article help
10-25-2002, 01:10 PM
#16
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
[quote]Originally posted by Christian Stewart:
<strong>I do take issue however with those who seem to hold "road-only" users of Porsches in contempt - they are road cars, get used to it......</strong><hr></blockquote>
Christian,
I certainly do not feel that one must drive his or her Porsche on the track to be a "real" owner. I do it simply because it's fun, and I hope to advance to more dedicated race cars some day.
Interestingly, the same attitude is held by some with respect to off-road vehicles such as the Range Rover. We honestly bought our RR as an alternative to a traditional luxury sedan - one that can function as a tow vehicle and people hauler in all types of weather. We may take it into the country every once in a while, but it's primary purpose for us is not to climb boulders. Some view this type of light-duty SUV ownership with contempt.
<strong>I do take issue however with those who seem to hold "road-only" users of Porsches in contempt - they are road cars, get used to it......</strong><hr></blockquote>
Christian,
I certainly do not feel that one must drive his or her Porsche on the track to be a "real" owner. I do it simply because it's fun, and I hope to advance to more dedicated race cars some day.
Interestingly, the same attitude is held by some with respect to off-road vehicles such as the Range Rover. We honestly bought our RR as an alternative to a traditional luxury sedan - one that can function as a tow vehicle and people hauler in all types of weather. We may take it into the country every once in a while, but it's primary purpose for us is not to climb boulders. Some view this type of light-duty SUV ownership with contempt.
10-25-2002, 01:45 PM
#17
Cap'n Insane the Engorged
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Amir- It sure does sound like your refering to me in that other thread. Contempt is not the right word, I just view it as a bit of a waste. Did you take yor RR on the test track at your dealer? If you do, I think you'll see what I mean. You've even said yourself, "The track is one of the few places where you can truly enjoy driving and explore a Porsche's excellent engineering and capabilities." The same can be said for your new Rover, just a different kind of track. As we all know probably 95% of SUV owners don't take their vehicles off-road, so there's nothing new here. As far as Porsches being road cars, of course they are and a damn fine ones at that. The point of my previous post was just to show how Porsche markets the 911 in regards to racing.
10-25-2002, 06:49 PM
#18
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Rob,
I brought up the track argument only to illustrate that your SUV feelings could be applied to a sports car as well. In your posts, you flatly suggest that Ibanez should not consider the new RR unless he spends a considerable amount of time off-road. Why not? The '03 RR is a great real world road car, irrespective of its off-road capabilities.
My point throughout these threads has been that your wasted potential argument for the RR applies equally well to your Porsche as a U.S. road car. Forget about the track issue; we simply do not get to explore the vast majority of a Porsche's engineering capabilities at traditional U.S. road speeds. The car was designed for the Autobahn after all.
Why then is the purchase of your Porsche not "a bit of a waste" as well? Would you accept the statement, "If you're not going to cruise at 135 mph, then the 996's not for you"?
I would argue that your Porsche is not a "waste", because you don't have to hit 150 mph to reap its rewards anymore than I need to climb boulders or cross streams everyday in the RR to appreciate its engineering. I love over-engineering - both in the 993 and RR. It's nice to know that I can safely and effectively venture off-road if I need to.
BTW, my name is Anir. There is another Rennlister named "Amir"; he posts under "zamirz". I don't want to taint his good name.
Anir <img src="graemlins/beerchug.gif" border="0" alt="[cheers]" />
I brought up the track argument only to illustrate that your SUV feelings could be applied to a sports car as well. In your posts, you flatly suggest that Ibanez should not consider the new RR unless he spends a considerable amount of time off-road. Why not? The '03 RR is a great real world road car, irrespective of its off-road capabilities.
My point throughout these threads has been that your wasted potential argument for the RR applies equally well to your Porsche as a U.S. road car. Forget about the track issue; we simply do not get to explore the vast majority of a Porsche's engineering capabilities at traditional U.S. road speeds. The car was designed for the Autobahn after all.
Why then is the purchase of your Porsche not "a bit of a waste" as well? Would you accept the statement, "If you're not going to cruise at 135 mph, then the 996's not for you"?
I would argue that your Porsche is not a "waste", because you don't have to hit 150 mph to reap its rewards anymore than I need to climb boulders or cross streams everyday in the RR to appreciate its engineering. I love over-engineering - both in the 993 and RR. It's nice to know that I can safely and effectively venture off-road if I need to.
BTW, my name is Anir. There is another Rennlister named "Amir"; he posts under "zamirz". I don't want to taint his good name.
Anir <img src="graemlins/beerchug.gif" border="0" alt="[cheers]" />
10-25-2002, 08:52 PM
#19
Cap'n Insane the Engorged
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Anir (sorry 'bout that) - I said why not in the other thread, "I don't see the Rover as a valid alternative to a luxury sedan at all. You give up a lot (acceleration, handling, braking) because of it's off road prowess." You disagree and that's fine.
And I never said everyday, I try to drive mine as little as possible.
In another thread Christian Stewart wrote,
"Two very different vehicles, if you plan on doing a lot of serious off roading go w/the Rover. Both are compromises, coming from different sides of the dual purpose coin and engineered to huge lengths to overcome natural deficiencies in the other "purpose". The Range has ben designed with incredible off road potential and then engineered to have good road manners. The Cayenne approaches the compromise from the road side, with clever electronic trickery to make it supposedly remarkably good offroad too.
Both are heavy bricks which designers have had their work cut out to try and make attractive. Having seen the new Range at work here in Scotland, the initial novelty and impression of clever design touches has personally given over to the conclusion that it's a slab sided ship.....
Both are also going to be sold primarily to people who will hardly ever use the off road potential. For that reason I reckon the Cayenne is the more logical approach to the compromise.
I'd still own a new Range - but that's because I would use the thing off road on a frequent basis and then put up with the road manners. I would have a Cayenne for the same reason, gaining satisfaction I suspect in it's better than class standard road holding and making do with it's off road compromise.... but only if the old bank manager could be won over......."
I said basically the same thing, "Two very different vehicles, if you plan on doing a lot of serious off roading go w/the Rover."
As far as the Porsche, I bought it and drive it for other things besides cruising at 135 mph, though I have been known to do that on occasion. More for cornering hard w/the top down. I live in the midst of some beautiful mountain roads where I can push my baby as hard as she wants.
<img src="graemlins/beerchug.gif" border="0" alt="[cheers]" />
And I never said everyday, I try to drive mine as little as possible.
In another thread Christian Stewart wrote,
"Two very different vehicles, if you plan on doing a lot of serious off roading go w/the Rover. Both are compromises, coming from different sides of the dual purpose coin and engineered to huge lengths to overcome natural deficiencies in the other "purpose". The Range has ben designed with incredible off road potential and then engineered to have good road manners. The Cayenne approaches the compromise from the road side, with clever electronic trickery to make it supposedly remarkably good offroad too.
Both are heavy bricks which designers have had their work cut out to try and make attractive. Having seen the new Range at work here in Scotland, the initial novelty and impression of clever design touches has personally given over to the conclusion that it's a slab sided ship.....
Both are also going to be sold primarily to people who will hardly ever use the off road potential. For that reason I reckon the Cayenne is the more logical approach to the compromise.
I'd still own a new Range - but that's because I would use the thing off road on a frequent basis and then put up with the road manners. I would have a Cayenne for the same reason, gaining satisfaction I suspect in it's better than class standard road holding and making do with it's off road compromise.... but only if the old bank manager could be won over......."
I said basically the same thing, "Two very different vehicles, if you plan on doing a lot of serious off roading go w/the Rover."
As far as the Porsche, I bought it and drive it for other things besides cruising at 135 mph, though I have been known to do that on occasion. More for cornering hard w/the top down. I live in the midst of some beautiful mountain roads where I can push my baby as hard as she wants.
<img src="graemlins/beerchug.gif" border="0" alt="[cheers]" />