Front styling - 981 Boxster vs. Cayman

[southernstar]

Thanks for that, Blue2000S and Perfectlap. I was referring, of course, to the new 981 Boxster versus Cayman and Porsche's claims about their respective merits. I don't have the mags in front of me, but I believe there is reference to it in the test in Issue#210 of Excellence on the new Cayman S called 'Porsche's Best', or some such thing. Alternatively, it may have been in other tests of the new Cayman - maybe in a recent Motor Trend, or....

Perfectlap makes a very good point, however. Maybe the lower center of gravity in the Boxster (or at least, the Boxster Spyder with its erector set top) make up for the improved torsional rigidity and the slight increase in horsepower on the new 981's as well. I don't recall Porsche trying to claim that the Cayman handled better than the Boxster in the past, but they are now. And this may be nothing more than smoke and mirrors......

[Perfectlap]

Originally Posted by southernstar

I don't recall Porsche trying to claim that the Cayman handled better than the Boxster in the past, but they are now. And this may be nothing more than smoke and mirrors......

Those guys are FOS in my book. They are always trying to create some hierarchy that fits their marketing/revenue plans while the time sheets and pro driver feedback tell another story. For instance, in the 981 Cayman vs. 991 Carrera, Walter Rohrl says he'll take the Cayman no explanation necessary. He must not have gotten the memo.

[stephen wilson]

Chassis rigidity is a good thing, but does not make a car faster in and of itself. Above a certain minimum threshold, there is greatly diminishing returns.

[southernstar]

Exactly, Perfectlap. And SWilson, I am not saying that torsional rigidty makes a car faster in and of itself (although unless it adds weight, I don't see it ever hurting). Unless a car is very 'bendy', the impact on braking/handling will be marginal on flat, smooth roads. Where increased torsional rigidity is particularly helpful is on on irregular/bumpy surfaces - it allows the suspension alignment (and as a result, tire contact) to remain more precise than in a car where the structure to which the suspension is attached, flexes. This improves steering accuracy, turn in and, in some cases, even the size of the contact patch.

Lets face it, proper suspension alignment is very important in maximizing your car's handling capability. In this connection, small variances at the mounting point for struts and control arms etc., can be amplified over the length of the strut or control arm, resulting in significant misalignment in extremis from factory specs.

Brad

[stephen wilson]

Originally Posted by southernstar

I am not saying that torsional rigidty makes a car faster in and of itself

Understood, I was just trying to explain why a "50% stiffer" chassis may not translate to better track performance. Overall chassis stiffness is not only about maintaining pickup point locations, but more about roll stiffness distribution. We tune a cars understeer/OS balance by changing the F/R roll stiffness via roll centers, springs, and bars. If the front and rear suspensions are connected by a wet noodle, it won't matter how stiff a swaybar or spring you put on one end, it won't translate to the desired change in balance. The required chassis stiffness is directly related to the difference between the front and rear roll stiffness. A stiff chassis is also much more responsive to suspension tuning.

[southernstar]

Agreed, Stephen. And jb, this flex is precisely why people install strut braces. As to paint failure, the original Mustangs had a very bendy chassis - precisely why Shelby installed underhood cross-bracing. However, even hopped-up V8 Mustangs without the bracing did not suffer cracks and paint failure.

Anyway, this thread was in reference to styling differences at the front of the 981 Cayman versus the Boxster - and my belief that they are done solely to make it APPEAR to be a different car, justifying a significant increase in price over a car that is actually more expensive to manufacture. The overplay of the value of increased torsional rigidity is probably just another example of cynical marketing.