992.2 GT3RS
08-31-2024, 10:01 AM
#106
Rennlist Member
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Mid-Atlantic (on land, not in the middle of the ocean)
Posts: 13,372
Received 4,561 Likes
on
2,589 Posts
I think some people have hazy memories and/ or misconceptions
Porsche is a very successful engineering company- but they do not in house build all their components. Almost every delay they have is from a 3rd party supplier's QC - the sole time I can think of something going wrong was the E/F series engine. Little bits like the CF door handle or the frunk lid can have big problems for the production line.
going backwards in time for a bit- the 2016 3RS going to 2019 3rs was a radical jump in the aero and suspension categories. 2016 car was still pretty close to road bias. Had huge tires but suspension was really livable. The 2019 car was much more aggressive and their first released vehicle with the full rose-joint/ monoball (all metal no rubber) suspension. This was the key performance distinction for the car. Same suspension for 2RS but we are talking 3rs so I'll leave it out.
The GT3RS in 2016 was 500hp.
The GT3RS in 2019 was 510hp. lap: 6:56
The laptime gets about 15 seconds faster.
The 2022 GT3 (non RS) makes roughly the same downforce as a 2019 3RS. This sends the GT3 into sub 7min territory - officially a 6:55.3
Meanwhile the 3RS went full over 1000lb downforce and added the active suspension controls to the steering wheel. BUT the car only has about 8hp more.
Performance gap increases again -
2023 GT3RS does a 6:49 with Bergmeister and a 6:44.8 with Kern.
so laptimes as a guide to generations:
2023 GT3RS: 6:44.8 (6:49 full track) (520hp)
2022 GT3. : 6:55 (6:59 full track) (510hp)
2019 GT3RS: 6:56.4 (4L, 510hp)
2018 GT3. : 7:12.7 (4L, 500hp)
2016 GT3RS: 7:20 (4L, 500hp)
2015 GT3. : 7:32 (3.8L 480hp)
these factory driver times are all supported by the fact that Christian Gebhart (independent) will go test and run very similar times (3-5 seconds slower most of the time).
So you can imagine how Porsche expects their track cars to evolve. There is usually a handy gap between the 3 and 3RS. The .2 version of the .2 GT3 usually gets close or adopts a lot of the RS stuff then the .2 GT3RS goes another step.
Now the manthey kits have taken these times even deeper- with Bergmeister recently beating the 7min barrier in the GT4RS MR, and the 991.2 GT2RS MR running a 6:38- suspicion is that the 992.1 3RS MR shark fin kit send it into mid 6:30's.
The Manthey kits are suspension and aero only. This shows that HP is not the key tweak the "hybrid theory" people think creates lap times.
Faster laps via suspension and aero and tires are much more in line with Porsche's ethos. The 2019 GT2RS for instance made 700hp and was benchmarked with a Lars Kern 6:47.2 lap. So the ~200hp was only good for 9 seconds vs 3RS. MR kit took off another 8-9 seconds.
992.2 for GT3 and GT3RS could simply keep
down path of aero and suspension development - now with potential Manthey Aero and suspension wizardry for the gains.
also and finally FWIW nobody has come close to the ring times of a 911 except the AMG Project1
and the GTR Black Series, and they won LM24 again with a 911 based car.
Until another recipe starts to dominate, Porsche is not likely to change 911 recipes.
Porsche is a very successful engineering company- but they do not in house build all their components. Almost every delay they have is from a 3rd party supplier's QC - the sole time I can think of something going wrong was the E/F series engine. Little bits like the CF door handle or the frunk lid can have big problems for the production line.
going backwards in time for a bit- the 2016 3RS going to 2019 3rs was a radical jump in the aero and suspension categories. 2016 car was still pretty close to road bias. Had huge tires but suspension was really livable. The 2019 car was much more aggressive and their first released vehicle with the full rose-joint/ monoball (all metal no rubber) suspension. This was the key performance distinction for the car. Same suspension for 2RS but we are talking 3rs so I'll leave it out.
The GT3RS in 2016 was 500hp.
The GT3RS in 2019 was 510hp. lap: 6:56
The laptime gets about 15 seconds faster.
The 2022 GT3 (non RS) makes roughly the same downforce as a 2019 3RS. This sends the GT3 into sub 7min territory - officially a 6:55.3
Meanwhile the 3RS went full over 1000lb downforce and added the active suspension controls to the steering wheel. BUT the car only has about 8hp more.
Performance gap increases again -
2023 GT3RS does a 6:49 with Bergmeister and a 6:44.8 with Kern.
so laptimes as a guide to generations:
2023 GT3RS: 6:44.8 (6:49 full track) (520hp)
2022 GT3. : 6:55 (6:59 full track) (510hp)
2019 GT3RS: 6:56.4 (4L, 510hp)
2018 GT3. : 7:12.7 (4L, 500hp)
2016 GT3RS: 7:20 (4L, 500hp)
2015 GT3. : 7:32 (3.8L 480hp)
these factory driver times are all supported by the fact that Christian Gebhart (independent) will go test and run very similar times (3-5 seconds slower most of the time).
So you can imagine how Porsche expects their track cars to evolve. There is usually a handy gap between the 3 and 3RS. The .2 version of the .2 GT3 usually gets close or adopts a lot of the RS stuff then the .2 GT3RS goes another step.
Now the manthey kits have taken these times even deeper- with Bergmeister recently beating the 7min barrier in the GT4RS MR, and the 991.2 GT2RS MR running a 6:38- suspicion is that the 992.1 3RS MR shark fin kit send it into mid 6:30's.
The Manthey kits are suspension and aero only. This shows that HP is not the key tweak the "hybrid theory" people think creates lap times.
Faster laps via suspension and aero and tires are much more in line with Porsche's ethos. The 2019 GT2RS for instance made 700hp and was benchmarked with a Lars Kern 6:47.2 lap. So the ~200hp was only good for 9 seconds vs 3RS. MR kit took off another 8-9 seconds.
992.2 for GT3 and GT3RS could simply keep
down path of aero and suspension development - now with potential Manthey Aero and suspension wizardry for the gains.
also and finally FWIW nobody has come close to the ring times of a 911 except the AMG Project1
and the GTR Black Series, and they won LM24 again with a 911 based car.
Until another recipe starts to dominate, Porsche is not likely to change 911 recipes.
08-31-2024, 12:10 PM
#108
RL Community Team
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Wonder what Ring time the current Cup2R tires on 9912. GT3 RS would put down with a Porsche Works driver.
As good, or very close (like within 2 seconds) of the 992.1 GT3 RS?
We'll never know, because Porsche will never let that cat out of the bag.
As good, or very close (like within 2 seconds) of the 992.1 GT3 RS?
We'll never know, because Porsche will never let that cat out of the bag.
08-31-2024, 12:16 PM
#109
Didnt the 991.2 3RS also use Cup2R?
08-31-2024, 02:27 PM
#111
Rennlist Member
Let's not forget track changes, resurfacing and smoothing bumps in places. Along with tires two big variables.
I keep thinking of the balance of power and downforce and how much right not it is tilted in favor of aero. A very different proposition to improve in a meaningful way when the major changes to aero, suspension and chassis have been done. I know they will always have more up their sleeve, but can't help but think they are farther down a dead end road without something material on the power side changing. Maybe next gen...
I keep thinking of the balance of power and downforce and how much right not it is tilted in favor of aero. A very different proposition to improve in a meaningful way when the major changes to aero, suspension and chassis have been done. I know they will always have more up their sleeve, but can't help but think they are farther down a dead end road without something material on the power side changing. Maybe next gen...
08-31-2024, 03:51 PM
#112
So reading the tea leaves that CJ left, I think the .2GT3RS will be full ICE with more aero. 
The following 2 users liked this post by usctrojanGT3:
cadster (08-31-2024),
shrimp money (09-03-2024)
08-31-2024, 04:44 PM
#113
Rennlist Member
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: West Vancouver and San Francisco
Posts: 4,289
Received 1,270 Likes
on
619 Posts
I have no idea where they will take it and have no inside info whatsoever on this matter, so just thinking what's possible:
- Aero - there is a lot left on the table. For example, they can make it more slippery in the low downforce configuration for higher top speeds and better high-speed acceleration. They can also make downforce level speed-dependent to bleed off downforce at higher speeds, which will enable (much) more downforce at lower speeds and/or more compliant suspension. Asymmetrically active aero (more downforce for outside wheels in corners) is another possible direction, but that may be very hard to do well. And then there are fans - quite extreme for a road car but also increasingly proven effective. Although I'm not betting on fans for downforce in the near future.
- Active camber - possible. But modern tires are less camber-sensitive than racing slicks or even hard-core track tires from a decade ago, so it may not be that much of a gain.
- Weight reduction - I do not see much (or any) progress soon there. Even switching to CF would not help that much, given all the regulations, crash safety, and weight of components.
- Power - NA engine is close to tapped out without major changes. Hybrid on NA is less beneficial than on turbo engines - there is no need to torque-fill for turbo lag or to electrically power the turbo for the same reason, and there is no way to harvest exhaust gases, so generating electricity will be less efficient. So while with a turbo engine, hybridization can provide much better throttle response while allowing for higher boost and thus more power even from the ICE, with NA engine, it's much less beneficial - just a few horsepower. Also, the 8-speed gearbox that supports hybrid parts is heavier and shifts slower. Maybe there is an ace up their sleeve there but it's got to be something unexpected then, or going turbocharged like Lambo did. I would be ok with a higher-revving turbo engine if they give it NA-like throttle response and decent sound.
- suspension - they could go to (more) active suspension, but it's extra weight. I'm sure it's possible to develop a noticeably faster active suspension for a GT3 that would not add much weight, but it would very likely be cost-prohibitive. Maybe one day... Look at the active suspension in the new Panamera and Taycan - it could not work in a GT3 for many reasons (e.g., weight, packaging, power requirements), but all that is eventually solvable. So I think it's a maybe for mid to long term.
So my naive conclusion would be that further active aero development is where the best return on investment will be in the near term, assuming they don't go turbocharged.
- Aero - there is a lot left on the table. For example, they can make it more slippery in the low downforce configuration for higher top speeds and better high-speed acceleration. They can also make downforce level speed-dependent to bleed off downforce at higher speeds, which will enable (much) more downforce at lower speeds and/or more compliant suspension. Asymmetrically active aero (more downforce for outside wheels in corners) is another possible direction, but that may be very hard to do well. And then there are fans - quite extreme for a road car but also increasingly proven effective. Although I'm not betting on fans for downforce in the near future.
- Active camber - possible. But modern tires are less camber-sensitive than racing slicks or even hard-core track tires from a decade ago, so it may not be that much of a gain.
- Weight reduction - I do not see much (or any) progress soon there. Even switching to CF would not help that much, given all the regulations, crash safety, and weight of components.
- Power - NA engine is close to tapped out without major changes. Hybrid on NA is less beneficial than on turbo engines - there is no need to torque-fill for turbo lag or to electrically power the turbo for the same reason, and there is no way to harvest exhaust gases, so generating electricity will be less efficient. So while with a turbo engine, hybridization can provide much better throttle response while allowing for higher boost and thus more power even from the ICE, with NA engine, it's much less beneficial - just a few horsepower. Also, the 8-speed gearbox that supports hybrid parts is heavier and shifts slower. Maybe there is an ace up their sleeve there but it's got to be something unexpected then, or going turbocharged like Lambo did. I would be ok with a higher-revving turbo engine if they give it NA-like throttle response and decent sound.
- suspension - they could go to (more) active suspension, but it's extra weight. I'm sure it's possible to develop a noticeably faster active suspension for a GT3 that would not add much weight, but it would very likely be cost-prohibitive. Maybe one day... Look at the active suspension in the new Panamera and Taycan - it could not work in a GT3 for many reasons (e.g., weight, packaging, power requirements), but all that is eventually solvable. So I think it's a maybe for mid to long term.
So my naive conclusion would be that further active aero development is where the best return on investment will be in the near term, assuming they don't go turbocharged.
The following users liked this post:
AlexCeres (08-31-2024)
09-02-2024, 01:44 AM
#114
Yes, but the newer version will be slightly different and account for different OEM camber settings particularly on inside of tire.
Realistically and in the real world there isn't that much difference between the 991.2 GT3 RS and 992.1 GT3 RS. Both more or less cut the same cake is slightly different ways. A really good driver can get a little more out of the 992.1 GT3 RS.
The reality is the 991.2 GT3 RS was and still is a really good car. I've logged both and the differences weren't great.
Even Motortrend got similar figures in their testing e.g.
991.2 GT3 RS Fig 8, 22.0 s, 0.98 avg g, 1.19 lat g, Cup2 R, braking from 60 mph 92 ft, 1/4m 11.0 @ 127.6 mph
992.1 GT3 RS Fig 8, 21.9 s, 0.97 avg g, 1.18 lat g, Cup2 R, braking from 60 mph 92 ft, 1/4m 10.9s @ 126.8 mph
For the 992.2 GT3 RS, I can't see much room for significant improvement. I suspect it will be ironing out suspension tuning and programming and the same with aero, we're at the point of diminishing returns (they'll bake in a Manthey set-up within reason). They can do more with the engine as is well understood but that comes with trade offs.
Realistically and in the real world there isn't that much difference between the 991.2 GT3 RS and 992.1 GT3 RS. Both more or less cut the same cake is slightly different ways. A really good driver can get a little more out of the 992.1 GT3 RS.
The reality is the 991.2 GT3 RS was and still is a really good car. I've logged both and the differences weren't great.
Even Motortrend got similar figures in their testing e.g.
991.2 GT3 RS Fig 8, 22.0 s, 0.98 avg g, 1.19 lat g, Cup2 R, braking from 60 mph 92 ft, 1/4m 11.0 @ 127.6 mph
992.1 GT3 RS Fig 8, 21.9 s, 0.97 avg g, 1.18 lat g, Cup2 R, braking from 60 mph 92 ft, 1/4m 10.9s @ 126.8 mph
For the 992.2 GT3 RS, I can't see much room for significant improvement. I suspect it will be ironing out suspension tuning and programming and the same with aero, we're at the point of diminishing returns (they'll bake in a Manthey set-up within reason). They can do more with the engine as is well understood but that comes with trade offs.
Last edited by groundhog; 09-02-2024 at 02:10 AM.
09-02-2024, 12:02 PM
#115
Platinum Dealership
Rennlist
Site Sponsor
Rennlist
Site Sponsor
groundhog- those numbers fail to tell the laptime story. at tracks with big sweeping curves the 992 3rs can carry tons more speed because of the downforce. 100-120+ mph sweepers are where the new one shines
The following users liked this post:
MaxLTV (09-02-2024)
09-02-2024, 12:19 PM
#116
Rennlist Member
09-02-2024, 03:15 PM
#117
Rennlist Member
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: West Vancouver and San Francisco
Posts: 4,289
Received 1,270 Likes
on
619 Posts
But also, focusing on minimum corner speeds, it's easy to underestimate aero. Consider how much higher the speed is at the beginning of a braking zone and the very exit of a corner - aero creates benefits all through that distance. Even for slower corners where the minimum speed is too low for aero to do anything, the time spent at or near this minimum speed diminishes significantly. On entry, aero, stiffer springs and anti-dive allow shedding a ton of speed after turn-in. It is crazy how much later one can brake in this car compared to 991.2 RS (once they find their *****). So in the end you get to brake later, extending the time at high speed on the straight, and going much faster through the entire corner entry.
Similarly, having the aero grip appear on the exit allows for more turning near the exit, which in non-aero cars would feel like pinching a corner. When you can turn more near the exit, you do not need to "square" the turn as much, so an earlier apex with a higher minimum turn radius and thus higher minimum speed becomes possible. That requires changing the line slightly and gradually working up to committing to throttle earlier and/or harder despite instincts telling you that you will run out of track at the exit.
So fully exploiting these new capabilities of the car demands new and finer skills, so it takes much longer to "outgrow" the car.
Last edited by MaxLTV; 09-02-2024 at 03:17 PM.
09-02-2024, 07:01 PM
#118
Platinum Dealership
Rennlist
Site Sponsor
Rennlist
Site Sponsor
Originally Posted by MaxLTV
This!
But also, focusing on minimum corner speeds, it's easy to underestimate aero. Consider how much higher the speed is at the beginning of a braking zone and the very exit of a corner - aero creates benefits all through that distance. Even for slower corners where the minimum speed is too low for aero to do anything, the time spent at or near this minimum speed diminishes significantly. On entry, aero, stiffer springs and anti-dive allow shedding a ton of speed after turn-in. It is crazy how much later one can brake in this car compared to 991.2 RS (once they find their *****). So in the end you get to brake later, extending the time at high speed on the straight, and going much faster through the entire corner entry.
Similarly, having the aero grip appear on the exit allows for more turning near the exit, which in non-aero cars would feel like pinching a corner. When you can turn more near the exit, you do not need to "square" the turn as much, so an earlier apex with a higher minimum turn radius and thus higher minimum speed becomes possible. That requires changing the line slightly and gradually working up to committing to throttle earlier and/or harder despite instincts telling you that you will run out of track at the exit.
So fully exploiting these new capabilities of the car demands new and finer skills, so it takes much longer to "outgrow" the car.
But also, focusing on minimum corner speeds, it's easy to underestimate aero. Consider how much higher the speed is at the beginning of a braking zone and the very exit of a corner - aero creates benefits all through that distance. Even for slower corners where the minimum speed is too low for aero to do anything, the time spent at or near this minimum speed diminishes significantly. On entry, aero, stiffer springs and anti-dive allow shedding a ton of speed after turn-in. It is crazy how much later one can brake in this car compared to 991.2 RS (once they find their *****). So in the end you get to brake later, extending the time at high speed on the straight, and going much faster through the entire corner entry.
Similarly, having the aero grip appear on the exit allows for more turning near the exit, which in non-aero cars would feel like pinching a corner. When you can turn more near the exit, you do not need to "square" the turn as much, so an earlier apex with a higher minimum turn radius and thus higher minimum speed becomes possible. That requires changing the line slightly and gradually working up to committing to throttle earlier and/or harder despite instincts telling you that you will run out of track at the exit.
So fully exploiting these new capabilities of the car demands new and finer skills, so it takes much longer to "outgrow" the car.
The following users liked this post:
Apex Ace (09-03-2024)
09-02-2024, 11:56 PM
#119
Rennlist Member
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Mid-Atlantic (on land, not in the middle of the ocean)
Posts: 13,372
Received 4,561 Likes
on
2,589 Posts
09-03-2024, 12:42 AM
#120
Rennlist Member
Excellent points. I also find it much more confidence inspiring overall. I keep using the phrase depth of capability. They chassis feels much more capable, more confidence inspiring front end, the aforementioned stability under braking, all contribute to an unflappable feel that encourages more speed.