was. Also, compare the roll angle figure from the GT3 RS from the 2011 BDC test @ 1.4' vs. the 991's 0.4. The GT3 RS is an already fairly aggressively suspended car and the 991 is registers a full degree less roll.
Also, compare the lap time data (same driver in Pobst) and it's easy to see the GT3 is making most of its lap time advantage on the straights with higher terminal speeds before the braking zones.
If it was equipped with PDCC, it didn't seem to be getting in the way of Pobst's enjoyment of the car in a track environment at least.
http://www.motortrend.com/features/p...r/viewall.html
