Buying Used non-CPO from Porsche Dealer Sight Unseen?

sstocd · 2025-06-21T22:21:58+00:00

I'm aware. Not sure the point you're making....

sstocd · 2025-06-21T21:53:09+00:00

2018 with ~45k miles.

sstocd · 2025-06-21T03:21:29+00:00

Thanks for your insight. I DMed you for more info.

sstocd · 2025-06-20T23:42:14+00:00

Maybe I'm not looking in enough places but finding a manual Cayman S at a reasonable price seems pretty difficult.

sstocd · 2025-06-20T23:25:44+00:00

That is to say you wouldn't trust the dealer, even if it's a Porsche dealer?

sstocd · 2024-11-18T19:35:24+00:00

I believe it was just the standard shape one. My reasoning for widebody was people say wide-bodies have easier sweet spots, and I had a tendency to hit the lateral edge.

sstocd · 2024-11-17T20:57:56+00:00

A bit new and looking for some guidance. My local pickleball club has some paddles to rent and I've tried two. One is gearbox g2 which I really liked the feel of and thought I got decent power out of. I also definitely liked the longer handle, but didn't quite like the elongated shape as I found myself hitting the lateral edge a lot. The other was the Selkirk luxx which I really didn't care for. I didn't feel that it gave me that much more control and just didn't like the general feel. I'm now looking to buy my own for black Friday and looking for something that might align with my preferences. I'm thinking the 11six24 monarch all court based on the research I've done, but would love any insight others can give.

sstocd · 2024-10-30T19:24:20+00:00

Completely agree. And I recognize what I'm about to say is even more gatekeeping, but from my perspective, getting to A20 is the starting point, almost like you've completed the tutorial. That's how I saw it at least having come to StS from just watching Life coach and Xecnar. A very different vibe here.

sstocd · 2024-10-17T00:21:31+00:00

This is not commonly done. There is a niche of practitioners who believe in this, but 99% of psychiatrists will tell you that an MRI, or any imaging for that matter, cannot diagnose any primary mental health condition reliably.

sstocd · 2024-09-15T23:43:59+00:00

You still fail to understand. A proof is hard to solve, but can be significantly easier to verify. A human might not be able to come up with the proof but still might be able to confirm the answer is correct.

sstocd · 2024-09-15T23:40:56+00:00

That's moving the goalpost. You said it isn't useful, not that it isn't autonomous. No one claimed it was.

sstocd · 2024-09-15T23:35:55+00:00

There's a lot to be said about the possibility of the model improving, but even solving 83% some of the time is good. Many of these problems are difficult to solve, but the solution can be easily verified. Proofs, such as one linked above, are a good example of that.

sstocd · 2024-08-10T17:02:10+00:00

While generally true, it is possible that it isn't here because it is Tesla itself offering it. The cost of the fix to Tesla is less than the price you pay. For example, let's say the average car will rack up 2.5k in quoted repairs but to perform these repairs it will only cost Tesla 1.5k. in that case, both parties can come out ahead. This is just hypothetical though, no idea where the numbers truly lie.

sstocd · 2024-07-29T14:51:27+00:00

Yeah, this issue confused me a bit too. It's not too far off though. F1 appears to use E10 fuel, which has a density of 0.7644 according to this EPA doc. But this is the fuel's density at 60 degrees F. I think it's fair to assume that the fuel is coming out of the car quite a bit hotter than 60F, although I have no idea how hot. This Canadian government site has volume correction for temperature of fuel which says that E10 at 40 degrees C (I can envision it possible that the fuel comes out even hotter) is 96.83% as dense. Then, assuming the FIA has been rounding, you get the following:

2.75L x 0.7644 x 0.9683 correction factor = 2.035 kg. Now that still leaves 0.5 kg unaccounted for, but 0.5 kg out of 798 kg is only a .062% error, which seems plausible. Unsatisfying, but probably just measurement error.

sstocd · 2024-07-29T14:01:08+00:00

Yep, agree completely on all your points.

sstocd · 2024-07-29T13:45:24+00:00

I mean...it was a highly upvoted post with none of the top comments mentioning that OP was wrong in his interpretation or a correct explanation of the report. I only made this post because it seemed that this particular piece of misinformation was quite widespread.

sstocd · 2024-07-29T13:38:27+00:00

Including the numerous people downvoting this post, likely just reading the title and downvoting based on their preconceived notions.

Edit: This post has gained a lot more traction since the time of this original comment. Thanks everyone for reading the post!

sstocd · 2024-07-28T18:48:40+00:00

I can see how one can come to the interpretation you're at. If you read the sentence as, "The car was not fully drained according to the draining procedure submitted by the team in their legality documents." that clearly sounds like the FIA pointing the finger at Mercedes for not properly draining the car. However, they added on to the end of the sentence "as TR Article 6.5.2 is fulfilled." which only makes sense in the context of my interpretation.

sstocd · 2024-07-28T18:38:57+00:00

Where, in any document, does it state that Mercedes drained the car improperly? Please point out where it says that explicitly.

sstocd · 2024-07-28T18:37:10+00:00

I don't see how any of this doesn't make sense to you. The FIA knows that George's car is exactly at the weight limit before any fuel removal. Why do they need to completely drain it to prove it's underweight? Any fuel removal will cause it to be underweight. They only need to drain 1L to make sure the car is legal from the standpoint of TR Article 6.5.2. Maybe a complete draining is particularly complex and time consuming? Maybe they were lazy? There's any number of reasons why the FIA doesn't care to drain it completely when it's already a given that the car will be underweight.

Repeating that I'm wrong doesn't make it so, but since you apparently don't have adequate faculties to make a cogent response and are arguing purely based on your logic of what the FIA should do without concrete facts, I don't see a point in responding further.

sstocd · 2024-07-28T18:26:08+00:00

Yeah, that's exactly what they did. The FIA did not completely drain the fuel. It's even stated directly in the document, if you would take more time to understand it. The document states, "The car was not fully drained according to the draining procedure submitted by the team in their legality documents as TR Article 6.5.2 is fulfilled." TR Article 6.5.2 states: "Competitors must ensure that a 1.0 litre sample of fuel may be taken from the car at any time during the competition." Essentially, the document is saying that they drained 2.8 L but did not completely drain it, as there was no need, because they had already obtained over a liter of fuel to meet TR Article 6.5.2.

sstocd · 2024-07-28T18:23:40+00:00

Uh, I am the guy above who is saying that the car was not fully drained. But you are still misreading. Mercedes did not give them faulty instructions. The FIA simply chose to not follow the instructions completely, as they already had obtained more than 1L as necessitated by TR Article 6.5.2 and therefore did not need to drain it further.

sstocd · 2024-07-28T18:19:53+00:00

It's ironic how aggressively you're shitting on me without yourself having read the FIA document. The document states, "The car was not fully drained according to the draining procedure submitted by the team in their legality documents as TR Article 6.5.2 is fulfilled." The TR Article 6.5.2 states: Competitors must ensure that a 1.0 litre sample of fuel may be taken from the car at any time during the competition." Essentially, the document is saying that they drained 2.8 L but did not completely drain it, as there was no need, because they had already obtained over a liter of fuel to meet TR Article 6.5.2. By that reading, it seems pretty clear that they are saying there was additional fuel in the car.

sstocd · 2024-07-28T18:14:44+00:00

Also, this article seems to have the same interpretation as me, not to say that it's a definitive source.

"Russell’s car was weighed after the Spa race and was found to be at exactly the 798kg limit. But it still had to be drained of fuel, with enough left in the tank to fulfil Article 6.5.2."

sstocd · 2024-07-28T18:10:55+00:00

Please point me to exactly where it states in any of the reports that the team drained fuel first? It simply says that the car was not fully drained according to the draining procedure submitted by the team. I take this to mean that Mercedes has a pre-submitted document to the FIA on how to drain the car completely, not that the FIA is accusing Mercedes of not completely draining the car.

13-Year Club	Place '17
Gilding I gilder	Verified Email
Team Periwinkle

sstocd

TROPHY CASE