Sauron

There is absolutely NO QUESTION that Ferrari assume a lower level of driving skill from their customers than Porsche do. This isn't just borne out by the presence of stability/traction control devices but the fact their cars have farmore benign on-limit handling characteristics too. (of course this is just my humble opinion).
HOWEVER to me, it also demonstrates a fundamental lack of faith from the manufacturer in the quality of the chassis. Porsche don't fit these devices (on their GT3/GT2 variants) because they are deemed "unecessary" (showing confidence in the product) *AND* they simultaneously assume that the driver will have a certain level of skill being the purchaser of what WILL be sold to them as a "focussed" product.
I am with W8MM - The CGT is actually no different to any other car out there in that the driver will always be ultimately 100% responsible for safety - whether the car has 100hp or 1000hp.

The question is - have Porsche simply put too much faith in their customers and are they therefore wrong to assume ANY skill level at all.
This can be linked back to the original point of the thread. Both the GT2 AND the CGT have a fearsome reputation:
However it appears that the CGT is a car with a fabulously resolved chassis BUT it's very character assumes and expects something of the driver.
This is perhaps unlike the 996 GT2 which implies a FLAWED chassis/power delivery IN NEED of stability control devices....


OR put another way:

The point of this thread was simple - to establish whether the CGT's abilities come at the price of asking too much from all but the greatest drivers (a bad car) OR
whether the capabilities are so high that drivers are struggling to calibrate themselves to a car that has raised the bar extremely high (a GREAT car).

Sauron

Well guys - which one is it? Because I don't think there is actually any overlap -think of it this way - a car is either great or it's NOT.

themarsman

It is a GREAT car! In fact it is the greatest car I have ever driven.

Ray G

It is the best car I've ever driven for high performance, by a wide margin.

I really like the fact that there are minimal electronics, and the driver has to control it. If the car is beyond the abilities of any given driver, then it is a challenge for the driver to learn! That is still a good thing. I want to learn new things.

The coffee table book about the CGT (which was produced by Porsche) (link to amazon) tells how Walter Rhorl extensively tested the suspension settings, and was very concerned not to create a car that only a professional could drive. He wanted the car to be a little forgiving, which IMO it is.

Also, let keep things in perspective. Most of the "CGT Crashed" threads we've seen are crashes on the street (and not even in "fast" places - eg. boulevard). These may just be newbies or flakes driving. Apart from Ben Keaton, we have not seen any track-oriented drivers who have crashed. (Crashes during development don't count.) If you have any track experience, the CGT should not be a problem for you, as long as you don't rush yourself.

PogueMoHone

If I didn't misread you comment (it's a little ambiguous) You have reached a grossly incorrect implication and conclusion. The last time I checked the GT2 (or GT3) didn't have stability control devices. Rumor has it that "Walter" insisted on stability control for the CGT.

And to answer your question the CGT is a great car!

Nick

Your absolutely right, Mr. Rohrl did insist on some safety feature for the CGT. Additionally the engineers desparately wanted to equip the car with a sequential tranny but could not perfect it in time.

Asking an owner of a $500,000 car whether it is a great car is like asking Porsche whether it is a great car. What do you think they are going to say; it is a lousy car?

I do not own one but have ridden in and driven it several times. I believe it is the BEST production track car ever built. It really has no peer. Does that make it great; not to me

Would I buy one; hell no! I do not find enjoyment in a car that demands so much of me that a mistake could be fatal or at least very expensive. I saw the damage to the rear ended CGT which by all accounts was hit at less than 10 miles per hour and yet it cost $150,000 to repair. The damage was minor.

destaccado

Well that's the great thing about America, if someone with the money feels the CGT is too much of a car for them and they aren't skilled enough to handle it- they can always buy a Ferrari!

destaccado

A mistake can be fatal and expensive in any car. What would a 430 cost to fix in a similiar accident? 30,000? 50,000? more? Is that not very expensive?

Ray G

Small correction - the CGT only has traction control - not stability control.

Btw, when it intervenes, it's very subtle.

PogueMoHone

...and to put a finer point on it..traction control aids stability..ergo!

A rose by any other name is still as sweet smelling.

Les Quam

Gary TDF 360

It seems to me anyone who orders or buys a Ferrari today with the six speed manual transmission is someone who truly appreciates the art of driving and is not someone I would call a dinosaur. Kind of brings a tear to my eye knowing there are still some Ferrari owners out there with that mindset.

BTW I went out and watched the Ferrari challenge drivers when they were in town and it was amazing to see the guys driving their multi million dollar vintage Ferrari's around the track with reckless abandon. It was like going back in time as they raced by. Just tremendous!

Ray G

I meant it is not a "stability" system, such as PSM - the common definition of which involves yaw sensors and individual wheel braking.

Sauron

Nick - I am assuming a certain amount of objectivity from the owners here..... The owner of a McLaren Mercedes SLR told me that he thought it a **** car - on many occasions Ferrari F40 owners have told me that their cars are GROSSLY overrated..... Jaguar XJ220 hopeless etc etc.. Price/ownership is by the by... I was asking whether (within the context of rarefied supercars) the CGT is a truly great drivers car.... I think you'll find that there ARE People out there who do NOT blindly fall in love with what they purchase regardless of the price paid... perhaps you are not one such person - perhaps you are........

Regardless, what interests me a great deal, is the impression you give, that you feel a sports car perhaps should NOT demand 100% from you to extract very high levels of chassis ability. This feeling is totally consistent with what I feel is the gradual "dumbing down" of Ferrari's products - clearly you represent in my very humble opinion, the average Ferrari buyer. What's interesting is that this is totally unlike Porsche's philosophy applied to their GT3/GT2/ and, of course, CGT offerings.
Please don't get me wrong, I'm not intending to offend.. just another viewpoint.


Colm - You're exactly right and have hit the nail on the head.. This is the essence of the point I'm trying to make. Does Rhorls insistence on the traction control for the Carrera GT mean that there is failing in the chassis that electronics need to mask (my most relevant example of this is the ASR fitted to the Ferrari 360) OR is it there purely for safety purposes, in which case shouldn't it be more comprehensive (including PSM) - and finally if THAT'S the case then aren't we back to square one where the car may well be flawed????

Woodster

I believe the traction control is purely for practical reasons surrounding stupendous
levels of torque available at any RPM level. This has nothing to do with car/chassis/
suspension design, it is purely the result of physics. When I rode on the test track in
Liepzig in a CGT with Marc Lieb (this year's gt2 lemans winner), He drove with traction
control on, and later demonstrated how easy to get "squirrely" with the traction control
turned off and advised "never to turn it off". Oh, and I wish Nick could have heard him
heel/toe/throttle blip (with his brain, hands and feet of course), it was GLORIOUS!!

Ray G

I agree - the T/C is really to prevent wheel spin because the torque in even 3rd gear is immense. On the street, on various friction surfaces, it is wise to use T/C. It doesn't mean the car's chassis is flawed at all. (even F1 cars have T/C)