Thank you for the detailed response, really appreciate it. Can you clarify a few things for me?
- What do you mean, do I want a C4? How is RAS better on C4?
- What does this 'on rails' mean?
- When I specc'd my 992 T, I left RAS out, not for the price but I did want a more pure driving experience without any artifical feel. Perhaps it was an oversight on my part but on this forum RAS is very much favoured. I do not intend to track my car but would like to enjoy twisty roads. Curious why you went to say "hate it on 992 T" instead of being indifferent to it?

Thanks again.

 

What does this 'on rails' mean?
I switched your question because you will understand it more. On rails means that it’s very planted. Best comparison is it drives like a kart. Razorsharp in corners. So the driving of a Cayman is like on rails because it has a mid engine and the weight distribution makes the car feel very balanced thus planted. Engine in front gives a massa movement and of course also the engine in the back like the 911 where the front end is lose. Of course on the 992 this lose front end is almost gone away. But the basic physics still apply. So RAS is changing the car feel from rear engined bias to more of a mid-engined feeling.

What do you mean, do I want a C4? How is RAS better on C4?
AWD always makes a car more planted than 2WD. Because a Carrera 4(S) is more like driving on rails already this adds to making this planted feeling almost to perfection when adding RAS. It’s pretty basic rule that for drifting an AWD is not suited well. You can drift of course but your drift angle will be extremely high and you need much more throttle input. But it’s definitely not better nor easier than a RWD. When you drift you don’t drive on rails but on sand. So for that reason to me RAS makes less sense on C2 but it does on C4.

Perhaps it was an oversight on my part but on this forum RAS is very much favoured.
When you read the poll you see many people answer they have RAS but many don’t know why or have no experience with or without. I even read people saying they don’t feel the difference. A purist driver will always feel RAS within 100m of driving. The team of journalist that did not notice is not relevant. If they put them back 2 back they would notice it. And who is to say those journalists were all 911 experienced drivers? And what about the brain when somebody says it has it, you will believe this of course. Could of course also be most people here on Rennlist just prefer the more planted feel. Which is very understandable.

Curious why you went to say "hate it on 992 T" instead of being indifferent to it?
Because on the 4S I wanted this safe planted car that was razorsharp in the corners. On the T I am seeking for a purist drive without any interference (as much as possible) from electronics. I cannot change what the car already has. But will not add anything that does. For that same reason I did not add variable steering. I just want a clean feeling all the time. Sometimes I just want my car to feel like a RWD BMW playing around with the rear. I am not talking about drifting per se but changing the feeling of the rear of the car mid-corner with using the throttle to play around on the usual limits of understeer and oversteer. Even if you don’t go outside of those limits, within the borders of these limits playing around with the throttle (push and off the gas) will make the car playful (less planted). Of course Porsche chassis exceeds BMW chassis in every way. Just trying to give easy to understand examples. But this is why I would hate it on my T.

So to all people seeking for a razorsharp driven 911 which is planted to the max RAS will add a lot of fun. Amongst some other benefits (turning cycle). Of course this does not mean an ordinary 911 is not sharp. Of course it is. It’s a sportscar. That’s why I don’t need it, next to not wanting it. But this will put it more clear in framework to people not knowing what to do. Don’t forget: it’s about what kind of driver you are. You can also mix all these arguments I am using but it makes it less logical to me. The only thing I cannot change is getting used to the RAS feeling.

I hope this makes it all more clear. Disclaimer: English is not my main language therefore I might explain things wrong. Maybe some US readers who get my points can clarify it better. When you have more questions just ask them.

 

I have had it on multiple cars but will skip it moving forward. Not needed and I’ve grown to dislike it.

 

it’s code for “I optioned it on my car so therefore it’s great.” Also called Rennlist speak.

 

If you want to experience what drives “on rails” really means, drive a GT4 on track or in twisties

 

A car that is "on rails" is utterly boring. If one drives a GT4 like it is "on rails", one is not pushing hard enough

 

Improves low speed turn radius. Supposedly improves high speed stability. I can confirm the former, not the latter.

 

100%. Sometimes "better" is relative. I skipped the RAS in hopes my 911 would be a bit harder to handle. It's already so competent without RAS. I want to have fun sometimes. I'm sure a car with RAS it's faster around the track, but I was concerned about the feel of the car and ability to play around with it.

 

too much technology kills technology and fun.

 

Try to get alignment on RAS cars. Good luck
but makes cornering impressive with added PTV

 

>> too much technology kills technology and fun.
What's next? Make mine with carbs, drum brakes and no syncros for a more 'authentic' driving experience? As mentioned, RAS is standard on all 992 GT cars, and you don't hear this absurd discussion on those boards. These cars are literally computers with wheels, so it's a fools game to be cherry picking this or that 'enhancement' as a bridge too far. What's the old adage about 'too much choice creating dissatisfaction'?

 

Besides, what does this moron Walter Röhrl know... ?

"Yeah, for sure the rear-wheel-steering is part of using that power safely," Rohrl said. "The biggest advantage of four-wheel-steering is if you make a quick lane change. It's not really the handling. Of course, in a tight corner, it helps you that the car is turning in better. The biggest advantage is that quick lane change, though. It is much safer, much easier to drive."

 

GT cars feature a big wing on the back. Does everyone need to pick the aerokit?

RS cars have PDK as standard. Should we be prohibited from selecting a manual?

Not everything that enhances performance is appropriate or necessary for a persons best 911 driving experience.

 

I have it on my 992.1 4GTS. I've driven a base Carrera without it as well. I can definitely feel the difference on tight cornering -- it's like the back end pivots on a fixed point. It's quite remarkable. To avoid any battery issues I have the car on a charger specifically meant for the battery. I'd get it again.

 

At the beginning I added RAS. I wasn't planning on keeping the car long and wanted RAS for resale. Then I delete RAS. First on the personal recommendation of the editor of an influential Porsche magazine and second, after seeing a correlation between RAS being mostly disliked by driving enthusiasts and RAS being liked mostly by the cars and coffee crowd. I then added RAS back on. I'm lucky to own an analog GT3 and thought maybe I would try out the tech. I also bought into the argument that "all GT cars have it, so it must be great" and lastly because it's a T specific option you can't get on the base. I finally settled on deleting RAS for the following reasons:

• I want a proper 911 with rear engine bias and AWS dials it out. I considered the GT4 and passed on it mostly because it's mid engined and therefore not a 911, even though it's more capable.
• I really want a 991.2 because I don't want so much tech in my car. The 992 was just going to be a placeholder. I finally bought into the 992 but I'm drawing the line at optioning-in unnecessary nannies.
• I don't want the extra 20 lbs, which is really a lot more considering it includes a light weight battery. I will be working to bring this car down into the 3,100 lb range and RAS will make that goal harder to reach.
• There are too many anecdotes of the "synthetic feel" by RAS. I cringe at the thought of buying a car that is all about feeling connected to the road and having it feel synthetic.
• Lastly, RAS is one more thing to break. Whether it's the RAS system, or the battery or the extra complexity of alignment, I rather do without it.

In my final analysis, there are too many draw backs that don't justify the benefit. As someone posted above, even Walter Rohrl said it's primary function is to make (the GT2) faster and easier to drive. I rather develop my skill on the 380hp T and even my 425hp GT3, thank you. Maybe if and when I buy a 700hp GT2 I can worry about adding RAS for safety and ease.

Hope this helps someone.

PS - when reading opinions, keep an eye on the following: most people who like RAS rarely provide a detailed explanation of what they like about it. They just say they like it or that it helps with turning radius. Conversely, most people who don't like it provide a detailed explanation of how the car feels and under what conditions that led them to dislike it. Listen to the later and not the former.