I avoided replying to this assertion when it first posted, because it seems on its face to be a simple matter of personal opinion, but it doesn't want to die. Another reason for avoiding comment is that I often agree. At least 23.8% worth, so a simple one-paragraph remark won't do the trick.

Let me distinguish our widgets using your own terms. I am opposed to driver aids that can't be suppressed. They are necessary since we share our highways and sometimes our personal car with drivers less experienced, whose safety and comfort are increased by those aids. Sometimes, the practicality of owning a car like a Porsche depends on making it usable for other people in the family. Think of those as "novice aids" and I agree that any such must have an off switch -- or the functional equivalent -- for the days when we are behind the wheel. That's the 23.8% of agreement.

Now let me file a demurrer about the remaining 71.2% of the cases. We are not stokers for steam engines nor artificers of the Victorian breed. We want cars for the inherent joy of getting from here to somewhere else of no particular importance except that it is fifteen miles of winding road distant. A spanner should not be an essential component. Controlling the car's trajectory from moment to moment is the essence of that experience. It's why we buy sports cars instead of a rail ticket. If we are not to be obsessed and preoccupied with the mechanical devices, the various contrivances that turn fuel into fun, then automatism is required of the subsystems.

My first sports car had a computer -- two actually -- that determined the correct mixture of fuel with air. The SU carbureters on our MG Midget required, or at least received, loving care each Friday afternoon so that the weekend could be spent with no further attention to their needs. They were (and still are) examples of analog computers. The airflow creates a vacuum, the vacuum lifts a piston in a small cylinder, and a needle valve is raised in an opening where fuel is waiting. The higher the piston rises, the more fuel passes through that aperture. We spoke with reverence of that needle in different configurations. The Type 186 for touring use, the Type 403 that tempted the engine to stall at idle, but produced more power at high rpm levels, and so forth. Braver souls than me even grabbed emory paper and removed some of the brass diameter in a region they surmised was an rpm range that would profit from a more rich mixture.

We also had lever shocks, hydraulic dampers in the jargon of MG, and some sporting types removed those to substitute what we moderns call "coil over" shock absorbers. All of that was 'hacking' the computers that created the driving character of an MG Midget. We would consider it a distraction from our pleasure if anyone asked us to adjust the fuel mixture of our modern engines. A motoring enthusiast of my father's generation took pride in doing that well, but it was not the essence of motoring, as we collectively decided once the SU carbureter and the Weber and Rochester carbureters became standard. It was far too apparent that analog computers did a better job of a low level chore like that.

Modern designers have much bigger challenges and fortunately a much more powerful type of computer available: the digital computer. With this type of computer, impossible goals like protecting Aunt Sadie while letting Niece Sally have her fun become practical. We have a lot of that 'straddle' built into modern Porsches. The divide between Sadie and Sally does not require separate cars now. It does not even require an 'off' switch. It simply works well in either mode by recognizing the skill of the driver. An off switch just leads to the nonsense of BMW drivers having to spend five minutes in the menu system when they first drive a car owned by someone with different taste. Undue complexity to provide a switch when a system can turn itself on and off.

Another reason off switches are not desirable for such features is when the computers are creating a car that cannot exist without their functions. You may think of it like the half second a PDK buys on the way to 100 mph in a 991, but I mean it more completely than that suggests. Modern legislative and user demands are so high that using digital computers is the only way to meet them with a car of the sort we prize. Mutter about the delights of a 1976 911S if you like, but remember how many drivers they killed, and picture the damage done Audi and later Toyota over the urban myth of "unintended acceleration". A 911S of the 1976 sort can not be built and sold today.

Headlights! Someone complained of modern cars having automatic headlights. They blind oncoming drivers you know. Or they do if allowed to remain manual. The only reason we're allowed such high intensity headlights is their automatic controls that include cleaning systems that ensure the covers don't diffuse the beam.

A modern car is the creation of its computers. So was my 1965 MG Midget. The modern computers are just better, and so is their creation.

Gary, who admits he could not tolerate a rev-matching manual transmission
even though it's no different than wanting to adjust his own fuel mixture

 

The line , in my opinion if there ever is one, changes everyday, every year, with every model iteration & redesign.

The concept of "driver aid" is a moving target too. Heck, engine ignition with a key could have been considered a "driver aid" in 1920. Allowing modern driver and safety aids like ABS to be turned off in a high performance street legal car would make insurance premiums for these cars skyrocket, thereby limiting the affordability & appeal.

I understand where you are coming from, so no fundamental argument there, since I am still coming to terms with things like PASM and PDCC which alter the chassis configuration.

Nano tech robots that change the shape of an object on the fly are on the horizon . What's next? I suspect in 2035 we will be having a conversation on the merits of PDBS (Porsche Dynamic Body Shape) wherein the entire body is a collection of millions of nano robots.., changing body shape and panel ridgidity to alter aerodynamics and comfort based on speed. Maybe the buffetting problem will finally be solved . Will anyone even give a hoot about PSM or PTM or for that matter PASM or PDCC by then?

It's a brave new world and to loosely quote George Gilder, "We're accelerating into the microcosm".

 

True. Computers have evolved from mechanical to analog-electrical to digital-electrical. When I was in the US Navy in the 70s, our aircraft had analog computers with electrical servos that would calculate position and targets with moving parts. Who know what type of computers are next?

 

I don't see a disconnect between wanting, say, full leather but not automatic rev matching on a manual transmission. I chose a 6 sp over PDK for the challenge and enjoyment of manual rev matching. With auto rev matching, the challenge is gone. Might as well get PDK.

And deactivating via sport plus isn't a solution because on a track, you are forced to choose between getting some freedom from PSM or auto rev matching. Had Porsche provided a separate button to deactivate rev matching, then all would be happy dave

 

Might as well buy a Bimmer or Benz. Just my .02 which is what mine or anyone else's opinion is worth.

 

Has anyone found out if the dealer can program the rev matching feature into the 2012 991 computer

 

They need to add a flat shift feature when up shifting to match the downshift rev-matching nanny.

 

And then if they segmented the trans to seperate the gears and output shafts and used two clutches to eliminate the time between gear engagements, that would be unbeatable! Nah, too much automation, like using four wheel drive.

 

That would come with the cost of added weight and lack of driver interaction and alternatively with flat shifting and rev-matched down shifts there is no need for the extra weight.

Having awd by it's self is not automation. Having a computer monitor speed, yaw and power to each wheel and programing it to improve the stability of the car is. That programming has to be very, very good for it to actually help the driver. Ultimately it should be an idiot proof system allowing the car to be a point and shoot.
You don't need awd to do this though. Have a look at Chris Harris review of the V6 Lotus. Now that to me is a perfection.

 

Before long.... one won't have to have any practical experience driving a sports car to actually drive a 911 safely and effectively. Sigh.

 

Ok, that's a fair point.
so, with rev matching in a manual can you still
not manually rev match? What happens if you do
that, would the manual blip override the ECM?
btw I get the attraction of doing this yourself, I raced
motorcycles in the past and managed to blip while braking and
downshifting from 170 mpg but never got the hang of heel and
toeing in my car, go figure
chwers

 

It only rev-matches in Sport Plus

 

That's why we have races, innit? Not to be harsh, but you've called attention to the same Lotus/Porsche relationship that has existed for fifty years. The Lotus is:

• smaller
• lighter
• slower, except in an autocross
• cheap build, but higher price because "you're paying for the pedigree"
• not legal in the United States "but we're expecting it next year"

Odds are good that I'll beat that one the way I have every other Lotus I've raced: passing it at the side of the track, making sad noises and lightly smoking.

To each his own.

Gary

 

Or that Lotus, based on the Harris piece.

 

A modern car is the creation of its computers. So was my 1965 MG Midget.

My secretary had a Midget back in the late 60s. Being a prangster I couldn't resist picking up the rear end so that the wheels turned in. Of course we all couldn't wait until quitting time to see the look of horror on her face as she approached her car.
It just so happened that I had a Triumph GT6 at the time. My recollection is that it had around 100 HP and maybe a curb weight of around 2K lbs. It may be hard to believe to those who can't conceive of a car being fun to drive unless it has 400 HP, but dam was that car a ball to drive on the hilly country roads that I use to drive to work. With all the shifting I had to do to make it up the steep hills, I use to pretend that I was at Monte Carlo.
I apologize for being off topic, but the mention of the Midget just triggered some old fond memories.