When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
[QUOTE=Wilder;19173277]This thread is becoming sad and painful.
Spec your T however suits you. PAG made it so you can do so. That includes RAS.
If you want a spec that is in keeping with the intent of the T, keep it light on options.
If you want a spec that caters to your very particular desires and tastes even if it means throwing the sink at it, go nuts. It's your car.
As for RAS, some journos and owners opine RAS ought to be skipped, especially on a mostly road car. Others think it's a must have. Listen to everyone and decide who's logic resonates with yours.
Not everyone is as lucky as @LuckyP who got to drive both back to back before specking his. That should be the norm. Most of us have to rely on the opinion of others.
@Wilder Totally agree - couldn’t have put it any better!
I bet in your career you are the company spokesperson or Director of PR 😄
The minicamps models of the 991.2t were done as a small batch by a French firm called cartima. Anyone feel adventurous to reach out to them and work out a group buy. I know I would be interested.
@Shortseller your posts are a lot of times just tongue in cheek. Which I generally like. But sometimes being a bit more serious will help. You were definitely not talking about what you were stating above. What goes around comes around right?
About the sunvisors: did anybody read my comment? Which is something I am asking myself multiple times here
I appreciate your comments, will try to stay more focused. I’m back to my Porsche programming, 🤭, living the dream of the drive! (11 days till delivery) more driving less writing. 😎
I’m no pro! I can only tell you about how I came to my decision. It was actually my second visit to PEC with this purchase, as the first time the cars selected (two 992Ts) both had RWS (I had to tell the Driving Consultant as he was unsure!!) - so I concentrated on Manual/PDK on that 3hr session and binned off the RAS comparison. A week later, as I had specifically informed Porsche of my desire to conduct a RAS back to back, they kindly allowed me to return, this time with two PDKs (not what I had chosen but at least good for this ‘test’) one with and one without RAS.
I briefed the consultant with my aims and he just had me run the laps over and over, jumping in and out of the two cars. Moving from one discipline to another when a conclusion had been reached. I concentrated on feeling and he checked apex speed and line consistency. The results as I mentioned in last post.
I have to say, for me it wasn’t night and day, but enough to want me to experience this technology on a car that I feel, as it’s a few gens on from my 997.2 GT3, should benefit from today’s performance enhancing technology. If nothing else, as another differentiator to the 2009 GT3.
I can totally get why folk wouldn’t bother with it, why Porsche would eventually discount it on the the S/T and why, in this instance, for my wants, it’s right for me.
Basically - everyone’s right!!!!
One love all!!!
Pete x
LuckyP It seemed like it all started with if one hasn’t experienced both how can you speak intelligently about RAS, All else would be just speculation. Fortunately well maybe unfortunately you are among the few if only one that has driven and posted with or without RSA. Follow me? For that we must be appreciative that you give your thoughts. Some will agree some won’t. I personally appreciate the review you gave, sounds like a lot of what the professional reviews say.
Never meant to drag you in this. Thank you again for your observations, pro or not, your experience is valid.
“One love, one heart, let’s get together and feel all right”. B/M 🚬
✌️
Last edited by Shortseller; 12-19-2023 at 10:21 AM.
LuckyP It seemed like it all started with if one hasn’t experienced both how can you speak intelligently about RAS, All else would be just speculation. Fortunately well maybe unfortunately you are among the few if only one that has driven and posted with or without RSA. Follow me? For that we must be appreciative that you give your thoughts. Some will agree some won’t. I personally appreciate the review you gave, sounds like a lot of what the professional reviews say.
Never meant to drag you in this. Thank you again for your observations, pro or not, your experience is valid.
“One love, one heart, let’s get together and feel all right”. B/M 🚬
✌️
No issue at all! I’m a big boy, can even tie my own shoelaces.
With all the comments here, web-wise and in videos, I really felt I had to Genchi this myself.
The low grip section at the PEC was remarkable. The car with RAS was considerably and driver seat noticeably faster before the tail would start to slide. In my tiny mind this may have been that the rear wheels (steering opposite to the front at this low speed) where trying to put their traction down more in the arc of direction that the car was travelling at. The car without, the rears are grappling against the turn of the vehicle? I’d love someone to tell me if if there can be any truth in this….if I’ve even explained myself correctly?
I wish it were drier so the 50-60mph longer corners could be played with. But alas, no. Here, with RAS, the Consultant just kept commenting about a very consistent line and it felt very easy to maintain my set with zero movement under the car. He noticed no speed difference in the car without RAS, but I can say that I wasn’t troubling grip in either car that day, in the rain. Possibly a little more steering wheel input but that could have been imaginary.
All good fun though. And in 6hrs total I must have laughed out loud for about 4 of them! The noise, the autoblip, the turn in, the gear change (Manual and PDK!!) and the noise!!!!
The minicamps models of the 991.2t were done as a small batch by a French firm called cartima. Anyone feel adventurous to reach out to them and work out a group buy. I know I would be interested.
Apologies in advance for the long post. I enjoy reading everyone's commentary as a part of my morning news routine, so figured I would offer a perspective on an ongoing topic in case another reader finds it interesting.
As someone who has regularly used this forum as a source of insight for my own T build, I am always amazed what a strong response the Rear Axle Steer (RAS) topic elicits from the forum faithful. I have repeatedly heard the argument, “Porsche didn’t include RAS on the S/T” as the basis for a definitive conclusion why it shouldn’t be optioned on a T. There’s never any objective data to support this argument. It’s always anecdotes and feelings – which means each side feels they are right and are ultimately unwavering in their POV. The recent savagegeese video was compelling. It’s the first time we have heard directly from one of the Porsche engineers about the rationale behind why RAS was left off the S/T. The man in the video seems like a credible source. He was a lead chassis engineer on the 997 GT3, the GT2 RS, the 991R, and now the illustrious 992 S/T. Listen to what he says at the 7:04 mark in the video:
Presenter: “One of the questions I had coming here is... I loved the rear steer in all your cars since the 991 generation. Why did you get rid of it?”
Porsche Engineer: “I think the most important reason is to improve the weight of the car, to get out some weight, because this car is the lightest 992 we have ever done and we wanted to achieve some numbers to get as much weight out of the car as possible. The second reason is we wanted to have a very clear driving behavior.. so very analog with all its disadvantages as well.”
This brief statement sums up the debate for me personally – it’s really about optimizing for weight reduction. He even agrees RAS is a technical advantage. But, first and foremost, they were trying to hit target figures for weight that required them to remove items from the car. They needed to be able to market the car as "the lightest 992." So, as he says, they were willing to sacrifice functionality to hit these figures. The engineer goes on to indicate a number of changes that were made to the steering, chassis, rear lock, etc. of the S/T to try and make it “feel like an older car.” The removal of functionality fits well with the overall narrative of the S/T of being a more “analog” car. Sound familiar? How many times have we heard “the T ethos” mentioned on this forum as justification for one decision or another in the configurator? Think about who Porsche are marketing to with the S/T. I would suspect the average age of the investor who can afford one of these extremely rare cars is over 50 and, like the engineer, they buy into the idea of paying homage to the Porsche cars of yesteryear. Someone like Jerry Seinfeld comes to mind.
But that’s all speculation, so let’s look at some actual data. If weight is the primary reason for removal of RAS, what’s the actual return in terms of performance for shedding those 14 lbs? If I lose the RAS functionality to reduce weight, what do I get back? The primary metric that weight influences is acceleration. So, let’s use quarter mile time as a proxy for the impact of this decision. To understand how a 14-pound weight reduction affects the quarter-mile time of a 2024 Porsche 911 Carrera T, we can use some basic principles from physics and automotive performance. The calculation is an approximation since actual figures can vary in real-world conditions based on wind, weather, road surface, etc. The key factors here are the vehicle's power-to-weight ratio and the general rule of thumb in automotive performance that suggests a 100-pound weight reduction will generate a ~0.1-second improvement in quarter-mile time. This is a widely available figure. Google it if curious. The difference in power-to-weight ratio from removal of RAS can give us an estimate of the change in performance.
The calculations yield the following results:
Power-to-Weight Ratio with RAS: With a curb weight of 3,268 lbs with RAS included, and 385 horsepower, the power-to-weight ratio is calculated as horsepower divided by weight in pounds = ~0.1183 horsepower per pound
Power-to-Weight Ratio without RAS: Reduce the weight by 14 lbs from 3,268 lbs to 3,254 lbs and calculate the new power-to-weight ratio = ~0.1188 horsepower per pound
Difference in Power-to-Weight Ratio = ~0.00051 horsepower per pound increase
Estimated Improvement in Quarter Mile Time = ~0.014 seconds (or 14 milliseconds)
Well, there you have it. Getting rid of the 14 lbs of the RAS will improve your quarter mile time by a whopping 14 milliseconds. For comparison, the blink of a human eye is ~100 milliseconds. So, reducing the weight of the 2024 Porsche 911 Carrera T by 14 pounds will hypothetically improve the quarter-mile time by about 1/10th the blink of an eye. This is an entirely inconsequential result and will not be noticeable in any way in real-world conditions. I understand that the engineers of the S/T were looking for a combined weight reduction from all of the changes that were made. This removal of weight was essential to their overall marketing message for the car. But for those of us who have decided to invest in the T, it doesn’t seem prudent to over-index on weight as the primary factor for deciding what to spec or not spec. For example, if you removed RAS to save weight but added the extended range fuel tank – gasoline weighs ~6 lbs per gallon. Going from a 16.9 gallon tank to a 23.7 gallon tank will add nearly 41 lbs of weight on a full tank. Does that mean the extended range tank is a bad addition? Does it mean it doesn’t fit with the ethos of the car? I find it odd that this option is not as heavily debated given its weight impact is nearly 3x that of RAS.
The moral of this story… Like most of these decisions we agonize over in the configurator, whether or not you add RAS to your T ultimately boils down to your individual criteria, motivations, and budget. None of which are good nor bad. They are distinctly you. Cheers!
No issue at all! I’m a big boy, can even tie my own shoelaces.
With all the comments here, web-wise and in videos, I really felt I had to Genchi this myself.
The low grip section at the PEC was remarkable. The car with RAS was considerably and driver seat noticeably faster before the tail would start to slide. In my tiny mind this may have been that the rear wheels (steering opposite to the front at this low speed) where trying to put their traction down more in the arc of direction that the car was travelling at. The car without, the rears are grappling against the turn of the vehicle? I’d love someone to tell me if if there can be any truth in this….if I’ve even explained myself correctly?
I wish it were drier so the 50-60mph longer corners could be played with. But alas, no. Here, with RAS, the Consultant just kept commenting about a very consistent line and it felt very easy to maintain my set with zero movement under the car. He noticed no speed difference in the car without RAS, but I can say that I wasn’t troubling grip in either car that day, in the rain. Possibly a little more steering wheel input but that could have been imaginary.
All good fun though. And in 6hrs total I must have laughed out loud for about 4 of them! The noise, the autoblip, the turn in, the gear change (Manual and PDK!!) and the noise!!!!
However we spec them, we are all very fortunate!
Im trying to get my dealership, SA, to do paperwork for me to go to the Leeds, Alabama Porsche test track here on the east coast of the country. It’s a PIA paperwork but I’ve been hitting them hard to get me a slot. This way I too will have experienced all I can and learn how to get more enjoyment out of my ride.
Wanting to save weight on a 992 is not specifically about improving quarter mile time.
Right and if you're doing a lightweighting exercise, the low hanging fruits are all processes of omission before you start designing bespoke carbon body parts and magnesium wheels.
Apologies in advance for the long post. I enjoy reading everyone's commentary as a part of my morning news routine, so figured I would offer a perspective on an ongoing topic in case another reader finds it interesting.
As someone who has regularly used this forum as a source of insight for my own T build, I am always amazed what a strong response the Rear Axle Steer (RAS) topic elicits from the forum faithful. I have repeatedly heard the argument, “Porsche didn’t include RAS on the S/T” as the basis for a definitive conclusion why it shouldn’t be optioned on a T. There’s never any objective data to support this argument. It’s always anecdotes and feelings – which means each side feels they are right and are ultimately unwavering in their POV. The recent savagegeese video was compelling. It’s the first time we have heard directly from one of the Porsche engineers about the rationale behind why RAS was left off the S/T. The man in the video seems like a credible source. He was a lead chassis engineer on the 997 GT3, the GT2 RS, the 991R, and now the illustrious 992 S/T. Listen to what he says at the 7:04 mark in the video:
Presenter: “One of the questions I had coming here is... I loved the rear steer in all your cars since the 991 generation. Why did you get rid of it?”
Porsche Engineer: “I think the most important reason is to improve the weight of the car, to get out some weight, because this car is the lightest 992 we have ever done and we wanted to achieve some numbers to get as much weight out of the car as possible. The second reason is we wanted to have a very clear driving behavior.. so very analog with all its disadvantages as well.”
This brief statement sums up the debate for me personally – it’s really about optimizing for weight reduction. He even agrees RAS is a technical advantage. But, first and foremost, they were trying to hit target figures for weight that required them to remove items from the car. They needed to be able to market the car as "the lightest 992." So, as he says, they were willing to sacrifice functionality to hit these figures. The engineer goes on to indicate a number of changes that were made to the steering, chassis, rear lock, etc. of the S/T to try and make it “feel like an older car.” The removal of functionality fits well with the overall narrative of the S/T of being a more “analog” car. Sound familiar? How many times have we heard “the T ethos” mentioned on this forum as justification for one decision or another in the configurator? Think about who Porsche are marketing to with the S/T. I would suspect the average age of the investor who can afford one of these extremely rare cars is over 50 and, like the engineer, they buy into the idea of paying homage to the Porsche cars of yesteryear. Someone like Jerry Seinfeld comes to mind.
But that’s all speculation, so let’s look at some actual data. If weight is the primary reason for removal of RAS, what’s the actual return in terms of performance for shedding those 14 lbs? If I lose the RAS functionality to reduce weight, what do I get back? The primary metric that weight influences is acceleration. So, let’s use quarter mile time as a proxy for the impact of this decision. To understand how a 14-pound weight reduction affects the quarter-mile time of a 2024 Porsche 911 Carrera T, we can use some basic principles from physics and automotive performance. The calculation is an approximation since actual figures can vary in real-world conditions based on wind, weather, road surface, etc. The key factors here are the vehicle's power-to-weight ratio and the general rule of thumb in automotive performance that suggests a 100-pound weight reduction will generate a ~0.1-second improvement in quarter-mile time. This is a widely available figure. Google it if curious. The difference in power-to-weight ratio from removal of RAS can give us an estimate of the change in performance.
The calculations yield the following results:
Power-to-Weight Ratio with RAS: With a curb weight of 3,268 lbs with RAS included, and 385 horsepower, the power-to-weight ratio is calculated as horsepower divided by weight in pounds = ~0.1183 horsepower per pound
Power-to-Weight Ratio without RAS: Reduce the weight by 14 lbs from 3,268 lbs to 3,254 lbs and calculate the new power-to-weight ratio = ~0.1188 horsepower per pound
Difference in Power-to-Weight Ratio = ~0.00051 horsepower per pound increase
Estimated Improvement in Quarter Mile Time = ~0.014 seconds (or 14 milliseconds)
Well, there you have it. Getting rid of the 14 lbs of the RAS will improve your quarter mile time by a whopping 14 milliseconds. For comparison, the blink of a human eye is ~100 milliseconds. So, reducing the weight of the 2024 Porsche 911 Carrera T by 14 pounds will hypothetically improve the quarter-mile time by about 1/10th the blink of an eye. This is an entirely inconsequential result and will not be noticeable in any way in real-world conditions. I understand that the engineers of the S/T were looking for a combined weight reduction from all of the changes that were made. This removal of weight was essential to their overall marketing message for the car. But for those of us who have decided to invest in the T, it doesn’t seem prudent to over-index on weight as the primary factor for deciding what to spec or not spec. For example, if you removed RAS to save weight but added the extended range fuel tank – gasoline weighs ~6 lbs per gallon. Going from a 16.9 gallon tank to a 23.7 gallon tank will add nearly 41 lbs of weight on a full tank. Does that mean the extended range tank is a bad addition? Does it mean it doesn’t fit with the ethos of the car? I find it odd that this option is not as heavily debated given its weight impact is nearly 3x that of RAS.
The moral of this story… Like most of these decisions we agonize over in the configurator, whether or not you add RAS to your T ultimately boils down to your individual criteria, motivations, and budget. None of which are good nor bad. They are distinctly you. Cheers!
12-19-2023, 06:47 AM
