Track set up stock 3.2 Carrera VS. Absolute stock 996.......
08-06-2008, 08:05 AM
#31
Nordschleife Master
Why don't you look at the results of past PCA races and see what different cars in different classes are doing in capable hands (those finishing regularly at the top of the podium) with more than just a couple cars to compete against.
08-06-2008, 08:31 AM
#32
Rennlist Member
Dell, the 996's running at PCA are not stock in terms of suspension/exhaust. The stock 996 pushes like a pig in mud and has a nice bounce to the front end. In a very capable drovers hands, I think a stock 996 would be the better choice, but for confidence in a corner, a well tuned suspension is paramount. Properly inducing oversteer in a stock 996 takes talent.
08-06-2008, 08:55 AM
#33
Drifting
08-06-2008, 09:03 AM
#35
Nordschleife Master
Dell, the 996's running at PCA are not stock in terms of suspension/exhaust. The stock 996 pushes like a pig in mud and has a nice bounce to the front end. In a very capable drovers hands, I think a stock 996 would be the better choice, but for confidence in a corner, a well tuned suspension is paramount. Properly inducing oversteer in a stock 996 takes talent.
08-06-2008, 09:13 AM
#36
Good point, but at least he can compare "stock" class for stock class and see what the disparity is between the cars as a baseline. Then you can extrapolate backward however far you want on the infinite variables he seems to want to compare in this apples to oranges debate.
08-06-2008, 09:16 AM
#37
Nordschleife Master
Well, if we could create a measurement set that would allow us to treat "suspension" modifications as confounding variables, we could then remove then at our discretion to account for the amount of effect they actually had.
Class doesn't start back up for 2 weeks so this very well might be a good idea. But then again, I don't want any of my students to know what I do for fun outside the university
Class doesn't start back up for 2 weeks so this very well might be a good idea. But then again, I don't want any of my students to know what I do for fun outside the university
08-06-2008, 09:24 AM
#38
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
My mistake. For some reason, I was thinking that Paolo had a 964 and looked up the ratings on that. That being said, I'll still put the power to weight ratio at 11.5, and I bet it is slightly better than that.
My money is still on the 3.2. I really want to see a stock 996 do better lap times than a 1:42 at Mid-Ohio or 2:11 at Watkins Glen before I believe otherwise.
My money is still on the 3.2. I really want to see a stock 996 do better lap times than a 1:42 at Mid-Ohio or 2:11 at Watkins Glen before I believe otherwise.
2:11 at WGI? Come on, let's get serious......
08-06-2008, 09:34 AM
#39
I don't think *you* can do a 2:11 (yet) but that's not what the question was about, was it?
08-06-2008, 09:41 AM
#40
Addict
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
So many variables here, and no common definition of the terms used to describe the two cars, that this is another question with no definitive answer.
The 2:11 is in the history books.
The 2:11 is in the history books.
08-06-2008, 09:44 AM
#41
Race Car
Andy
08-06-2008, 09:50 AM
#42
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
Maybe I'm mistaken on the previous owner, but wasn't it Ron S.'s old car? If so, then I'm completely serious on 2:11. Owners of similar cars did 2:12's at this year's glen race, and Ron was a faster driver.
I don't think *you* can do a 2:11 (yet) but that's not what the question was about, was it?
I don't think *you* can do a 2:11 (yet) but that's not what the question was about, was it?
With that been said, I am sure that Ron would probably do 2:11s in the current status now by pushing a bit harder.......
I don't think I will ever see 2:11s myself, but I am no where near league as you or Ron S.
08-06-2008, 09:59 AM
#43
Paolo's car: class winning F class car. I'm going to assume he bought it with all the goodies that made it a class winning car (granted, that's a big assumption). It actually has a history of doing a 2:13 at the Glen. My 2:11 supposition is based on the fact that the track is about 2 seconds faster since the time it did a 2:13.
Stock 996: I'm assuming something similar to showroom stock. Alignment is maxed out as best as possible for the track (and that's not saying much) and brake pads are race pads, not the stock pads.
Oh, R-compound tires on both cars.
In a race, I might give the nod to the 996 since it could block the corners and make it difficult for the 3.2 to exploit it's handling advantage. For overall best lap time, I don't think there's any question the 3.2 is going to win...
More evidence: Carl Tallardy ran a 2:08.052 in a 996 at this year's race. Louis Bedstadt ran a 2:12.626 in 1987 911. I guess the question is... is a track setup versus a stock car worth 4 seconds? I have no doubt that the answer is yes.
Again, show me a stock 996 that is running in the 2:11's and I might believe otherwise.
08-06-2008, 10:33 AM
#45
uninformed gas bag
(contemplating on whether gas bag is one or two words)
Rennlist Member
(contemplating on whether gas bag is one or two words)
Rennlist Member
I would think if you put a competent driver that had no rear engine track experience in a E class car or a 996 he would do better out of the box in the 996.
My car at Glen in "F" in 05'...............................................2:22.9
Same driver at Glen in 08' in "I" driving 02' 996..................2:21.3
My car at Glen in "F" in 05'...............................................2:22.9
Same driver at Glen in 08' in "I" driving 02' 996..................2:21.3
Last edited by MUSSBERGER; 08-06-2008 at 02:45 PM.