PSM in DE
09-10-2008, 06:10 PM
#31
Pro
Yep, especially if you use the sport button. Lots of leeway.
09-10-2008, 06:50 PM
#32
Race Car
Just keep in mind that the instructor can insist that it stay on, for his/her own reasons (most probably relating to safety).
09-10-2008, 07:00 PM
#33
Still plays with cars.
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
In my region the rule for instructors is PSM on, no matter what the student says or thinks. On the first cars (2000 - 2001) PSM was quite intrusive. With later models, PSM became much more tolerant and if the car is driven correctly gives enough latitude for 8 or 9 tenths driving - MORE than enough for DE even on R compound tires. Interestingly enough I just came off 2 days of DE and met two guys with new GT3's who had worn our the rear CERAMIC rotors in less than 5,000 miles. The rotors were not chunked, they were worn to below minimum thickness! That told me a lot about how they drive, Traction Control was working over-time on corner exits! They learned the benefits of progressive acceleration during their instructed sessions.
Regards,
Regards,
09-10-2008, 09:46 PM
#34
Three Wheelin'
In my region the rule for instructors is PSM on, no matter what the student says or thinks
09-10-2008, 11:53 PM
#35
been tracking 997s for 3 yrs. my first 997s did not have sport and second did...i do notice that the psm with me never kicks in excepts sometimes in the rain with sport but the last 997s without sport chrono kicked in a bit more (and maybe i was not as smooth then) so i used to turn in off..now i keep it on with sport on....except occasionally to experiment to see if times can be better with it off.
hey Stan and TOm...see you at Chin oct?
mk
hey Stan and TOm...see you at Chin oct?
mk
09-11-2008, 02:50 AM
#36
Three Wheelin'
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Fort Worth, TX
Posts: 1,367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I haven't driven a Porsche on track, but from what I hear PSM is 100x better than DSC.
09-11-2008, 06:45 AM
#37
Moderator
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Greg's right - DSC in BMW and PSM in 997 are worlds apart. Then again, in my E46M3 I usually left DSC on in order to force me to be extra smooth and I was running incredibly fast laps at Lime Rock and Watkins Glen in it without having DSC interfere. It would allow you some yaw, but no big-time drifting (which isn't the fastest way around these tracks anyway). I've heard that some tracks are worse with DSC than others - so this refers just my "home tracks". PSM in the 996 I understand is on-par with DSC, while the 997 version is so much better and as a training tool / safety measure, pretty amazing. To be able to allow the student about 20 degrees of yaw without kicking in on a normal non-SC 997 is plenty and the student will surely understand "Hmm, I probably shouldn't have the tail out this much - time to correct..."
09-11-2008, 09:39 AM
#38
Rennlist Member
BMW's system was designed by liability lawyers. Porsche's was designed by motorsports enthusiasts.
In fact, this pretty much summarizes the difference between current BMW's and Porsches overall.
09-11-2008, 11:17 AM
#39
Its obvious that most are in favor of PSM being used if available on a student's car.
One of the most logical counter arguments goes something like this:
- Learning to develop a keen sense of the car's balance is a critical objective for all students
- Experiencing the early signs of the car's limits is an essential part of learning car control
- Having these signs masked by stability management systems makes this more difficult
- The limits of the car with stability management off will occur at lower speeds and lower energies that are more likely to be controllable by the student
- The limits of the car with stability management on will occur at higher speeds and higher energies, and with potentially higher consequences.
There seems to be a lot of sense to this approach. Lets leave aside the issue of liability etc for a moment and consider the general proposition. Car control, and learning to read the car's limits, is something that a driver must learn. Which is the safer approach?
- Having the learning process happen at lower speeds and energies [without stability management]
- Having the early signs of the limits masked by stability management, and shifting the point at which the car will 'depart the envelope' to much higher speeds and energies.
This is a question that is challenging most car clubs that run track programs. Most have had instances of high speed depatures resulting in major damage, often involving relatively low hours drivers.
I'm not making an argument for disabling PSM, but it would be good to hear your thought on this approach.
One of the most logical counter arguments goes something like this:
- Learning to develop a keen sense of the car's balance is a critical objective for all students
- Experiencing the early signs of the car's limits is an essential part of learning car control
- Having these signs masked by stability management systems makes this more difficult
- The limits of the car with stability management off will occur at lower speeds and lower energies that are more likely to be controllable by the student
- The limits of the car with stability management on will occur at higher speeds and higher energies, and with potentially higher consequences.
There seems to be a lot of sense to this approach. Lets leave aside the issue of liability etc for a moment and consider the general proposition. Car control, and learning to read the car's limits, is something that a driver must learn. Which is the safer approach?
- Having the learning process happen at lower speeds and energies [without stability management]
- Having the early signs of the limits masked by stability management, and shifting the point at which the car will 'depart the envelope' to much higher speeds and energies.
This is a question that is challenging most car clubs that run track programs. Most have had instances of high speed depatures resulting in major damage, often involving relatively low hours drivers.
I'm not making an argument for disabling PSM, but it would be good to hear your thought on this approach.
09-11-2008, 12:16 PM
#40
Nordschleife Master
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Neither Here Nor There
Posts: 5,351
Likes: 0
Received 7 Likes
on
5 Posts
Tony -
That was essentially the argument levied by my instructor last weekend. At the time and with no experience (my first DE) I opted to listen and turned off PSM. However, with overinflated tires (8lbs above ideal), no PSM, rain, and lack of skill, I spun it a couple of times (180).
It is my understanding now that PSM will still give me the 'feedback' to indicate that I've gone outside the car's limits without imposing the severity of a spin or worse. If that is the case, it seems to be that both benefits can be obtained with PSM on--that is, drivers can learn the limits through feedback from PSM while still minimizing their risk. At least this appears to be the case with the advanced style PSM found in the 997.
That was essentially the argument levied by my instructor last weekend. At the time and with no experience (my first DE) I opted to listen and turned off PSM. However, with overinflated tires (8lbs above ideal), no PSM, rain, and lack of skill, I spun it a couple of times (180).
It is my understanding now that PSM will still give me the 'feedback' to indicate that I've gone outside the car's limits without imposing the severity of a spin or worse. If that is the case, it seems to be that both benefits can be obtained with PSM on--that is, drivers can learn the limits through feedback from PSM while still minimizing their risk. At least this appears to be the case with the advanced style PSM found in the 997.
09-11-2008, 12:24 PM
#41
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Its obvious that most are in favor of PSM being used if available on a student's car.
One of the most logical counter arguments goes something like this:
- Learning to develop a keen sense of the car's balance is a critical objective for all students
- Experiencing the early signs of the car's limits is an essential part of learning car control
- Having these signs masked by stability management systems makes this more difficult
- The limits of the car with stability management off will occur at lower speeds and lower energies that are more likely to be controllable by the student
- The limits of the car with stability management on will occur at higher speeds and higher energies, and with potentially higher consequences.
There seems to be a lot of sense to this approach. Lets leave aside the issue of liability etc for a moment and consider the general proposition. Car control, and learning to read the car's limits, is something that a driver must learn. Which is the safer approach?
- Having the learning process happen at lower speeds and energies [without stability management]
- Having the early signs of the limits masked by stability management, and shifting the point at which the car will 'depart the envelope' to much higher speeds and energies.
This is a question that is challenging most car clubs that run track programs. Most have had instances of high speed depatures resulting in major damage, often involving relatively low hours drivers.
I'm not making an argument for disabling PSM, but it would be good to hear your thought on this approach.
One of the most logical counter arguments goes something like this:
- Learning to develop a keen sense of the car's balance is a critical objective for all students
- Experiencing the early signs of the car's limits is an essential part of learning car control
- Having these signs masked by stability management systems makes this more difficult
- The limits of the car with stability management off will occur at lower speeds and lower energies that are more likely to be controllable by the student
- The limits of the car with stability management on will occur at higher speeds and higher energies, and with potentially higher consequences.
There seems to be a lot of sense to this approach. Lets leave aside the issue of liability etc for a moment and consider the general proposition. Car control, and learning to read the car's limits, is something that a driver must learn. Which is the safer approach?
- Having the learning process happen at lower speeds and energies [without stability management]
- Having the early signs of the limits masked by stability management, and shifting the point at which the car will 'depart the envelope' to much higher speeds and energies.
This is a question that is challenging most car clubs that run track programs. Most have had instances of high speed depatures resulting in major damage, often involving relatively low hours drivers.
I'm not making an argument for disabling PSM, but it would be good to hear your thought on this approach.
Which is the safer approach?
FWIW, Skip Barber takes the former approach in their 3-day racing school (- Having the learning process happen at lower speeds and energies [without stability management]). Their formula mazdas (or dodge) have no ABS, no SM, and have crappy street tires. Then they deliberately put students through exercises to get the feel of the cars at the limit. High speed lapping is the last exercise.
09-11-2008, 12:27 PM
#42
- Having the early signs of the limits masked by stability management, and shifting the point at which the car will 'depart the envelope' to much higher speeds and energies.
I'm not making an argument for disabling PSM, but it would be good to hear your thought on this approach.
I'm not making an argument for disabling PSM, but it would be good to hear your thought on this approach.
I also agree with the sentiment that driving the car with no electronic assistance (PSM, PASM, DSC) is quite rewarding. More rewarding is debatable. I say do what ever makes you happy - as long as you are safe.
-td
09-11-2008, 12:47 PM
#43
Although its hard to be truly objective, the various CIs engaged in this discussion feel that the current generation of stability management systems are basically undetectable by most if not all low hours drivers. As a data point, there is a world of difference between the systems on the 996 series and those on the 997 series.
The question here is not one of 'rewarding' or making the driver happier. It's about giving the driver a sense of the car's limits at speeds and energies where he has a decent chance of mastering the skills required to control those events. With exposure and experience, this will lead to getting the driver ahead of the car. That's the underlying assumption of this approach.
The question here is not one of 'rewarding' or making the driver happier. It's about giving the driver a sense of the car's limits at speeds and energies where he has a decent chance of mastering the skills required to control those events. With exposure and experience, this will lead to getting the driver ahead of the car. That's the underlying assumption of this approach.
09-11-2008, 01:53 PM
#44
Moderator
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
The reality today is that some cars have a version of PSM and others do not. Soon, all will come from the factory with it due to federal law. But of course, it will be a VERY long time before pre-PSM mandate are no longer running...
I do think about the liability aspect. For example, in this original post, let's take the spins a step further and imagine if the car was totaled. You have a student who did not want to disable the safety feature in the car and an instructor that insisted. Might there be a claim for negligence? Whether you agree there's a case or not, fact is there would probably be a claim either by the individual or his insurance company. Then that ties up the instructor, the club, etc.
Again, I started with an E46M3 and I knew exactly the moment when I was "not perfect" whether DSC chimed in or not. I learned early how to control the car properly. PSM takes DSC many steps further, especially on the 997. Now, I don't have PSM as the GT3 doesn't have it and I'm my own PSM, which is fine. I would think / hope that students coming in today with new cars will realize once their rear end is 20 degrees sideways that they didn't do something right and the instructor is teaching him / her how to correct. I've never felt DSC or PSM was so "on the ball" as to almost anticipate an error and correct it without driver or instructor realizing it (ie: the rear steps out 1 degree and nobody feels / hears it).
I do think about the liability aspect. For example, in this original post, let's take the spins a step further and imagine if the car was totaled. You have a student who did not want to disable the safety feature in the car and an instructor that insisted. Might there be a claim for negligence? Whether you agree there's a case or not, fact is there would probably be a claim either by the individual or his insurance company. Then that ties up the instructor, the club, etc.
Again, I started with an E46M3 and I knew exactly the moment when I was "not perfect" whether DSC chimed in or not. I learned early how to control the car properly. PSM takes DSC many steps further, especially on the 997. Now, I don't have PSM as the GT3 doesn't have it and I'm my own PSM, which is fine. I would think / hope that students coming in today with new cars will realize once their rear end is 20 degrees sideways that they didn't do something right and the instructor is teaching him / her how to correct. I've never felt DSC or PSM was so "on the ball" as to almost anticipate an error and correct it without driver or instructor realizing it (ie: the rear steps out 1 degree and nobody feels / hears it).
09-11-2008, 03:19 PM
#45
Pro
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Bluffton, SC
Posts: 627
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When the Carrera GT met its fate in San Diego at the Ferrari Club's Driver Ed - I understand, though I don't remember where I read it, that Porsche was sued for not putting a PSM system into the GT.
My question is, if you are at a DE - and you are told to turn off the PSM - and you are in an accident (God forbid) and you wanted to start suing - would you not be able to because the one element of your car that could of saved you -- you decided to turn off?
Just a thought.
My question is, if you are at a DE - and you are told to turn off the PSM - and you are in an accident (God forbid) and you wanted to start suing - would you not be able to because the one element of your car that could of saved you -- you decided to turn off?
Just a thought.