paper is cool
digital is fine too. though i print just about everything out to read. most emails, and RL threads. hate reading on computer. i am a tree killer and proud of it.

 

yes, paper is definitely much softer on the eyes. i have to always keep turning down the brightness on the apple screen as it just screws up my eyes after a couple of hours. there will be a lot of young people with screwed up vision when they get older.

 

Very nice article on the GT3 4.0 RS from Chris Harris. Favorite author on favorite magazine !!!

 

Trees are one of earth's greatest renewable resources. Brazil can turn over a harvest every 7yrs with minimal environmental impact. The paper mills they use are totally self-sufficient and run on steam generated by the bark of trees harvested.

I'm glad you enjoy your iPad and I have one myself but don't kid yourself that you're making a great environmental sacrifice. After all, what do you think all the plastic, glass, fiber, and infrastructure that supports and enables the internet is made from, not to mention the ongoing electricity demand every time you charge it.[/QUOTE]

Can you replant the Ecosystems that are being destroyed as well?

How many books and magazines can you store on the iPad?
As SD memory plummets, sky's the limit.

& 2>3

 

Can someone post the Chris Harris review of the 4.0? I will definitely buy the mag when it hits the store.

 

Can't wait to read it when I come home from Mancation.
Maybe I will ask wifey to UPS it.

 

Just received it yesterday. I think most will appreciate his comparison between analog and digital which ties into the 4.0 and all GT3s. He mentions the torque being a welcome addition as he was able to use 3rd gear in places where he usually dropped to second while on track. I think his position on the digital advances in cars and how they remove us from the equation is what's most important to the future of Porsche GT cars. It's the connection we make with our cars that make the experience. It's how they communicate that gives them a soul. Technology has its place but doesn't usually equate to a lasting impression. Video games are all well and good but that's not a driving experience.

A car that moves you is one that you bond with, one that your partner is envious of. It sounds like the 4.0 is just that car. Just think of the sensual moments you could have while washing her.

 

Finally scored a copy of Excellence off the newsstand (having neglected to renew my subscription ... mea culpa!) I found Harris' write-up to be a good "first review" but I was hoping for more depth and detail. There's also some questionable details and what I assume are simply facts that have changed since this was written (as well as the typo's like "Flicks.")

I found the "8500 rev-limiter seems hopelessly cautious" to be a peculiar comment -- what does he mean? Is the rev-limiter coming in too early? Is it failing to hold the engine from exceeding the 8500 re-line or is it coming in too cautiously, meaning too soon and causing acceleratus interruptus? What does "hopelessly cautious" mean?

The comments on the torque in the 4.0 compared to the 3.8 appear to be wrong. Harris writes "while its [RS 4.0] torque peak shows up at 5750 -- 1000 revs later than the 3.8's." If the information I have is correct, the 4.0 delivers peak torque 1000 rpm earlier, not later, since the 3.8 peak torque is at 6750 rpm.

What I find most tantalizing (for want of a better word) is the mid-range torque and the how the car delivers acceleration up to say 120 or 130 mph -- some two seconds quicker on the splits than the 3.8. This is a range of acceleration that we use on the track in every straight, coming off the apex at say 40, 60 or 80 mph, then needing a quick romp up to 100 or 120 or 140. Every straight will see the 4.0 potentially a full second ahead of the 3.8! That's a staggering advantage to contemplate -- mind-boggling to think that a 4.0 could be two or even four seconds quicker around Laguna or Sears than the 3.8 just by virtue of mid-range acceleration. This is going to be fun.

 

Sorry, but your understanding of speed is not quite correct. A car that takes one second longer to reach 120mph than another is nowhere near one second ahead on a straight. It just means that when one has reached 120mph, the other is maybe only at 115mph. That equates to a very very very slow pulling away on a straight. The benefit will be perhaps 1/10th of a second only on a straight.

Sport Auto have tested the new 4.0RS and it was only 3 secs faster than the 3.8l 97RS.2 on the 'ring, which over a 7:30 lap means that on a typical track with a sub 2 min lap, the difference is well under a second per lap.

On the Hockenheimring the 4.0RS lapped only 0.1secs quicker than the 3.8RS. The GT2 RS was over 1 sec faster than both BTW.

 

+1.

BTW, I love your avatar! I wanted to say I love your tail but was afraid you might take it the wrong way.

 

I'm sure you're right and I'm letting my imagination run away with me -- something that is yet to yield faster lap times.

And I agree the 'ring is a great equalizer -- seven minutes is a good length of time for a comparison. I find it less than I expected for the 4.0 to be, well, quicker than the Carrera GT, hell, but not so much quicker than the 3.8 RS and I think there's a measure of "deference" in the 4.0 RS time relative to the 2RS time.

For what it's worth, if I compare the relative acceleration metrics of the GTS and the 3.8 RS, when I accelerate down the main straight side by side with a GTS with PDK, the 3.8 RS walks away -- it's not a very slow affair, it's a wide gap of ten lengths. That's not to say the GTS isn't formidable and would likely bring consternation to the average driver in a GT3 expecting no contest.

 

I'm surprised you pull that much from starting at the exact same speed, are you sure you're not coming out of the corners faster to start with, which would be expected in an RS vs GTS track-match. This would give rise to a lot of the perceived advantage. Of course the GTS is about 200lbs heavier as well, so that has some influence.

I've done a lot of 0-200mph races on runways and I always found that it was surprising how little distance cars put between each other up to about 150mph even when having quite material power advantages. To make really significant gains on identical cars (tyres/suspension/make etc) it takes quite a large power differential.

Heres an old video of my Ruf GT2 vs an Exige:

http://youtu.be/1darMeKbdBc

 

That's an hilarious video. No, my car was nothing like that compared to a GTS! What was that? 100 lengths? 200?

I have a couple of SD cards of video. I'll dig through and post some excerpts (in a separate thread ... : )

 

He's not Chris Harris. However the review is quite good.

 

That's a nice, tidy review and some fun country road sequences. And some of the other CAR mag videos show they've hired that disgraceful turd who played Stig. A shame CAR has associated themselves with that mongrel.