Why would JRZ make a box to avoid having to buy their product?

 

Alright, you guys are killin' me.

To all the various challenges to/criticisms of Excellence's 996 GT3 and 997 GT3 comparo/test at Infineon:

-Please find me a track test/track day drive/etc. where the mindset is to get the last mm out of the car right up to where you stuff it. This simply doesn't exist. Not at Car and Driver, not with Excellence, and certainly not with owners on casual track days. Car preservation is always in the mind of any (smart) driver. What you see instead are mistakes. I haven't heard anyone ever boast "Well, my goal today was to push it right up to the limit, even if that meant going over the limit" after a good shunt, even if that was indeed what (obviously) happened.

Did I instruct Johannes to keep the cars pretty? You bet. To do otherwise would be irresponsible on my part for a variety of reasons, but it was more a reminder for a pro who I am comfortable that he knows how to get a useful set of *representative* times while preserving a car.

I am comfortable that we got just that, from someone who knows how to walk the line better than most of us ever will.

-On the idea that owners and track days will be more illuminating than our test: Well, I guess it's *possible* but I think it's unlikely. It assumes too much.... You're going to have to hope for two (amateur) drivers with perfectly equal skill OR work with the same driver's times on different days. And we all know about track surface variability. Also, hopefully, it will be with two cars more perfectly matched than the two we used (certainly possible). Then there are all the issues with alignments, brakes, tires, etc. And, finally, the correct analysis...

-Jeff's friend's comments are indeed interesting, but are far more subjective info than what we gained in our time with Johannes on track. I'm also totally okay with his view contradicting mine. That's the nature of different drivers. Some people don't mind Audi steering, after all.

This much is objective: Lightened, aligned (but with not so nice camber settings) 996 GT3 vs. heavier 997 GT3 with better camber consistency (but, admittedly) unknown toe settings showed the 997 was still faster. I stand by my *estimate* of a 2-4 second advantage on most longer tracks for the same driver if the 997 had the same advantages in weight removed/tires/etc.

-CandD's numbers go unquestioned, but have you considered: Is their test driver equally able to extract the same % from each car -- FE/RD Corvette, ME/RD Lotus, RE/RD 911? Also, they used the same GT3 we did, so what about the alignment so many are so certain was "off"? FWIW, I was able to tell when a press 996 GT3 was out of spec from behind the wheel and confirmed it via an alignment (everything good, but 50-percent off in camber at the left rear). Yet the 997 didn't bug me -- though I wouldn't feel right saying it's perfect without a proper check. Also, what about the tire advantages of the Lotus and GT3 over the Z06...?

My point is, every test -- and I mean EVERY test -- has its limitations and qualifications. Excellence's did too. The difference is we provided you with all the information we could given the space we had and the time we had to do it (and it was quite a bit more than what you got in CandD) to let *you* consider the FACTS of what we found.

And the fact is the 997 GT3 was faster, this despite its setbacks in terms of weight, tires, tire pressures (set to mfr. rec.) and (possibly) alignment.

With the gap narrowed in terms of configuration, the fact is that the car would have been even quicker.

I guess I've been a little bugged ever since I read our test was "suspect, at best." Sorry, I think it's the statement that's suspect at best. The one danger in these forums is the power of the written word, and I feel this statement was an overstatement. Why this bothers me so much is that it unfairly minimizes the efforts and hard work of many people, and some of them served the community selflessly in this, not least Adam, Johannes, and the staff at Infineon.

Look, I don't mind criticism. It's helpful, in fact. But hopefully it comes with real thought and careful, complete, and accurate analysis. Sometimes, it does and I see a completely fair and right criticism of Excellence here. This time, however, I strongly disagree....

I'm comfortable with the information we garnered that day and will happily put it up against anything I've seen yet. It was what it was, and my only hope is that it was helpful.

pete

 

Pete,

I own a 997 GT3 and I have driven both the 997 and the 996 GT3's at the track. I agreed with many of your statements and comparisons between the 2 cars. I enjoyed the article! Keep up the good work!

 

Hello

Just wanted to drop in so you heard it from the horse's mouth. PASM can be disabled. It will default the shock to the firmest setting. It will also allow you to disconnect and remove the shock without throwing faults.

Here is the PDF on how to do it.
http://awe-tuning.com/media/pdf/AWE_...ASM_Delete.pdf

Here is the original thread where we posted.
https://rennlist.com/forums/showthre...highlight=pasm

 

Hey Mike!

So the next question is: Can you come up with a way to make it selectable within 2-3 *fixed* maps? Like comfort, street, race?

This is something I'd love to try. And a revised light behind the shock button that went from no light, to yellow, to red would make this a very, very slick install...

Not simple, I am sure, but could be very interesting and a (possible) step ahead of the various shocks out there....

pete

 

Not sure I follow.

The whole point of the exercise was to fully disable it so we could upgrade to a better damper.

We wanted to steer away from the OEM components.

 

Well, that's definitely one route and, given the experiences of many with Motons, Ohlins, etc, a very good one.

But I think there is an opening for someone to come up with a way to keep PASM in the car (attractive to owners I am sure) and simply eliminate its "active"/adaptive element and then fix settings in 2-3 maps, selectable via a button.

Think chip tuning, but for suspension, not engines.

Now, I don't know if the kind of strictly mechanical benefits seen in re-valved Bilsteins in the old cars (revised compression and rebound) could be then combined with an "over-ridden" PASM electronic system, but, if they could, the PASM shocks could potentially go Motons, etc. one better by being very good AND selectable at the touch of a button. Or perhaps take what PASM has in terms of system hardware and interface and develop a Moton/JRZ/Ohlins around that opportunity.

Just a couple of ideas, but I suspect the first one could be a popular one with those who like to keep things factory or closer to it, anyway, and the second one could take GT3 owners to new heights in these dual-purpose cars...

I have no doubt that Porsche will refine PASM in the future and make it better, but already there is much potential left on the table. Sort of like (the currently almost useless) Sport Chrono... think of it tied into GPS and all of PSM's sensors. Can you say full data acquisition, or something very close to it?

Just think of a weekend at the track, then downloading all the information and being able to watch your laps (with all your inputs) simulated on screen on Monday night...

Porsche has come very far, but the technology we have today in the cars is far from fully realized.

Today, I'll take a set of JRZs in a 997 GT3. But if some of the above was available (and for far less money and less intrusion) then I would be VERY interested...

Catch my drift?

pete

 

If a suspension company brought out a black box manual PASM control, I'd imagine the pricing and position would be at the low end, say $1K.

Product and marketing managers sweat over the risk of "cannibalizing" sales. If Porsche took the same stance, for example, they wouldn't sell a Boxster because it's possibly one less Cabrio sale.

The few people willing to find $5K for dampers and pull apart their new car are a separate group. The numerous people who would install a "plug and play" device that would give them control over the dampers would be a mostly separate group, with very little overlap.

Keep in mind they would have a product appealing to Carrera drivers. Having been on the track in a Carrera with PASM, the Carrera needs something to sharpen up the PASM a lot moe than the GT3 needs it.

Subjectively, the chances of me putting on Ohlins, JRZ, Moton, etc. is near zero. It's expensive. It's a great result, but it's expensive and it's not just dampers and springs (assuming you find the right calibration and weights) it's all the other upgrades needed to take advantage of the better suspension, especially in terms of chassis and bushings.

The idea of the black box to tame PASM is very appealing to me.

 

Just as well I didn't post the first draft of my response about "facts." ... : )

 

unlelss porsche does the fixed 2-3 settings PASM i doubt we will see it..to replace it is something very different from to understand how it works and override its command...and the "bigger" tuners that have that ability will not want to mess with it probably for legal issues and to sell their products!

for marketting and industry's trend for using certain technologies PASM will always be active even for future models but if they make it with more settings and allow less degree of active control within each setting(range of damper change) then we might have a winner

 

It's simply software/programming...but not simple software/programming...

I love the idea though.

...Press it once and it's your Sebring set up, press it again and it's your Homestead set up and press it a third time and it's your street set up...

 

Pete, personally my take away is that:

- your comparison is very valuable for the facts that it disclosed
- your comparison is not as valuable for the opinion stated, sort of like the 'gotta have it factor' from C&D.

Don't take it the wrong way, though. When I read a reference to 'purity of concept' I'm not offended, but somewhat dismiss it as something you personally thought based on your own biases/prejudices, which I may or may not agree with when I take delivery of mine shortly.

As for my friend's experience, I actually defer to Johannes' comments as a pro driver's impressions carry far more weight than a local track rat. But, it's one more data point to consider. I alsot note that Johannes didn't complain about lack of predictiablity or linearity IIRC, only that the car was loose. This is easily addressed with setup.

As for suspension, Mike AWE and Brandywines work on disabling PASM is quite helpful and appears to be enabling for a good set of shocks rather than active street bilsteins. My understanding, however, is that a fault remains in the brain, it's just that the output of that fault is shut off. I suppose an **** dealer could be grumpy with you if they read out the fault code, but would seem ludicrious to deny any warranty coverage outside the scope of springs/shocks.

Carrera GT, on 996 GT3s people have been quite successful changing out to a well sorted Moton setup, with only rear monoballs swapped. I know a lot of people change other rear components b/c stock tends to lose alignment, but we're not re-engineering things. If I decide to keep the GT3, I'll swap to a set of good shocks in a heartbeat if I feel the stock setup is lacking. I'm eager to find out!

 

giving mike a hard time now pete?
interesting idea but why would you have all *fixed* if you were going to this length?
may as well throw in the regular settings as well.
it does bring up the variability that software driven systems can provide that is not being utilized by two settings.

 

GOTTA give Mike a hard time... been impressed by his product, approach, and my dealings with him thus far, so why not turn up the burner...

Now we're heading in the right direction, at least IMHO. Though it is obviously no longer on this thread's original topic...

Variability is being used in PASM as is, but it's at the computer's discretion and the this is based on a number of factors. As we all know, the computer is not always the best for the task at hand.

Can I getta "Hello, Tiptronic?"

Back to PASM: 2, 3, or 15 settings, having a great (fixed) setup that can be changed to another (fixed) setup would be fantastic. At least, I *think* it would be based on my general (but certainly not complete) satisfaction with the old GT3's stock setup. That plus cockpit-adjustable suspension in several maps would be amazing...

Back to variability with PASM as is: What I noticed is that PASM "gets happy" after a while on perfect pavement and thus tightens things up. Then, when a single bump is encountered, there is no way it can react in time to soften the ride motion over that single bump.

I believe this is what another rennlister posted up about in the thread "GT3 Nits."

My idea would be to indeed eliminate some of the system's variability while taking advantage of its ability to adjust valving on the fly. I'm just not sure I'm convinced that the computer can do a better job of choosing the valving based on reacting.

Or better put, perhaps, I'd rather choose my damping and know how the car as a whole is going to react to my inputs than have a system that's "actively" trying to cancel understeer, etc. by changing the shock valving on the fly.

Maybe PASM is superior with WR behind the wheel for times, but I remain unconvinced by its addition to the experience of driving.

And, BTW, asked which 987S he would take for pure driving fun a couple of years ago, WR said 6-speed, 18s, no PASM. I concur.

pete

 

oh, i understand what you mean and agree!
i was just taking it a step farther with systems like pasm there should be varying maps available (including fixed) and maybe even the ability to program our own personal map.
pasm should also not be married to exhaust set up.