2009 ZR1 Reaches 7:26.4 on the Nurburgring

[kingofthering]

My mistake, still, he is one of the best drivers around who supports my point.

fixed.

[Matra et Alpine]

But what relevance is there in the time it takes to go around it? I read that there are 19 variables that can effect 0.1 seconds of a 0-60 time. Imagine the amount of variables on the Ring, let alone any racetrack.

My post was to point out how silly using an acceleration capability to judge a whole vehicle
The points you make support that view.

The only real way to compare cars would be to drive them both on the street and rate how they feel etc, and there's the catch, comparing cars will always be subjective and any sort of performance numbers mean absolutely nothing when comparing street cars.

Now, as EVERY person can't drive EVERY car then it falls to a few (trusted!) test drivers and a "standard". So for perfromance cars, we're back at the 'Ring. NO racetrack offers road-like conditions and no road has as much variability and can be closed off for safety.
'Ring rules

[Jack_Bauer]

My post was to point out how silly using an acceleration capability to judge a whole vehicle
The points you make support that view.

Now, as EVERY person can't drive EVERY car then it falls to a few (trusted!) test drivers and a "standard". So for perfromance cars, we're back at the 'Ring. NO racetrack offers road-like conditions and no road has as much variability and can be closed off for safety.
'Ring rules

Firstly I think roosterjuicer was being sarcastic in his post.

Secondly, I'm not in the least convinced that the "'Ring rules" in terms of judging a sports car. Ring times have become such a hot topic in magazine/internet forum/fanboy circles that you see manufacturers now having good 'Ring times as being something that they engineer their cars specifically towards achieving. Driving flat out at ten tenths on a race track, albeit a very bumpy one, under controlled conditions in order to set a time a couple of seconds faster than your rival car bears absolutely no relevance to one's enjoyment of a sports car, unless you bought your GTR purely for the purpose of racing Corvettes around the 'Ring.

It's for certain that to achieve these kinds of times they aim at, the cars end up being stiffer and more compromised for general road usage. By all means use the 'Ring to help fine tune the ride/handling balance of a car like the majority of manufacturers do. But using it as a means of gaining some kind of bragging rights like GM and Nissan are doing does not improve your end-product.

Anyone who thinks that a better 'Ring time = better sports car or, even worse, gives consideration to 'Ring times when actually purchasing such a car needs a good, hard slap.

'Ring times test how fast a car can go around a particular race track on a particular day with a particular driver behind the wheel. They do nothing to prove which is the best car.

[Matra et Alpine]

"particular track" -- erm you do know you're talking about 14 MILES of closed road ?

To get "faster" then in gneral cars get better chassis designed, better suspension setup developed and capable of coping with the real-world road-like conditions.

So pray, do tell what else can give a "standard" for comparing the performance of fast cars ? One that isn't going over the same piece of track every 2 miles OR can't test the limits due to speed limits adn other road traffic ?

Talking about "slap" Do you know any of the usage the 'Ring sees from amateur, fun to professional drivers and teams. Do you know WHY teams and manufacturers use the 'Ring for "normal" cars to do tests on as adjunct to their own closed-circuit testing.

I suspect you're being blinded by the fanboism going on at the moment over the US trying to prove it can make a sportscar and Nissan trying to grab the top of the tree as they once did with the original GT-R.

Tell me what other environment can be used to test a sportscar at it's performacne and handling limits that reflects real world roads ?

oh and you can't setup for the 'Ring too stiff or you spin out on 30% of the corners

[Ferrer]

Firstly I think roosterjuicer was being sarcastic in his post.

Secondly, I'm not in the least convinced that the "'Ring rules" in terms of judging a sports car. Ring times have become such a hot topic in magazine/internet forum/fanboy circles that you see manufacturers now having good 'Ring times as being something that they engineer their cars specifically towards achieving. Driving flat out at ten tenths on a race track, albeit a very bumpy one, under controlled conditions in order to set a time a couple of seconds faster than your rival car bears absolutely no relevance to one's enjoyment of a sports car, unless you bought your GTR purely for the purpose of racing Corvettes around the 'Ring.

It's for certain that to achieve these kinds of times they aim at, the cars end up being stiffer and more compromised for general road usage. By all means use the 'Ring to help fine tune the ride/handling balance of a car like the majority of manufacturers do. But using it as a means of gaining some kind of bragging rights like GM and Nissan are doing does not improve your end-product.

Anyone who thinks that a better 'Ring time = better sports car or, even worse, gives consideration to 'Ring times when actually purchasing such a car needs a good, hard slap.

'Ring times test how fast a car can go around a particular race track on a particular day with a particular driver behind the wheel. They do nothing to prove which is the best car.

+1

That's basically why Nurburgring times (or any other track) is a pointless way of comparing car, and now even more so.

[Matra et Alpine]

+1

That's basically why Nurburgring times (or any other track) is a pointless way of comparing car, and now even more so.

Nothing is perfect.

But for a performacne sports car then the 'Ring offers the only place on the planet where there are safe closed roads that are like real roads.
The Nordschleife is not a fettled, flat F1 track
Or a couple of miles of planned road-like track.

Track times are important in comparing cars.
If you are wantign to set a car up for optimum accelreation or handling or whatever floats your boat.; You gotta spend time on the track and making the adjustements.

[Ferrer]

Nothing is perfect.

But for a performacne sports car then the 'Ring offers the only place on the planet where there are safe closed roads that are like real roads.
The Nordschleife is not a fettled, flat F1 track
Or a couple of miles of planned road-like track.

Track times are important in comparing cars.
If you are wantign to set a car up for optimum accelreation or handling or whatever floats your boat.; You gotta spend time on the track and making the adjustements.

Well it's a bit like EuroNCAP isn't it?

It was good when it was an independent, little known test. Cars were really tested as they came of the facotry for real life situations. But once it got popular car manufacturers started caring about it and designing some car's features specifically to achieve good ratings. The tests then got a bit pointless and less relevant thatn they used to be.

And in a way that's what has happened with the Ring as well it used to be a good test because it was an "independent" one. Know that everyone wants to have the record it has become a bit pointless.

[Matra et Alpine]

Ferrer, where are you coming from with EuroNCAP ?
It is still valid -- just that now the scale is wrong as most moedrn cars ( 'cept the CHinese ) are hitting 5s. But using the full report the small differences are clear.
It's not a fixed set either and they are refining it as advances occur.
eg Pedestrian safety.
The car "designs" to achieve good ratings are in EVERY car off the production line. So it is definately valid and valuable.

The only thing with hte 'ring now is the fanbois as I said. To the drivers, purchasers, enthusiasts it has a clearly defined and understood role.
Just because ricers added wings to Civics didn't mean that F1 shoudl have removed them

[Ferrer]

My point is since it started being a competition the Nurburgring has become less valuable than it used to be.

[Matra et Alpine]

but it's always been a "competition".
Just look back on any of the Nordschleife web sites
It is just that a US "sportscar" has managed to get to the top or that a Datsun is there again ???????

I think it's up to how the reader takes it.
If you think it's no longer useful fine ... doesn't make it so tho'

[clutch-monkey]

a 'ring time as a whole is a bit useless to separate cars performance wise..maybe if the time was addressed as sections..i don't know..

[Matra et Alpine]

good point. THe single number is a good "all rounder" figure as I said at least more representative than the TopGear single lap or "normal" track times.
THere are a few check points on times used by some testers, but there isn't really a natural difference in any of it. It's not like there's a straight bit or a hilly bit or a twisty bit. In any 5 mile section there is all of the above It's what makes it great and a real challenge to car and driver.

and remember that what is being seen is MARKETING numpties using the numbers to try to attract buyers. They can't cope with too many numbers so keepign it to one makes life possible for them

[monaroCountry]

People drive their cars at 10/10th in a proper racetrack, the ring isnt like any other racetrack?

People also dont drive their cars at 10/10th on public roads and certainly not over 300km/h. So really whats the point of testing around the ring and trying to achieve a good time?

[P4g4nite]

I was reading the issue of R&T with the GTR vs 911T vs ZO6 today while I waited for the lady in my life to try on shoes, I noticed that the test said of the ZO6 that they were on eggshells through the twisties, a track comparison in EVO said basically the same thing. But that the GTR never had the same problem, it's AWD system allowing controllable power slides and enormous traction.
Anyway, the point is that even if some journo GTRs were tweaked for more power, the car can turn it into considerably quicker lap times but given what I've heard of the Corvettes I'm not sure the same is true of them. And we know how easily more power can be had from the GTR.

[Matra et Alpine]

Relatively simple....
If a car is good from speeds of 10mph to 200 mph then you can feel confident in it's abilities at 50-100mph. The higher the speeds and cornering the more the car has to be capable. Capable not just in accelration and speed, but in braking, steering, handling, bump absorption, off camber etc etc etc. So there are valid reasons why looking at the 'ring numbers can assist a buying/testing choice. Just don't use it to judge "comfort"

The 'ring doesn't have vast run-off areas. MOST of it is tight ARMCO -- and hit-it-you-buy-it policy means offs are very VERY expensive. It doesn't have pristine tarmac and kerbs. It's worse than the road outside my house Grip levels vary enormously. So you don't drive 10/10ths even there ( tho' you can argue that a driver IS 10/10ths to the limits of the track )

erm some of us DO run 10/10ths on public roads - especially in rallies !
There are a number of roads we favour in the Highlands where you can do sections at 10/10s anf they are even harder than the 'Ring Not without it's dangers as a fellow RX-8er wrote-off his new car on a nasty dip, bridge, off-camber rise, corner, dip .... ditch BUT that's what drivng cars fast when it's safe ( for people - not necessarily cars ) can lead to

Granted difficult to get to 300km/h in the real world and on most race tracks too ... but you can only reach that on a couple of bits of the 'Ring if you've to a monster amount of torque ! The average 'ring speed is only about 140km/h for even the fastest cars.
Doesn't really sound that fast does it

Q: If I offered to build a bridge in your local town and siad it coudl take 10 cars at a time. Would you want me to test it at 10 ? or 20 ?? or 30 ???


PS: and I'm off to my local track for another 2 hours of fun and testing as I want to get the tyre pressures set up for the new rubber