982 GT4 Spyder?

982 GT4 Spyder?

It鈥檚 been documented that it鈥檚 lighter weight than the standard interior. I agree there is a lot of fluff and I鈥檓 guilty of going down that path. 鈥檚 due to safety regulations , which is BS because there are other modern sports cars that are smaller. I鈥檓 not talking about the latest artificial 鈥淭鈥?models. The 987 Spyder doesn鈥檛 have a great deal of fluff but there are a few things Porsche could have done to further reduce the weight. For example removing additional sound insulation would have been nice. That would have brought more of the mechanical engine noises into the cabin. Also to me the exhaust was pure fluff, especially PSE. While I love how it sounds I rarely if ever drive with the valve closed so realistically the entire exhausts should have been a lightweight, valveless design that sounded good. For the price they charged this could have been easily accomplished. The 981 chassis is about as large as Porsche should consider going on these cars. If they go larger they are clearly moving the mid engine platforms in the same direction as the 911 which IMHO is way too large. It鈥檚 been over 8 years since I bought my Spyder and Porsche hasn鈥檛 produced anything convincing me to trade my Spyder. The T would be cool if they actually reduced its size, unfortunately that is impossible. It could be a generational thing too, the younger generation may not care about the lack of road feel and understanding what the chassis is doing. Perhaps like video games they adapt to the controls and can more easily learn the correct inputs to make the car do what they want.

We used to wrap presents with the funny papers from the newspaper sometimes! Yes, we need to look after the future of our children children, and teach they the value of life not in terms of money but in term of what we have around us. Another great post, no wonder you have 100 Hub score and good use of photograph as well. Relache, This is an excellent article on a subject that is near and dear. It is worrisome and frustrating. I can't tell you how many times I walk into a public restroom to find a tap running, and I do mean running, not dripping, or I see someone use a storm drain like a trash can. The list goes on ad infinitum. Education will be the answer. In a way, eReaders do minimise the use of paper, the toxicity of ink, the waste of unwanted books and the reduction in warehousing and transporting books. So there is merit there.

On the other hand, I also believe in sustaining tradition, which is a sentimental and emotional need for many. I think the magic words in this hub are 'gradual' and 'learn', to which I shall add 'balance'. Great inspiring hub, it should be taught in every school! You've inspired me again. I much prefer the idea of sustainable living than merely "green" living. So glad for your insight and suggestions. I agree with Becca. I wish that everyone would do these tips that can really help protect our mother earth. Some people tend to be careless of what they do. I hope they will always remember that we have only ONE EARTH to live in. This is very timely as we have been experiencing the effects of global warming immensely this year. This is also very practical in this time of global economic crisis. A grocery bag's worth of trash per year!

That really blew my mind. Thanks for putting out such important information and wise advice. Even taking those baby steps towards living more sustainably can make a world of difference. Despite the fact that I choose to call myself "green lotus", I applaud you for putting out this information and pinpointing the difference between "green" and "sustainable". I do feel good knowing our design firm only specifies sustainable products and is discerning when it comes to the many "green" products out there. Thank you for the best definition of green I've ever seen. I do prefer something being sustainable, rather than green, which as you say is just a catch word and means different things to different people. A very political word. You have some great tips here. Some are actually a bit scary, but you are right, we will have to stop wasting and use our own energy a bit instead of electricity.

982 GT4 Spyder?

982 GT4 Spyder?

Frankly, I see these "studies" as pure marketing ploys to advertise focus and concern about lightness, while they keep adding pounds and size in real life. Maybe if they didn't make it so extreme, it would have made sense for actual driving purists instead of strictly targeting museum-level collectors. Only fake purists (like myself) need a windshield, a passenger seat, or a top, right? God forbid they include those and actually make an effort to make the car lighter by something other than chopping off essential pieces out of it. Imagine the weight savings if they took the wheels off, too. Museum pieces don't need those anyway. It's like trying to make a pig lighter and faster by gouging its eyes and cutting its ears off first. Then wonder why that pig doesn't fly. Btw, that Bergspyder still looks like a pig next to the old one in those pics. How about start with cutting size and using lighter components first -- then, if that's not enough, start cutting essential body parts. The Boxster prototype from the 90's would be a good start.

Nick, don't get your hopes high! As they learned, it is incredibly difficult to lose weight and making it road-worthy, since the underlying platform is heavy! Then there is price-point. You can't make a generic luxury platform that spins out multiple variations into a hardcore version without substantial re-architecture. Then there is the market size. The market for frills-free, back-to-basic, purist roadster is tiny. Most buyers demand auto-top, PDK and auto rev-match (no offense intended). They want latest infotainment. Even the "regular" Spyders have limited market. Lotus couldn't make money selling Elise and Exige. Porsche needs to start from clean sheet for a purist roadster. But, those days are over! Light weight composite materials are on the horizon. But, they are intended for electric platforms! Reduction in weight will be offset by electric powertrain! And, you wouldn't want one anyway! Agree, this was a pointless exercise, wasting time, money and engineering resources! Bottom line: Your 981 Spyder will stay with ya for good!

After your time, your children will get to cherish! Agreed Henry, the mass market for sports cars really doesn鈥檛 seem to care about an ultra focused, lightweight, no frills sports car. The primary focus seems to be appearances, cool materials of construction, power and what its capable of on paper. It seems many Porsche GT cars see more time at cars and coffee than at the track which is also telling. I don鈥檛 think the size of the 718 is too big but the amount of electronic nannies and luxury makes them heavy. Even worse, the 718 4 cylinder weighs more than the 6 cylinder predecessor which is a huge step backwards. The 987 Spyder is borderline too much fluff and many were optioned with too much fluff IMO. Porsche could certainly do more on these low production specials and I think buyers would pay for it. A good example of what they should focus on is lighting. HID technology is excessively heavy and Porsche makes it overly complicated by adding the mechanical hardware to move the beam.

Why not provide a lightweight LED option that gives us the output we want without all the complicated mechanicals. Figure it out Porsche! Another very easy spot to those weight is the exhaust. S/S is extremely heavy, one of the heaviest metals available. Why not switch to titanium for the exhaust? Nothing complicated about it and perhaps buying in bulk will bring costs down. The average buyer would never notice or care but for a 鈥渇ocused鈥?special the buyer would likely appreciate both. It鈥檚 been documented that it鈥檚 lighter weight than the standard interior. I agree there is a lot of fluff and I鈥檓 guilty of going down that path. 鈥檚 due to safety regulations , which is BS because there are other modern sports cars that are smaller. I鈥檓 not talking about the latest artificial 鈥淭鈥?models. I agree it was a marketing exercise. My guess is they are getting ready to debut the 718 Spyder/GT4 and want to build up some energy. It was made back in 2015, why debut it now?

Yes, it鈥檚 the 50th anniversary of the original. USA on public roads. Lack of roof is the second reason. Being USA is Porsche鈥檚 largest sports car market that means it was dead before design pen hit the paper. Do you think Porsche with give the 718 spyder the same suspension as the next gt4 - based on the gt3? The 981 spyder did not get the Motorsport suspension. Agree, this was a pointless exercise, wasting time, money and engineering resources! Yep. Once again Porsche steadfastly refuses to compromise their values by developing, marketing, and selling cars that people (a) want to buy; and (b) actually can buy. Why isn't anyone capable of competing with these chuckleheads? I guess it comes down to the sad fact that there no longer is much of an actual market. Do you think Porsche with give the 718 spyder the same suspension as the next gt4 - based on the gt3? The 981 spyder did not get the Motorsport suspension. I don't expect the '718 Boxster Spyder' to get a front gt3 Motorsport suspension.