No Clubsport option for the US
04-16-2009, 10:38 PM
#16
Addict
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
04-17-2009, 05:07 PM
#18
The Rebel
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Just to bring this post back on topic for a moment, the whole rollbar/DOT excuse is nothing but red herring from Porsche just like the sunroof issue was with Gen1 997 GT3. The only DOT requirement is that all upper interior surfaces must be padded such that contact with the head at a certain force doesn't cause serious injury. For anyone that doesn't believe this I suggest you read the following:
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd...16/98S8O06.PDF
Alternatively, you can go down to your local Porsche dealer and look behind the seats on any Boxster in the lot. Yup, those are roll-bars.
All PCNA would need is to pad the roll-bar in the Clubsport kit and it would whistle right through DOT approval.
Sooner or later everyone is going to figure out that the reason why we in the US, unlike the ROW, get spoon-fed a limited selection of options is because a bunch of marketing and accounting guys at PCNA sit around in a planning session and decide what combination of options they can offer that yield the maximum margins. End of story.
The only way this changes if enough customers scream load enough and/or walk away from deposits when they don't get what they want. This is exactly what I and many others did with the sunroof issue on the Gen1 997 GT3 and trust me PCNA got a lot of angry calls from dealers that had to return deposits. That's why the Gen2 997 GT3 WILL offer a sunroof delete as indicated in original product release materials and confirmed by multiple dealers.
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd...16/98S8O06.PDF
Alternatively, you can go down to your local Porsche dealer and look behind the seats on any Boxster in the lot. Yup, those are roll-bars.
All PCNA would need is to pad the roll-bar in the Clubsport kit and it would whistle right through DOT approval.
Sooner or later everyone is going to figure out that the reason why we in the US, unlike the ROW, get spoon-fed a limited selection of options is because a bunch of marketing and accounting guys at PCNA sit around in a planning session and decide what combination of options they can offer that yield the maximum margins. End of story.
The only way this changes if enough customers scream load enough and/or walk away from deposits when they don't get what they want. This is exactly what I and many others did with the sunroof issue on the Gen1 997 GT3 and trust me PCNA got a lot of angry calls from dealers that had to return deposits. That's why the Gen2 997 GT3 WILL offer a sunroof delete as indicated in original product release materials and confirmed by multiple dealers.
04-19-2009, 03:34 AM
#19
Instructor
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: SF Bay Area / Switzerland
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In their defense, US margins suck compared to the rest of the world.
US MSRPs are so low (before mark-ups which PCNA does not get a dime on) that it does somehow make sense from their point-of-view that they keep supply chain complexity and NHTSA certification costs in check. The US market gets a very, very favourable treatment overall. If you'd like to pay your next GT3 at ROW MSRP and have more options, let them know too. I am sure they will take notice.
This said, you are perfectly right to complain and walk out if you are not happy. Too few people do that.
US MSRPs are so low (before mark-ups which PCNA does not get a dime on) that it does somehow make sense from their point-of-view that they keep supply chain complexity and NHTSA certification costs in check. The US market gets a very, very favourable treatment overall. If you'd like to pay your next GT3 at ROW MSRP and have more options, let them know too. I am sure they will take notice.
This said, you are perfectly right to complain and walk out if you are not happy. Too few people do that.
04-19-2009, 03:47 PM
#20
Rennlist Member
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Somewhere in a galaxy far, far away....
Posts: 17,108
Likes: 0
Received 259 Likes
on
173 Posts
ze-shark:
off topic, but you got two ferraris in your avatar that i enjoy! sure to be a classic 355, and the best ferrari v-12 deal available, the 550! nice.
off topic, but you got two ferraris in your avatar that i enjoy! sure to be a classic 355, and the best ferrari v-12 deal available, the 550! nice.
06-28-2009, 08:36 AM
#21
Instructor
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: SF Bay Area / Switzerland
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks ;-)
Damn, it's quite ironic that for reasons pertaining to road safety, one can't order safety equipment that will make a track-oriented car safer. Being able to order the parts is in one thing, but the absence of proper mounts is a pain in the neck. I've been shown around in a just delivered CS GT3.2, the mounts for the front cage are there, cuts already made in the carpets. Guess I will have to buy a euro car this time ...
Damn, it's quite ironic that for reasons pertaining to road safety, one can't order safety equipment that will make a track-oriented car safer. Being able to order the parts is in one thing, but the absence of proper mounts is a pain in the neck. I've been shown around in a just delivered CS GT3.2, the mounts for the front cage are there, cuts already made in the carpets. Guess I will have to buy a euro car this time ...
06-28-2009, 12:09 PM
#22
Nordschleife Master
It is a combination of DOT and potential litigation. They are not going to provide potential additional feeding grounds for lawyers with such a small upside.
06-28-2009, 12:10 PM
#23
Well I don't know about you guys but to be honest, I wouldn't want to get involved in an accident on the road with a car that is equipped with a roll bar if I'm not wearing a helmet.
So unless you are going to be driving your car on public roads wearing a helmet, the roll bar is a bad idea.
As far as the reason why the MKII RS had NO sunroof, it was because in all of their literature, Porsche promised that the RS would be 20kg lighter than the GT3 in ALL markets.
So in order to make the North American RS 20kg lighter than the North American GT3 was to make the North American GT3 heavier..that's why the NA GT3 got the sunroof.
So unless you are going to be driving your car on public roads wearing a helmet, the roll bar is a bad idea.
As far as the reason why the MKII RS had NO sunroof, it was because in all of their literature, Porsche promised that the RS would be 20kg lighter than the GT3 in ALL markets.
So in order to make the North American RS 20kg lighter than the North American GT3 was to make the North American GT3 heavier..that's why the NA GT3 got the sunroof.
06-28-2009, 12:23 PM
#24
Instructor
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: SF Bay Area / Switzerland
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You are tallking about the front roll bar posts that go down along the A pillar ?
I am no accident kinematics expert, but I would expect that:
- the airbag keeps your head clear from the bar
- the additional structural protection in case the car flips over far outweighs the risk
Now this is pure assumption. But I remain more concerned about a bad, major shunt on track rather than on public roads.
Then, on the track, it's a no brainer.
Aftermarket rear bars give you piece of mind but I've been talked out of their genuine protection by track specialists who say out of experience that, with your head kept in place by 4 point harnesses, their genuine protection is very limited.
I am no accident kinematics expert, but I would expect that:
- the airbag keeps your head clear from the bar
- the additional structural protection in case the car flips over far outweighs the risk
Now this is pure assumption. But I remain more concerned about a bad, major shunt on track rather than on public roads.
Then, on the track, it's a no brainer.
Aftermarket rear bars give you piece of mind but I've been talked out of their genuine protection by track specialists who say out of experience that, with your head kept in place by 4 point harnesses, their genuine protection is very limited.
06-29-2009, 08:08 AM
#25
Advanced
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: uk
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If there's no cage then a normal seatbelt allows your body to 'slide' down the seat which is important if you roll and the roof caves in.
06-29-2009, 08:28 AM
#26
Rennlist Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Mobile, Alabama
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, now I AM confused. Is the 2010 GT3 being delivered in the US WITH or WITHOUT sunroof???? My Salesperson says it will have a Sunroof. I actually almost never listen to him, but he gets his info from the porsche rep. So, any hard facts?
Mike
Mike
06-29-2009, 11:52 AM
#27
Instructor
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: SF Bay Area / Switzerland
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The point is that when held in place by a harness you can't move and the cage therefore gives you space for your head to stay in its normal position without getting crushed in the case of a roll.
If there's no cage then a normal seatbelt allows your body to 'slide' down the seat which is important if you roll and the roof caves in.
If there's no cage then a normal seatbelt allows your body to 'slide' down the seat which is important if you roll and the roof caves in.
The argument, which is quite credible when you compare side-by-side with a car with a front cage, is that the OEM CS rear cage offers only very marginal protection, and that you need the front extension, especially if you wear harnesses. Draw a straight line between the base of the A pillar and the top of the rear cage, and then try to figure where your harness-strapped body would be. It's not confidence-inspiring.
I am told that the Tequipment rear cage with its side mounts is a joke.
06-29-2009, 02:04 PM
#28
Rennlist Member
The good news (for me) is that my ship date is set for no later than 9/2/09.
06-29-2009, 07:45 PM
#29
Advanced
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: uk
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Precisely.
The argument, which is quite credible when you compare side-by-side with a car with a front cage, is that the OEM CS rear cage offers only very marginal protection, and that you need the front extension, especially if you wear harnesses. Draw a straight line between the base of the A pillar and the top of the rear cage, and then try to figure where your harness-strapped body would be. It's not confidence-inspiring.
The argument, which is quite credible when you compare side-by-side with a car with a front cage, is that the OEM CS rear cage offers only very marginal protection, and that you need the front extension, especially if you wear harnesses. Draw a straight line between the base of the A pillar and the top of the rear cage, and then try to figure where your harness-strapped body would be. It's not confidence-inspiring.
Now you've mentioned it and looking at the roofline, I'm not sure how the rear cage alone could actually make harnesses a safe choice as it certainly looks like the head is pretty much always going to be in the 'risk' area in the event of a total collapse of the frontal roof in a roll
Of course it would offer increased protection if using seatbelts.
Really not sure now - especially as the seats look so much better in leather/alcantara thatn nomex!
Not found many pics side-on with a driver and cage, I guess you mean like the red line I've put here: