European Sportscars are better: part 2

Discussion in '2000 Lingenfelter 650 Corvette' started by ch1c4n3, Nov 12, 2002.

  1. y'no Guibo, Mr. Moderator, whats the point in ending a thread when theres more than just u and me in it?

    maybe, just MAYBE, i like a good argument

    anyways, if i can get your attention again BrownDoggie...you're right im not anti-american, muscle cars rule all

    a carburettor gives more raw hp?...y dont us dumb europeans use them on our racecars then?

    NASCAR just seems so childish, big fat dodgem cars that look like cartoons and bash in2 each other infront of 400,000 people - not what id call professionalism, granted F1 sucks these days, but only as a form of entertainment, not engineering

    personally i'd be quite happy if F1 was solely made up of qualifying hours - no overtaking, just drivers chipping away at eachothers times, right on the limit (at least then, Montoya might be Champ, which would only b a good thing)

    and as for the military, i just love america's look-how-much-money-weve-got B2 Spirit bombers and island-sized aircraft carriers...(by the way, when u and your buddies capture that camel#$%#er in Iraq, will u mail me a bit of his mangled carcuss, just to put on my shelf?)
     
  2. Re: European Sportscars are better: part 2

    Haha, you like a good argument? Sounds more like you enjoy losing a good argument (reliability having nothing to do with technical expertise, the reason for the GTS "existence", TVR's being no less reliable than other marques, etc.). If you want a good argument with BrownDoggie, you can PM him.

    In the meantime, the duration of this thread is dependent upon your willingness to directly address my questions in the previous thread. You have one post in which to start addressing them. Otherwise, this thread gets deleted. Fair enough?
     
  3. Re: European Sportscars are better: part 2

    surely Guibo u have an ounce of respect for me, not only in my ability to argue, but my intellect - you're threatening to delete all my threads?...do u have any idea how many dumf*ck boneheads there are on these forums? at least people can learn from what i say, hell they can probably even learn from things u say!

    reliability isnt connected to technical expertise - the finest minds in the business broke 11 BMW engines in 1983 whilst testing their F1 Turbo engine, its only supposed to last 10 minutes so who cares if it breaks after 15?...these days, the finest minds (or some of them) make Honda quali engines for the BAR/Jordan teams at Spa - what happened, 5 blow ups in 2 days

    it is THIS that i am talking about, even with reference to TVR, they make THE finest engines in the business (just check out the T440 R) and yet u yourself say they are unreliable.

    if reliability is your goal, expertise gets u there - if performance is your goal its a whole different story

    why does the GTS exist?...to win its class at LM, they failed with the pink/yellow RT/10 so they decided to make it more suitable for racing - sure u can say whatever the hell u like about how much more refined it is, its all advertising talk - ask the damn engineers what there goal was and they'll tell u "go quicker around a track"

    u cant deny a car is built to race - a Cobra R isnt a racecar but it is still built to be one, even if theres no mention in any sales brochure or whatever. Same for an M3, it uses racecar design but then they make it civilised so that people will buy it.

    if a car goes on to win 3 class titles at LM, its very hard not to say the roadcars purpose was to be the basis

    as for TVRs reliability, its one persons word against another - i know they are infamous but that doesnt mean they ALL fall apart. Who r we even comparing them against?...how many ford-haters whine on about fords being rubbish?...r they rubbish?

    if u delete this or anymore threads, it shows only 1 thing, that you're a pussy who doesnt stand up 2 a challenge. U set my ultimatum, i set yours. Dont disappoint me
     
  4. Re: European Sportscars are better: part 2

    "at least people can learn from what i say, hell they can probably even learn from things u say!"

    Dear me, wouldn't want THAT to happen. If YOU can't learn from things I say, how can I expect the many dumbf*ck boneheads to learn from things I say?

    "reliability isnt connected to technical expertise - the finest minds in the business broke 11 BMW engines in 1983 whilst testing their F1 Turbo engine, its only supposed to last 10 minutes so who cares if it breaks after 15?...these days, the finest minds (or some of them) make Honda quali engines for the BAR/Jordan teams at Spa - what happened, 5 blow ups in 2 days"

    And how did BAR/Jordan finish in the points this season? Ahead of Ferrari?
    Regarding the BMW engines, what, was that all they had in '83? 11 engines? How did they win the championship? Surely, at least ONE of their engines lasted the entire duration of a grand prix, no? I'm guessing more than one lasted. Of course, it could be that the entire field against which they competed were blowing up engines left and right. Victory through attrition? Somehow, I don't think that was the case. I'm also going to say that qualifying demands a different level of boost than the typical 2-hour race, no? Cannot it not be said that technical expertise is required here, such that detonation is controlled, so that the engine doesn't hand-grenade while at the same time maintaining the edge over the competition?
    In recent times, BMW was reputed to have the most powerful engines last year. They were setting the fastest trap speeds measured at at least a handful of tracks. Yet, they did not win the manufacturer's title last year. What happened?


    "if reliability is your goal, expertise gets u there - if performance is your goal its a whole different story"

    Now, now. You're jumping to ridiculous conclusions. I never once said reliability is the goal of a 24-hour race. Winning is the goal of a 24-hour race, whether it is outright or 1st in class (speaking of which, the 24 Hours of Nurburgring categorizes vehicles into classes of weight and power, not too differently from that used by the FIA or ACO for GT racing. The sanctioning body, ADAC, oversees the implementation and adherence of these rules. Your comment in the previous thread that the 24 Hours of Nurburgring has no rules is therefore...false!).
    Reliability will help get you to that goal. Performance will get you to that goal. But neither outright reliability nor outright performance will get you to that goal (ask ProDrive about Le Mans this past year). It requires the application of technical expertise to find the balance between the two.


    "why does the GTS exist?...to win its class at LM, they failed with the pink/yellow RT/10 so they decided to make it more suitable for racing"

    And when you talk about "they", who are you referring to?


    "sure u can say whatever the hell u like about how much more refined it is, its all advertising talk - ask the damn engineers what there goal was and they'll tell u 'go quicker around a track'"

    Ah, but that's where you're mistaken. Roy Sjoberg was one of the HEAD engineers of the Viper team. His 5 goals with the GTS do not mention Le Mans at all. Am I to take your word over his? Once those 5 goals were accomplished (#5 was particularly important for the sustainability of the Viper as a road car, lest it disappear into the same sort of oblivion that took the RX-7 and Supra from theses shores), only then could they even THINK about Le Mans.
    As far as advertising talk went, it worked. The first batch of GTS's were snapped up in an instant by those who had previously bought RT/10's.
    Now, if it's the GTS-*R* you're talking about, then yes, Le Mans was the goal. FIA GT, ALMS, Belcar, FFSA, 24 Hours of Daytona, Nurburgring, Spa, and 12 Hours of Sebring were merely icing on the cake.


    "u cant deny a car is built to race - a Cobra R isnt a racecar but it is still built to be one, even if theres no mention in any sales brochure or whatever."

    Haha, are you kidding? Ford billed this as a race car from the get-go. Take a look at the official Ford posters below, and let me know if racing never enters your mind.
    Hmmm...Over the standard Mustang, the Cobra R gets
    1) specially valved Bilstein shocks, stiffer bushings, and Eibach springs (800 lb/in in front, 750 lb/in in the rear)
    2) a RACING fuel cell made by Fuel Safe (something the Viper GTS lacks)
    3) deletion of rear seats, rear trim
    4) deletion of A/C, all sound deadening, radio, and wheel well undercoating
    5) BFGoodrich g-Force KD tires
    6) Canton Racing Products oil pan
    7) Tremec 6-speed (first time a factory Mustang has received such a transmission), with special reinforced mounting bracket
    8) Visteon hydro-mechanical differential with speed and torque sensitivity, cooled via NACA duct vent in the rear quarter window
    9) custom Recaro seats with much larger side bolstering
    10) 4-piston Brembo calipers
    11) independent rear suspension
    12) brake cooling ducts in place of foglamps

    The GTS Viper, on the other hand, retains A/C, sound-deadening, same seats as RT/10, same tires as the RT/10, same foglamps as RT/10, goddamn near everything is the same as equipped on the RT/10. Its springs (200 lb/in front, 400 lb/in rear) are actually *softer* than the springs in the original, Gen I RT/10's.
    And don't forget that the Cobra R's from '95 were offered only to licensed racers, something you'll not find in the Viper portfolio, short of the '03 Competition Coupe and original GTS-R; not even the ACR is as race-ready as a Cobra R.
    Of all the cars to use as evidence that the GTS was destined for Le Mans, the Cobra R is the WORST you could have used, LOL. It was advertised as a race car from the very beginning.


    "if a car goes on to win 3 class titles at LM, its very hard not to say the roadcars purpose was to be the basis"

    The McLaren F1 won Le Mans at its first outing, and remained competitive in the following 2 years. Yet, Gordon Murray's aim was to build the ultimate ROAD supercar.


    Again, I ask you: on the issue of TVR reliability, you say you're reading the same sources I am. What sources are you referring to?
    You say it's one person's word against another. Well, what if I provided the names of THIRTEEN Cerbera owners against your one word? And that pales in comparison to the number of Tuscan owners whose engines have "expired".
    Curiously, in the last thread, you said TVR's reliability was no worse than average, and within the very same page, you acknowledge that you're aware of TVR's "notorious" reliability problems. Well, which is it? And you accuse ME of being wishy-washy. Congrats!


    "if u delete this or anymore threads, it shows only 1 thing, that you're a pussy who doesnt stand up 2 a challenge. U set my ultimatum, i set yours. Dont disappoint me"

    At least I'm not a pussy who's 0-13+. Disappoint you, haha. Why that sounds almost as if you CARED, LOL. No, the point about the deletion of threads is to avoid threads that bog down into tedious minutae. These forums need a breath of fresh air. Sadly, it's not coming from your end.
     
  5. Re: European Sportscars are better: part 2

    Ouch I felt that one all the way over here. Is it just me or is chicane really coming off as a condescending @$$hole?
     
  6. Re: European Sportscars are better: part 2

    Such as?...
     
  7. Re: European Sportscars are better: part 2

    EVOTMEcrazy....THANKYOU!!

    im glad someone appreciates what im saying (and i know there are others)

    Guibo you're so laughably biased towards the Viper u never even realised that i like the damn car, i merely argue with your poor physics and your invalid and twisted arguments

    the fact that Honda didnt win F1 means their engineers have no technical expertise? before u say thats not what u said, THAT IS WHAT U MEANT. The key word in the BMW thing was *tested*. Sure their race engines lasted on low boost but in testing they destroyed them all - they must be of below-average intelligence aswell mustnt they? (by the way, what the hell are your credentials when u so easily dismiss the capabilities of others?)

    The Cobra R wasnt built to be the basis of a racecar, coz they dont race them (professionally) - a Carrera GT is more focused than the R and yet its not a racecar either. The McL was supposed to be a roadcar, yes, but it utilises 100% racecar design in its construction, sure it has a CD player and A/C but its still basically a racecar with numberplates.

    Dont confuse class boundaries with rules. You are allowed to race ANYTHING that has 4 wheels and is road-worthy in the Nur24, therefore it has no entrance rules.

    i said TVRs reliability was no worse than average but admitted that id heard bad stories about them, the same as i have for every company - oooh, 13 owners, i could go and find the names of 20,000 Ford owners who's cars/trucks break down, are Fords shit?? (my father sold his Mk4 Escort XR3i 2 years after purchase in 1988 because of the terrible rust...a 2yr old Ford!!! my brother has owned 2 Fords, both of which regularly break down, his current one had to be taken 200 miles back home on the back of a recovery truck this summer - my moms 10yr old Citroen never had a single fault from new). Considering my brother and my father are both engineers who know how to take a car apart, what problems do "normal" people have with their cars, huh?
     
  8. #8 Guibo, Nov 13, 2002
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
    Re: European Sportscars are better: part 2

    ”Guibo you're so laughably biased towards the Viper u never even realised that i like the damn car, i merely argue with your poor physics and your invalid and twisted arguments”

    Merely argue my poor physics? Since when? When you failed to address my question about why is it that on IDENTICAL cars, the 0-60 can vary by as much as .6 second?
    I’m just curious (amuse me, here). Why do you like the damn Viper? After all, it displays the same lack of technical expertise for which you’ve derided the Bentley: a huge engine, with pushrods and only 2 valves per cylinder.


    ”the fact that Honda didnt win F1 means their engineers have no technical expertise?”

    Whoa, whoa, whoa!!! Jumping to hasty (and erroneous) conclusions again, are we? Let’s break down your line of “reasoning” for a sec.
    1) Guibo mentions that just maybe, on a lark, perhaps Honda’s failure to capture the F1 title last year MIGHT have something to do with reliability problems, as alluded to by none other than ch1c4n3 himself.
    2) Guibo mentions Ferrari’s success, perhaps a reference to the stellar reliability they experienced last year. *Note to those who enjoy or can’t help but jump to hasty (and erroneous) conclusions: Guibo has said NOTHING to the effect that PERFORMANCE cannot be considered as a factor in Ferrari’s success. From this, ch1c4n3 concludes that
    3) Perhaps Guibo thinks Honda engineers have NO technical expertise?!
    4) WTF?!
    You see, this is the exact kind of ludicrous thinking that bogs down these discussions. You’re taking to extremes things that have not even entered my mind. Almost as silly as concluding that since I contend that not all cars are red, I must therefore think they must all be blue.


    “before u say thats not what u said, THAT IS WHAT U MEANT.”

    Clearly that is not WHAT I MEAN, and I’ve said absolutely nothing to suggest that. You are reading things that aren't even there.


    “The key word in the BMW thing was *tested*. Sure their race engines lasted on low boost but in testing they destroyed them all - they must be of below-average intelligence aswell mustnt they? (by the way, what the hell are your credentials when u so easily dismiss the capabilities of others?)”

    Goodness, more baseless presumptions. On the contrary, didn’t I just state in my previous post that THROUGH THE APPLICATION OF TECHNICAL EXPERTISE, BMW found a CHAMPIONSHIP-WINNING balance between (or combination of) RELIABILITY AND PERFORMANCE? Does this sound at all like I’m dismissing their capability?


    ”The Cobra R wasnt built to be the basis of a racecar, coz they dont race them (professionally)”

    Oh come on, now. You can’t refute the evidence of those official SVT posters, and this is the best you can come up with? But, hey, don’t take my word for it. You can read an official press release by Ford at the Cobra R’s introduction:
    “Ultimate 2000 Mustang hits the street - and the track
    (excerpt from Ford's website -- www.Ford.com)

    The fastest, best-handling Mustang ever has found its way to a small number of Mustang enthusiasts. Three hundred 2000 SVT Mustang Cobra R models rolled off the Dearborn Assembly Plant production line in May, and soon after hit select SVT-certified Ford dealer showrooms.

    Cobra R is a limited-production, street-legal race-prepared version of the best-selling Ford Mustang. Built with the racetrack in mind, the Cobra R features a 5.4L DOHC modular V-8 engine, producing 385 HP and 385 ft.-lb. of torque.

    The new Cobra R also features exterior enhancements that will boost performance on the racetrack, including a front air-splitter and tall rear deck spoiler, which will create downforce for increased stability at track speeds.

    Other differences unique to the Cobra R include the "power dome" hood with a rear air extractor for improved engine cooling, 18-inch wheels shod with BF Goodrich g-Force KD tires, and a lowered suspension for enhanced handling.

    Cobra R's interior changes include the addition of Recaro sport seats, and the removal of the radio, air-conditioner and back seat to save weight. A number of other well-respected performance parts suppliers are working with SVT in the development of the Cobra R, including Brembo for brake rotors and calipers, Tremec for the transmission, Eibach and Bilstein for suspension, and Borla for the exhaust.

    There was a limited production of only 300 Cobra R models built on the same line of the Dearborn Assembly Plant that produces the V6, GT and Cobra Mustangs. The 2000 model is the third generation of the Cobra R, following the successful and still sought-after 1993 and 1995 Cobra R models.”

    Now, what part of “race-prepared” and “built with the racetrack in mind” did you NOT understand? BTW, the Mustang Cobra R was most certainly raced by professionals. Ever heard of Speedvision World Challenge? Grand Am? Motorola Cup? By the time the ’00 Cobra R came out, however, it was some 300 lbs heavier than its predecessor. And faced serious competition from the much lighter Z06’s and Viper ACR’s.

    “a Carrera GT is more focused than the R and yet its not a racecar either.”

    A bit premature in our presumptions, are we? The Carrera GT is not even yet a road-legal production road car, so why think that it WON’T be a race car somewhere, sometime?


    “The McL was supposed to be a roadcar, yes, but it utilises 100% racecar design in its construction, sure it has a CD player and A/C but its still basically a racecar with numberplates.”

    Aha, finally. We get to the INTENTIONS of the cars discussed here. Why don’t you ask SVT’s John Coletti what is goals were with the Cobra R? Gordon Murray has already made clear that his goal, first and foremost, was to build the ultimate road driver’s car.
    Yes, the McLaren utilizes racecar design in its construction. How much (comparatively speaking) does the Viper GTS use, and more importantly, how much more does it use compared to the RT/10?
    There was a show about the Gulf Racing team’s F1 GTR here in the States, on the Discovery Channel a few years back. At the Anderstorp round of the BPR championship, the team had a devil of a time dialing in the correct suspension settings. Why? They noted that the stock road-going setup did not allow the kind of movement they were looking for. In the end, they had to devise a new setup for that track.
    Witness also the lean angles of the F1 as Tiff drove it on the track and around the airfield. These lean angles seem to indicate a fairly soft setup (comfortable for the street), no?


    “Dont confuse class boundaries with rules.”
    And these class boundaries are, what, arbitrary? These boundaries write themselves? C’mon, now. The very presence of class boundaries indicate some form of rules, such that cars are carefully classified.


    “You are allowed to race ANYTHING that has 4 wheels and is road-worthy in the Nur24, therefore it has no entrance rules.”

    Ah, but there are entrance rules. You must have a minimum rollcage, 5-point harness, etc., no?
    By your reasoning ANYTHING can compete in Formula One, as long as it conforms to the regulations set forth by the FIA. It’s true. But then, you’re not saying much.


    ”i said TVRs reliability was no worse than average but admitted that id heard bad stories about them, the same as i have for every company - oooh, 13 owners, i could go and find the names of 20,000 Ford owners who's cars/trucks break down, are Fords shit??”

    That’s 20,000 out of how many hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of Focus owners? And I wasn’t talking about merely breaking down, I was talking about engine failures, sometimes requiring MULTIPLE rebuilds. If you have some figures for Focuses, in this regard, it’d be nice to see. Besides, we’re talking about Focuses, and those aren’t exactly ABOVE average, in terms of reliability, if you know what I’m getting at.
    Once again, for the third time (since you’ve failed to address it twice already), I ask you: where do you get your information regarding TVR reliability?
     
  9. Re: European Sportscars are better: part 2

    well as for TVR reliability, i say nowdays its mostly down to the driver as I know people who drive normally but only strain their TVR (Cerbera 4.2 in the two cases) on rare occasions, but the majority give them everything on a daily basis, one of em who has the worst reliability record (has a 2 year old Chimera) but goes on lots of tack days, sometimes over 100 laps a day, but he hasnt had any MAJOR complaints only the brakes and exhaust. if u use any car like this its gonna give in.

    and as I know this I will pop in on this bt of the argument, the McLaren F1 was designed to be the ultimate ROAD car, being built by McLaren you had to expect them to race it.

    and the viper was designed to do circuits which is why I don't call it a "muscle car", but I dont believe it was soley designed to do GT racing it was just an attempt to get the USA up to scratch with the rest of the supercar makers like Ferrari/Lambo to get a good cut of the market. and offering it at a lower price is a truly great idea as it also out performs more expensive machinery, its like an american version of a tvr.

    and as for the comparison TVR to Ford reliability, to show TVR has worse reliability its not the number of cars that go wrong but the % of overall produce, if 1 TVR breaks down it would probably take about 500 fords to tally up the same %


    The Logic of a simple 17 year old brain is workin pretty well huh
     
  10. Re: European Sportscars are better: part 2

    Guibo, u say reliability needs expertise (because theyre related arent they?), Honda didnt have reliability, therefore i can conclude from your info that Honda dont have expertise. This is what the rest of us call common sense, i wish i had "guibo-sense" coz then we'd be on the same wavelength.

    ditto BMW in 1983 (they didnt win straight away, like Renault it took them time to get it right)

    i like the Viper coz its fast and looks nice, i hate Bentleys coz theyre slow and ugly. They both suck underneath, quite how a mid to late 90s supercar can only get 450hp out of 8000ccs is beyond me. Its fast, but not as fast as it should be.

    i see u havent answered about your credentials, frightened that we might find out that you're a 14yr old computer geek who just reads his poppa's car magazines?

    your physics?...try statements like "geared to do 168mph"....that isnt its geared max OR its drag max, but u base your following argument on the fact that its got short gears when it clearly hasnt.
    Howabout the fact u said the Zakspeed has a better transmission - all well and good when it doesnt need to change gear to hit 60, or slick tyres that u didnt seem to realise would be cold during the test (who's ever heard of performance testing a car AFTER is been racing to warm its rubber up?). So u based a 25% increase in acceleration on a 23% (1200 from 1550) decrease in weight, hmmmm hardly something Newton wouldve been proud of.

    The Cobra R was so stripped out that it somehow managed to balloon in weight to a frankly laughable 1628kg - the same as the pre-02 E55 AMG luxury sedan (1635), now thats racecar design for u

    the differences between the RT/10 and GTS arent very big, why?...because your old friend COST comes in. What did Dodge need to make a better racecar?...roof please, better aero please, more power please, right ok we've got the roadcar looking sorta like the racecar, that'll keep the ACO happy. Do u see? Dodge didnt need to homologate the racecars every chassis development coz the rules dont stipulate it.

    More backtracking on the Nur24 debate i see. Comparing the F1 rule book (about the size of a chinese phone book) to the Nur24 rule book (post-it note saying rollcage and seatbelts). I would hardly call that a discriminating piece of legislation, does the fact that minivans race the Nur24 not suggest to u that its a fairly open affair where no1 is particularly bothered who enters or what wins?

    finally, i get my TVR info from autocar and evo, usually glowing reviews and "best ever" conclusions. Many reports on how much better they are now compared to what they used to be, how theyre now a daily proposition rather than a weekend toy. My good friend Impreza here seems to agree.

    an interesting note is these publications are the same ones that deemed the build quality of Z28s, Mustang Bullitts and even Caddy STSs as "inexcusable". Evo also said the Z06s interior was nowhere near as good as it should be for the price.
     
  11. #11 Guibo, Nov 13, 2002
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
    Re: European Sportscars are better: part 2

    "Guibo, u say reliability needs expertise (because theyre related arent they?), Honda didnt have reliability, therefore i can conclude from your info that Honda dont have expertise."

    Actually, you can't conclude that at all. The conclusion cannot be had based on the premises provided. The premises only indicate that
    1) Honda's failure to capture the title MIGHT indicate poor reliability
    2) Honda's reliability MIGHT be worse than Ferrari's
    3) Points 1) and 2) do not lead to the conclusion that Honda lacks technical expertise. And I've said nothing of the sort.


    "ditto BMW in 1983 (they didnt win straight away, like Renault it took them time to get it right)"

    Quite right. And it was the application of technical expertise that got them that far. Do you deny this? A simple yes or no, please.


    "i see u havent answered about your credentials, frightened that we might find out that you're a 14yr old computer geek who just reads his poppa's car magazines?"

    I'm a clerk at a software company. Part-time student.
    14 years old? I are you prepared to apologize when you've been proven wrong? I doubt it.
    My poppa isn't into cars, mate. Been working on my own (as best I can) for the better part of a decade now.


    "your physics?...try statements like 'geared to do 168mph'....that isnt its geared max OR its drag max, but u base your following argument on the fact that its got short gears when it clearly hasnt.
    Howabout the fact u said the Zakspeed has a better transmission - all well and good when it doesnt need to change gear to hit 60"

    Haha, but the stock Viper DOES need to change gear to hit 60. That's the point you seem to be missing. Over and over again.


    "or slick tyres that u didnt seem to realise would be cold during the test (who's ever heard of performance testing a car AFTER is been racing to warm its rubber up?)"

    Why does that sound so impossible? After all, didn't the McLaren F1 LM benefit from tire warmers AND reduction of rear tire pressures for its historic 0-100-0 run? Who's ever heard of using TIRE WARMERS (and cornering weights, plus a McLaren crew on hand) in a road car test?


    "So u based a 25% increase in acceleration on a 23% (1200 from 1550) decrease in weight, hmmmm hardly something Newton wouldve been proud of."

    Sounds just as likely as a 15% difference in acceleration for a 0% change in weight, no? (Consider the range of stock Viper 0-60's here).
    Dear me. Even with the reduced tire pressures, tire warmers, lighter weight and more power than a standard McLaren F1, the LM was slower than a standard McLaren F1 by over half a second? hmmmm...what would Newton say about THAT?


    "The Cobra R was so stripped out that it somehow managed to balloon in weight to a frankly laughable 1628kg - the same as the pre-02 E55 AMG luxury sedan (1635), now thats racecar design for u"

    Hey. All you said that the Cobra R was not marketed as a race car. Clearly FALSE. No two ways about it. The equipment list also tells the tale.
    You said the primary goal of the Viper GTS was for racing at Le Mans. Clearly FALSE. Why dwell on your mistakes? Simply admit them, and let's move on.


    "the differences between the RT/10 and GTS arent very big, why?...because your old friend COST comes in. What did Dodge need to make a better racecar?...roof please, better aero please, more power please, right ok we've got the roadcar looking sorta like the racecar, that'll keep the ACO happy. Do u see? Dodge didnt need to homologate the racecars every chassis development coz the rules dont stipulate it."

    Yet, how did the rules rule out the use of the RT/10 at Le Mans? Does the fact that the RT/10 was even AT Le Mans point to Le Mans as a goal for the engineers of the RT/10? By your "reasoning", it does.
    And how about answering my question about the pink RT/10 at Le Mans: when you talk about "they", who are you referring to?


    "More backtracking on the Nur24 debate i see. Comparing the F1 rule book (about the size of a chinese phone book) to the Nur24 rule book (post-it note saying rollcage and seatbelts). I would hardly call that a discriminating piece of legislation, does the fact that minivans race the Nur24 not suggest to u that its a fairly open affair where no1 is particularly bothered who enters or what wins?"

    The rule book could be the size of a chinese phone book. It could be a post-it note. It could be a one-liner addressing rollcages and seatbelts. Any of these will effectively refute your claim that there are NO rules.
    Besides, have you even SEEN the rule book provided for 24 Hours of Nurburgring participants? Yes or no. Thanks.


    "finally, i get my TVR info from autocar and evo, usually glowing reviews and 'best ever' conclusions."

    Yet you seem to ignore the precautions they've written about actual ownership of TVR's. You've ignored Mr. Sutcliffe's comment to the letter writer in Autocar's "0-100-0" article.

    But since you want to take this to the next step, here goes (this is for you too, Impreza):

    http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=5345&f=6&h=0

    http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=4814&f=6&h=0

    http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=4794&f=6&h=0

    http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=3350&f=6&h=0

    http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=2567&f=6&h=0

    http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=2261&f=13&h=0

    http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=400&f=6&h=0

    http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=7471&f=6&h=0

    http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=7161&f=6&h=0

    Let me know if you want to read more. There's LOADS more. Why, a TVR even broke down during a formal procession on a UK television program recently. Dumb luck?
     
  12. #12 Guibo, Nov 13, 2002
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
    Re: European Sportscars are better: part 2

    "Guibo, u say reliability needs expertise (because theyre related arent they?), Honda didnt have reliability, therefore i can conclude from your info that Honda dont have expertise."

    Actually, you can't conclude that at all. The conclusion cannot be had based on the premises provided. The premises only indicate that
    1) Honda's failure to capture the title MIGHT indicate poor reliability
    2) Honda's reliability MIGHT be worse than Ferrari's
    3) Points 1) and 2) do not lead to the conclusion that Honda lacks technical expertise. And I've said nothing of the sort.


    "ditto BMW in 1983 (they didnt win straight away, like Renault it took them time to get it right)"

    Quite right. And it was the application of technical expertise that got them that far. Do you deny this? A simple yes or no, please.


    "i see u havent answered about your credentials, frightened that we might find out that you're a 14yr old computer geek who just reads his poppa's car magazines?"

    I'm a clerk at a software company. Part-time student.
    14 years old? I are you prepared to apologize when you've been proven wrong? I doubt it.
    My poppa isn't into cars, mate. Been working on my own (as best I can) for the better part of a decade now.


    "your physics?...try statements like 'geared to do 168mph'....that isnt its geared max OR its drag max, but u base your following argument on the fact that its got short gears when it clearly hasnt.
    Howabout the fact u said the Zakspeed has a better transmission - all well and good when it doesnt need to change gear to hit 60"

    Haha, but the stock Viper DOES need to change gear to hit 60. That's the point you seem to be missing. Over and over again.


    "or slick tyres that u didnt seem to realise would be cold during the test (who's ever heard of performance testing a car AFTER is been racing to warm its rubber up?)"

    Why does that sound so impossible? After all, didn't the McLaren F1 LM benefit from tire warmers AND reduction of rear tire pressures for its historic 0-100-0 run? Who's ever heard of using TIRE WARMERS (and cornering weights, plus a McLaren crew on hand) in a road car test?


    "So u based a 25% increase in acceleration on a 23% (1200 from 1550) decrease in weight, hmmmm hardly something Newton wouldve been proud of."

    Sounds just as likely as a 15% difference in acceleration for a 0% change in weight, no? (Consider the range of stock Viper 0-60's here).
    Dear me. Even with the reduced tire pressures, tire warmers, lighter weight and more power than a standard McLaren F1, the LM was slower than a standard McLaren F1 by over half a second? hmmmm...what would Newton say about THAT?


    "The Cobra R was so stripped out that it somehow managed to balloon in weight to a frankly laughable 1628kg - the same as the pre-02 E55 AMG luxury sedan (1635), now thats racecar design for u"

    Hey. All you said that the Cobra R was not marketed as a race car. Clearly FALSE. No two ways about it. The equipment list also tells the tale.
    You said the primary goal of the Viper GTS was for racing at Le Mans. Clearly FALSE. Why dwell on your mistakes? Simply admit them, and let's move on.


    "the differences between the RT/10 and GTS arent very big, why?...because your old friend COST comes in. What did Dodge need to make a better racecar?...roof please, better aero please, more power please, right ok we've got the roadcar looking sorta like the racecar, that'll keep the ACO happy. Do u see? Dodge didnt need to homologate the racecars every chassis development coz the rules dont stipulate it."

    Yet, how did the rules rule out the use of the RT/10 at Le Mans? Does the fact that the RT/10 was even AT Le Mans point to Le Mans as a goal for the engineers of the RT/10? By your "reasoning", it does.
    And how about answering my question about the pink RT/10 at Le Mans: when you talk about "they", who are you referring to?


    "More backtracking on the Nur24 debate i see. Comparing the F1 rule book (about the size of a chinese phone book) to the Nur24 rule book (post-it note saying rollcage and seatbelts). I would hardly call that a discriminating piece of legislation, does the fact that minivans race the Nur24 not suggest to u that its a fairly open affair where no1 is particularly bothered who enters or what wins?"

    The rule book could be the size of a chinese phone book. It could be a post-it note. It could be a one-liner addressing rollcages and seatbelts. Any of these will effectively refute your claim that there are NO rules.
    Besides, have you even SEEN the rule book provided for 24 Hours of Nurburgring participants? Yes or no. Thanks.


    "finally, i get my TVR info from autocar and evo, usually glowing reviews and 'best ever' conclusions."

    Yet you seem to ignore the precautions they've written about actual ownership of TVR's. You've ignored Mr. Sutcliffe's comment to the letter writer in Autocar's "0-100-0" article.

    But since you want to take this to the next step, here goes (this is for you too, Impreza):

    http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=5345&f=6&h=0

    http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=4814&f=6&h=0

    http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=4794&f=6&h=0

    http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=3350&f=6&h=0

    http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=2567&f=6&h=0

    http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=2261&f=13&h=0

    http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=400&f=6&h=0

    http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=7471&f=6&h=0

    http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=7161&f=6&h=0

    Let me know if you want to read more. There's LOADS more. Why, a TVR even broke down during a formal procession on a UK television program recently. Dumb luck?
     
  13. #13 Guibo, Nov 13, 2002
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
    Re: European Sportscars are better: part 2

    "Guibo, u say reliability needs expertise (because theyre related arent they?), Honda didnt have reliability, therefore i can conclude from your info that Honda dont have expertise."

    Actually, you can't conclude that at all. The conclusion cannot be had based on the premises provided. The premises only indicate that
    1) Honda's failure to capture the title MIGHT indicate poor reliability
    2) Honda's reliability MIGHT be worse than Ferrari's
    3) Points 1) and 2) do not lead to the conclusion that Honda lacks technical expertise. And I've said nothing of the sort.


    "ditto BMW in 1983 (they didnt win straight away, like Renault it took them time to get it right)"

    Quite right. And it was the application of technical expertise that got them that far. Do you deny this? A simple yes or no, please.


    "i see u havent answered about your credentials, frightened that we might find out that you're a 14yr old computer geek who just reads his poppa's car magazines?"

    I'm a clerk at a software company. Part-time student.
    14 years old? Are you prepared to apologize when you've been proven wrong? I doubt it.
    My poppa isn't into cars, mate. Been working on my own (as best I can) for the better part of a decade now.


    "your physics?...try statements like 'geared to do 168mph'....that isnt its geared max OR its drag max, but u base your following argument on the fact that its got short gears when it clearly hasnt.
    Howabout the fact u said the Zakspeed has a better transmission - all well and good when it doesnt need to change gear to hit 60"

    Haha, but the stock Viper DOES need to change gear to hit 60. That's the point you seem to be missing. Over and over again.


    "or slick tyres that u didnt seem to realise would be cold during the test (who's ever heard of performance testing a car AFTER is been racing to warm its rubber up?)"

    Why does that sound so impossible? After all, didn't the McLaren F1 LM benefit from tire warmers AND reduction of rear tire pressures for its historic 0-100-0 run? Who's ever heard of using TIRE WARMERS (and cornering weights, plus a McLaren crew on hand) in a road car test?


    "So u based a 25% increase in acceleration on a 23% (1200 from 1550) decrease in weight, hmmmm hardly something Newton wouldve been proud of."

    Sounds just as likely as a 15% difference in acceleration for a 0% change in weight, no? (Consider the range of stock Viper 0-60's here).
    Dear me. Even with the reduced tire pressures, tire warmers, lighter weight and more power than a standard McLaren F1, the LM was slower than a standard McLaren F1 by over half a second? hmmmm...what would Newton say about THAT?


    "The Cobra R was so stripped out that it somehow managed to balloon in weight to a frankly laughable 1628kg - the same as the pre-02 E55 AMG luxury sedan (1635), now thats racecar design for u"

    Hey. All you said that the Cobra R was not marketed as a race car. Clearly FALSE. No two ways about it. The equipment list also tells the tale.
    You said the primary goal of the Viper GTS was for racing at Le Mans. Clearly FALSE. Why dwell on your mistakes? Simply admit them, and let's move on.


    "the differences between the RT/10 and GTS arent very big, why?...because your old friend COST comes in. What did Dodge need to make a better racecar?...roof please, better aero please, more power please, right ok we've got the roadcar looking sorta like the racecar, that'll keep the ACO happy. Do u see? Dodge didnt need to homologate the racecars every chassis development coz the rules dont stipulate it."

    Yet, how did the rules rule out the use of the RT/10 at Le Mans? Does the fact that the RT/10 was even AT Le Mans point to Le Mans as a goal for the engineers of the RT/10? By your "reasoning", it does.
    And how about answering my question about the pink RT/10 at Le Mans: when you talk about "they", who are you referring to?


    "More backtracking on the Nur24 debate i see. Comparing the F1 rule book (about the size of a chinese phone book) to the Nur24 rule book (post-it note saying rollcage and seatbelts). I would hardly call that a discriminating piece of legislation, does the fact that minivans race the Nur24 not suggest to u that its a fairly open affair where no1 is particularly bothered who enters or what wins?"

    The rule book could be the size of a chinese phone book. It could be a post-it note. It could be a one-liner addressing rollcages and seatbelts. Any of these will effectively refute your claim that there are NO rules.
    Besides, have you even SEEN the rule book provided for 24 Hours of Nurburgring participants? Yes or no. Thanks.


    "finally, i get my TVR info from autocar and evo, usually glowing reviews and 'best ever' conclusions."

    Yet you seem to ignore the precautions they've written about actual ownership of TVR's. You've ignored Mr. Sutcliffe's comment to the letter writer in Autocar's "0-100-0" article.

    But since you want to take this to the next step, here goes (this is for you too, Impreza):

    http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=5345&f=6&h=0

    http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=4814&f=6&h=0

    http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=4794&f=6&h=0

    http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=3350&f=6&h=0

    http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=2567&f=6&h=0

    http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=2261&f=13&h=0

    http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=400&f=6&h=0

    http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=7471&f=6&h=0

    http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=7161&f=6&h=0

    Let me know if you want to read more. There's LOADS more. Why, a TVR even broke down during a formal procession on a UK television program recently. Dumb luck?
     
  14. Re: European Sportscars are better: part 2

    the GTS needs to change gear to hit 60, how does the Zakspeed's "better shifts" help anyone?

    your whole 15% discrepancies in stock GTS times doesnt really hold water - acceleration, peak accel that is, can always be calculated, ive seen 4 flat for a GTS, and that sounds about right, anyone else should practice more often then they'll all get 4 flat = 0% diff. If u dont understand WHY u get 15% different times then u shouldnt even bring the topic up, u SHOULD be able to account for these differences, using...physics, so yeh Isaac would approve

    the RT/10 wasnt designed for LM because no factory team was sent, no doubt Dodge saw the potential in the privately entered RT/10s and thought hang on, we could send a factory team of coupes, and make some for the public aswell to make some money (how long after the introduction of the GTS was the racecar announced?)

    i know by looking at the competing cars that there cannot possibly be any discriminating rules for the Nur24, i KNOW this, there are no engine restrictions whatsoever, no minimum weights, no aero limits, no banned types of cars, no nothing. u could take an F1 car if u wanted, an ice cream van, a firetruck, anything (yeah yeah, so long as its safe)

    people post in car websites about trouble theyve had with their TVRs, but do they ever say things like "hey everyone, my car is fine" ?...no so uve got no idea as to the % of cars that have engine failures, putting u in no position to judge them as a manufacturer

    btw, what are u a student of?
     
  15. #15 Guibo, Nov 13, 2002
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
    Re: European Sportscars are better: part 2

    "the GTS needs to change gear to hit 60, how does the Zakspeed's 'better shifts' help anyone?"

    Yes, but with only 450 DIN PS on tap, and GEARING SUCH THAT IT WILL TOP OUT AT 270 kmh, how do we know if the Zakspeed Viper will hit 60 in first gear? Again, I ask: what is the final drive ratio in the Zakspeed Viper, and what are the individual gear ratios?



    "your whole 15% discrepancies in stock GTS times doesnt really hold water - acceleration, peak accel that is, can always be calculated, ive seen 4 flat for a GTS, and that sounds about right, anyone else should practice more often then they'll all get 4 flat = 0% diff."

    Yet that is not the case. You can bring up shoulda's, woulda's, coulda's all day long. And it still doesn't explain the 15% discrepancy for a ZERO % discrepancy in weight.


    "the RT/10 wasnt designed for LM because no factory team was sent, no doubt Dodge saw the potential in the privately entered RT/10s and thought hang on, we could send a factory team of coupes, and make some for the public aswell to make some money (how long after the introduction of the GTS was the racecar announced?)"

    Probably not much longer than it took for the RT/10's to show up at Le Mans. What, do we then assume that the RT/10's were built for Le Mans?
    None of this changes the fact that in the book I scanned, it clearly shows the primary purpose of the GTS was to address issues brought up by the original RT/10's shortcomings. One of those priorities certainly didn't involve Le Mans. It was only AFTER the GTS came to production as a viable, sustainable model that the GTS-R project took off.


    "people post in car websites about trouble theyve had with their TVRs, but do they ever say things like 'hey everyone, my car is fine' ?..."

    Haven't you been paying attention at all? The reason why those stories are rather rare is because of all of the problems those owners are experiencing. And that's only the ones with engine troubles. They spend a good portion of their time complaining about things like water leaks, trim falling off, excessive glue on the leather seats, dead/inaccurate speedometers, etc. The list goes on.

    Once in awhile, just to boost morale, they DO talk about the positive sides of ownership:
    http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?p=2&f=0&t=17756&h=0
    Really. For such a subject to even come up does not bode well. I rarely see it on BMW, Corvette, Viper, etc. forums. In those forums, it's usually things like:
    "Wow, I just NOS'ed my Viper", or "Wow, I just supercharged my Viper (750+ hp dyno charts inside)" or "Wow, I just passed 200K miles in my BMW!". Granted, the TVR owners sometimes do mileage polls as well. But it almost invariably leads to discussions of rebuilds within ridiculously low levels of mileage:
    http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=16498&f=0&h=0


    "no so uve got no idea as to the % of cars that have engine failures, putting u in no position to judge them as a manufacturer"

    Did I not post the thread about the backlog of engines awaiting rebuilds at the factory? (Hang on, let me look for it if I didn't..)
    Was there not a comment that prospective Tamora owners might face a 1 in 3 chance of needing their engines rebuilt before their warranty expires?
    If you have time, check out the thread about TVR's potential return to NA, and the hurdles they face. Terms like "build quality" and "lemon laws" keep popping up.


    "btw, what are u a student of?"

    I first went in for webpage design, basic HTML stuff. Next semester (if I register in time), I'll be looking into software programming instead (maybe C++, Java, etc.).

    Are you still willing to stand behind your guess that I'm 14 years old? Let me know. We have time to make it 0-16+ yet...
     
  16. Re: European Sportscars are better: part 2

    "i know by looking at the competing cars that there cannot possibly be any discriminating rules for the Nur24, i KNOW this, there are no engine restrictions whatsoever, no minimum weights"

    Again, I ask you: Do you have the rule book? Yes or no, please.



    "no aero limits, no banned types of cars, no nothing. u could take an F1 car if u wanted, an ice cream van, a firetruck, anything (yeah yeah, so long as its safe)"

    Amazing. You could take anything, and yet the winner (in 3 out of the past 4 years) has chosen...a pushrod-engined Viper.
     
  17. Re: European Sportscars are better: part 2

    how many times have i got to point out that the Zakspeed does NOT have gearing such that it tops out at 168. That statement translates to "geared max = 168" which is WRONG. It either uses a stock Viper box (which u say it doesnt) or a factory GTS-R box (theyre hardly gonna make their own are they, otherwise y dont they sell them?) so its geared max will be the far side of 230mph, which means its got long gears = poor acceleration. (it is points like this which make ur dumbass scoring system such a joke)

    i could drive a Viper to 60 in half an hour, does that mean the laws of physics dont apply because ive got a 100000% difference in times?...THINK

    the RT/10 wasnt a factory racecar, the GTS-R was, so the time from road to track is relevant for the GTS but not the RT/10 (RT/10 unveiled 1991ish, privately raced at LM in what, 1994? = 3 years) GTS unveiled 1996, factory raced at LM in 97

    you're clearly not aware of the concept of jokes, as the whole 14yr old computer nerd thing shows, im sorry, your a 20yr old computer nerd are u? like i care

    there is no rule book, look at the damn cars that compete. I can write one for u though - vehicles must be self propelled. This is the only thing all competing cars have in common.

    Yes u could race anything, but the Viper has proved itself in 24H racing and is affordable compared to an Audi R8. Why DONT audi use the R8?...coz they dont care, the Nur24 is a waste of time

    by the way, im in the 2nd year of a Masters Degree in aero-mech engineering, just in case u get any ideas about me secretly being a 14yr old computer nerd
     
  18. Re: European Sportscars are better: part 2

    that makes me the youngest one here then!
     
  19. #19 Guibo, Nov 14, 2002
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
    Re: European Sportscars are better: part 2

    “how many times have i got to point out that the Zakspeed does NOT have gearing such that it tops out at 168. That statement translates to ‘geared max = 168’ which is WRONG. It either uses a stock Viper box (which u say it doesnt) or a factory GTS-R box (theyre hardly gonna make their own are they, otherwise y dont they sell them?)”

    Again, I ask you: What are the individual gear ratios? What’s the final drive? Does it use sequential shift?
    C’mon, now. There’s no way they’re going to use a totally stock Viper box. The stock Viper’s throws are long and generally not too precise (not to mention that skip-shift feature). Any race team that wants a shot at winning anything will modify it for shorter throws and more precision. And that goes for many cars, whether they’re Vipers or BMW’s.


    “so its geared max will be the far side of 230mph, which means its got long gears = poor acceleration. “

    Again, without knowledge of the individual gear ratios and the final drive, you just can’t say. The spec sheet totally refutes your claims. If you can PROVE otherwise, please do so.
    I would also like to know through what means you’ve concluded it has “at least 650 hp”. Are you using some program? How does it work? Is it taking into consideration gearing?
    While you’re at it, you might want to look into this, which was taken from this year’s 24-hour race:
    “Das Fuji-Team Zakspeed bringt jene Chrysler Viper GTS-R mit der Chassisnummer C36 an den Start, die im letzten Jahr schon als zweites Zakspeed-Auto im BF Goodrich-Look unterwegs war. Der Wagen wird genauso eingestuft wie die siegreiche Zakspeed-Viper aus Vorjahr: Er wiegt 1350 Kilogramm, sein Motor atmet durch zwei 30,8 Millimeter große Luftmengenbegrenzer und leistet entsprechend 460 PS; der Tank darf 90 Liter fassen. “
    Roughly translated, it states:
    “The Fuji team Zakspeed brings that Chrysler to viper Gts r with the chassis number C36 to the start, which was in the last year already as the second Zakspeed car in the BF Goodrich Look on the way. The car is exactly the same classified like the victorious Zakspeed viper from previous year: It weighs 1350 kilograms, its engine breathes by two 30.8 millimeters large amount of air clippers and carries out according to 460 HP; the tank may hold 90 litres.”
    http://www.motorsport-xl.de/automobil/news/2002/05/2805_03.htm

    Hmmm…”der Tank darf 90 liter fassen.” 90 liters seems fairly specific. Could it be stipulated somewhere in this (according to you) fictitious, Post-It sized rule book? I ask you yet again (what is it, the third or fourth time now?): Do you have the rule book? YES or NO? Thank you!


    ”i could drive a Viper to 60 in half an hour, does that mean the laws of physics dont apply because ive got a 100000% difference in times?...THINK”

    Yes, that’s sounds like quite a leisurely pace. Yet, when car magazines test the Viper’s 0-60, do you think they’re doing so at a leisurely pace? Do you think the 3.0 figure given by the Zakspeed team indicates they’re doing so at a leisurely pace? You're going to have to come up with better scenarios than *that*, LOL…THINK


    ”the RT/10 wasnt a factory racecar, the GTS-R was, so the time from road to track is relevant for the GTS but not the RT/10 (RT/10 unveiled 1991ish, privately raced at LM in what, 1994? = 3 years) GTS unveiled 1996, factory raced at LM in 97”

    Wrong again (but then, what else is new?). The RT/10 was unveiled in ’89. It went to production in ’92. You would HOPE that a coupe version built on an already EXISTING platform would make it to the track much quicker, wouldn’t you? That’s nothing new.
    The 5 main goals behind the GTS’s conception still remain. Uncontested on your end.


    “you're clearly not aware of the concept of jokes, as the whole 14yr old computer nerd thing shows, im sorry, your a 20yr old computer nerd are u? like i care”

    Oh, I’m aware of the concept of jokes. But most jokes are funny. Yours was not. It was a personal derision on your part. An incorrect assumption.


    “there is no rule book, look at the damn cars that compete. I can write one for u though - vehicles must be self propelled. This is the only thing all competing cars have in common.”

    What makes you think there’s no rulebook? I’ve seen the rules. Hint: they won’t fit on a standard-sized Post-It.


    ”Yes u could race anything, but the Viper has proved itself in 24H racing and is affordable compared to an Audi R8. Why DONT audi use the R8?...coz they dont care, the Nur24 is a waste of time”

    Who says you must use an Audi R8 to win? Aren’t there any European cars that can compete below the level of an Audi R8? Or are you saying it takes an R8-level European car to compete and win?


    ”by the way, im in the 2nd year of a Masters Degree in aero-mech engineering, just in case u get any ideas about me secretly being a 14yr old computer nerd”

    Like I care. Do you see ME asking YOU about your background? No. Do you see ME deriding you about your background? No. Do you see ME assuming that you’re a 14yr old computer nerd? No. Our backgrounds are totally irrelevant to this discussion at hand. You could be Al Melling for all I care. Still doesn’t change the fact that you can’t prove your points and answer my questions in a timely manner.
    Congratulations. You’re in the 2nd year of a Masters Degree in aero-mech engineering. Time to start acting like it.


    “(it is points like this which make ur dumbass scoring system such a joke)”

    Let me know if you want the final tally. Haven’t added it up yet, but it promises to be a Duesey!
     
  20. Re: European Sportscars are better: part 2

    more total rubbish, if u dont mind my saying so

    the fact that the Viper has a 90L tank must mean that the rulebook says 90L tanks, that must also mean the rulebook says "must have a viper badge on the back"...or howabout "must have a nice paintjob" or maybe "must have these specific drivers racing it" because the Viper has all of those aswell

    no i dont have the rulebook, because there isnt one. Nor do i have the F1 rulebook, but i know what half of them are just by inspection of the car

    a leisurely pace is your opinion, maybe im secretly a 90yr old woman whose best time in a viper is half an hour....im trying my best but i just cant seem to get it below the big three-oh. Driver skill is paramount and leads to 0% discrepancies

    i was actually gonna type 1989 for the RT/10 coz thats when the crappy-looking proto was shown on the concept VHS i was talking about earlier, but i said 1991ish coz thats when i thought it came out (hence "ish"), so it was FIVE years from unveiling to track but only 1 for the GTS (one wonders why the factory waited for the GTS before officially competing, probably coincidence as far as you're concerned)

    i didnt say u needed an R8 to win, i used it as an example coz its a triple outright LM winner. Couldve picked the 911 GT1 or V12 LMR or GT-One or R390 for that matter. Viper is the best for the price

    time to start acting like im at university?...you're the one making academic mistakes, not me (now you're saying its a 13% weight reduction and 25% increase in accel)

    personally i make the score about 15-0 to me since ur replies r so generally crap

    i dont need the gear ratios, i know the GTS-Rs drag max is over 200, it needs another 10 to slipstream, and probably another 20 to avoid sitting on the rev limit for several minutes at LM. I agree it wont use the stock box, which doesnt leave it much options other than the GTS-R - if the Zakspeed races in any professional races, it WILL use the GTS-R box.

    Care to list all the non-safety RULES (not class boundaries or suggestions or any rubbish like that, just the technical stuff please) since uve got the book?

    (ps. Impreza, if you're 17 how the hell do u afford a Scooby???)
     
  21. #21 Guibo, Nov 14, 2002
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
    Re: European Sportscars are better: part 2

    ”the fact that the Viper has a 90L tank must mean that the rulebook says 90L tanks.”

    Actually, it does. Look on page 21, Article 2.1.17 Appendix 1:
    http://www.24h-rennen.de/binaries/2002-24h-ausschreibung.pdf

    No minimum weights? Take a look at Article 3.2, on page 22. Boom!! Blows your theory right out of the water.


    ”no i dont have the rulebook, because there isnt one.”

    You were saying? Maybe the correct response is: "No, I don't have the rulebook, because I haven't LOOKED for one. However, I'm high and mighty enough to KNOW that there are NO rules, NO minimum weights, etc."


    ”a leisurely pace is your opinion, maybe im secretly a 90yr old woman whose best time in a viper is half an hour....im trying my best but i just cant seem to get it below the big three-oh. Driver skill is paramount and leads to 0% discrepancies”

    And yet driver skill (as well as track conditions) are much more likely reasons than your 90-year old woman scenario. How many 90-year old women test drive Vipers? Can you point to even ONE?
    And while you’re at it, you might want to explain how the McLaren F1 LM (with McLaren support personnel on hand, a Le Mans veteran and McLaren F1 ace at the wheel, ballasting, reduced tire pressures, tire warmers, more power than a standard McLaren F1, and less weight than a standard McLaren F1) was somehow .5 second SLOWER in 0-60 than a standard McLaren F1. What does Newton say about that?


    ”i was actually gonna type 1989 for the RT/10 coz thats when the crappy-looking proto was shown on the concept VHS i was talking about earlier, but i said 1991ish coz thats when i thought it came out (hence "ish"), so it was FIVE years from unveiling to track but only 1 for the GTS (one wonders why the factory waited for the GTS before officially competing, probably coincidence as far as you're concerned)”

    Viper GTS was unveiled in ’93. So it was FOUR years from unveiling to track. Not 1.


    ”time to start acting like im at university?...you're the one making academic mistakes, not me (now you're saying its a 13% weight reduction and 25% increase in accel)”

    You’re forgetting something. I never said the weight reduction was the sole factor, now did I?


    ”personally i make the score about 15-0 to me since ur replies r so generally crap”

    Hold on, I’ll tally up in just a moment.


    ”i dont need the gear ratios, i know the GTS-Rs drag max is over 200, it needs another 10 to slipstream, and probably another 20 to avoid sitting on the rev limit for several minutes at LM.”

    But we’re not at LM. We’re at Nurburgring, where one might encounter (possibly dozens of) ice cream vans, remember?


    ”Care to list all the non-safety RULES (not class boundaries or suggestions or any rubbish like that, just the technical stuff please) since uve got the book?”

    Read the rules. And let me know if you can fit all of THAT on a Post-It.

    More total rubbish, and I don't care if you mind me saying so.
     
  22. Re: European Sportscars are better: part 2

    that link lead to a completely blank page...much appreciated

    a Car & Driver tester (for example) might be more like a 90yr old woman than Michael Schumacher, i probably couldnt get a Viper to 60 in less than 5sec, there u go ive found an example, a magazine tester after only 1 attempt might get 4.6s Remembering that you said that u cant use physics when 15% discrepancies occur in recording times, what CAN u use smart guy?

    the F1 LM 0-100-0 test was after only 1 attempt, the record was broken so for some stupid reason they didnt have another go, yes i am extremely disappointed with the results that day, a standard Macca should be able to do late 10s but the LM is pegged back at 11.5. Good of u to always point out cars that underperform, as opposed to the Zakspeed which overperforms, more invalid arguments i see, think that pretty much negates every single point uve "won"

    lets stick to the time between launch date and track debut shall we?....RT/10 = 3yrs, GTS = 1

    u did say weight reduction was the only factor, since i dismissed the slick tyre point and the shorter gearing (scientifically, i might add)

    u have to account for the possibility that the 2 mile straight, at one point in the 24H, will be clear, and gear the car accordingly = 200+ gearing = GTS-R LM-spec box (what else they gonna use?)

    i would explain to u how i "guess" the power of cars but its pure physics therefore its complicated and boring, and proves u wrong which hey, i dont wanna do (i will if u ask nicely, lol)

    throughout all these posts uve made, it has become apparent that u know absolutely jack about cars - u believe what u read and argue what others have found out. All this talk of gearing, do u even know why u change the ratios, and what the ratios mean, from a technical p.o.v. ? do u know what effect compression ratio has on the power curve, and y the shape of the curve is important when selecting gears?....if so, ok thats good, if not dont argue with me
     
  23. Re: European Sportscars are better: part 2

    "that link lead to a completely blank page...much appreciated"

    Did it, now? Do you have Adobe Acrobat on your computer? Maybe not.
    Anyone else having this problem?

    Here you go.

    1) Front page
    2) General classes. Looks like only cars built in '90 and later are eligible. There goes your theory that it's open to all cars. It seems like many of the cars eligible here must first be eligible in their own respective racing series.
    3) Some more info about classes. Minimum weights?! No! But ch1c4n3 said...bullsh*t.
    "All modifications are forbidden unless expressly authorised." Yikes. And that phrase appears elsewhere in these REGULATIONS as well.
     
  24. Re: European Sportscars are better: part 2

    1) More about weights. Oh dear.
    2) More about MINIMUM WEIGHTS?! No! (BTW, there's also a parc ferme where cars are scrutinized by race officials afterward. Pretty amateur stuff.)
    3) Well, there you have it. Fuel tanks. 90 liters alotted to the Chrysler Viper. COINCIDENCE?!


    LOL. Also note that the Viper is the only one handicapped in that "open" class with restrictors. The 800 figure comes from the year 2000, when it was also given extra ballast. 1600kg. Actually, 780 PS during the race, a bit more for the qualifying.
     
  25. Re: European Sportscars are better: part 2

    I'd be very amazed if you'd conced that point. You are also wrong about the 24 Hours of Spa not having any rules. It just happens to be Round 7 of the FIA GT championship. Last I recall, FIA GT wasn't exactly an amateur series (but I could be wrong). I'm pretty sure it's got some rules to it as well. Anyway, on with the discussion.


    "a Car & Driver tester (for example) might be more like a 90yr old woman than Michael Schumacher, i probably couldnt get a Viper to 60 in less than 5sec, there u go ive found an example, a magazine tester after only 1 attempt might get 4.6s"

    Where's the example? I don't see it. You need to show an example of a 90-yar old woman test driver. Just one. (The example doesn't count if it merely originates from your imagination.)
    C&D has gotten a Supra Turbo to 60 in 4.6 seconds. 3.9 for the Viper GTS. A BMW 540i Sport in 5.5 seconds. A 911 Turbo in 3.9. A Mini Cooper S in 7.0. An M Roadster in 4.5. An M5 in 4.7. An '02 Z06 in 4.0. These are clearly not "90yr-old-woman" times. These are pretty respectable numbers, on a par with Autocar and Motor Trend, and quicker than R&T (usually). Speaking of which, R&T's '02 Z06 was 7/10ths off the pace of C&D's. What gives?
    If you can provide Michael Schumacher's test times with any of these vehicles (or others), plus some times produced by a 90-year-old woman, your argument just might hold water (if indeed C&D's times are closer to the woman's time than Schumacher's).

    Only ONE test run? Are you mad? I don't know of any magazine that tests their cars only ONCE to figure out the acceleration times. Do you even HAVE the 0-100-0 article on the McLaren F1 LM? They did a total of 4 attempts. They even changed tires. The fact remains that the lighter, more powerful F1 LM with McLaren support crew in tow, tire warmers, McLaren F1 ace Andy Wallace at the wheel, corner weights, and reduced tire pressures was .5 seconds SLOWER to 60 than the standard F1 tested by R&T, and .7 second slower to 60 than the prototype F1 tested by Autocar. Again, I ask you: How do you explain this? An under-performing example? Hahahaha! That's pretty freakin' WEAK!

    And here's how C&D tests their cars:
    "To cancel the effects of the wind, all acceleration tests are run in both directions; the best runs in each direction are then averaged.
    In a manual-transmission car, we usually start acceleration runs with a wheel-spinning launch. It's simple: The engine is revved to a high rate, and the clutch is abruptly engaged. No power shifting or speed shifting is allowed, so we shift rapidly but by the everyday method of disengaging the clutch and lifting off the gas. With a great variety of vehicles, it's not always readily apparent which is the optimal launch technique, but we do our utmost to extract every ounce of speed from each one. Often we try launching the cars at varying rpm while trying hard not to break anything.
    On most cars, we upshift at the engine's redline, but on torquey engines, we experiment with short shifting as well. With automatics, we try shifting manually if the transmission upshifts short of the redline."

    Does that SOUND like they only do one run? How does that exactly negate every single point I've won? There are about 40 of them.


    "lets stick to the time between launch date and track debut shall we?....RT/10 = 3yrs, GTS = 1

    RT/10 = 2 years (premiered at Detroit Auto Show in '92; first production units hit the street mid-year)
    GTS=1 year
    Like I said. It's easier to get to racing using an already existing platform. In any event, NONE of what you're saying PROVES the GTS exists for Le Mans.
    Oh, dear. On page 51 of that book, it states:
    "The sensational early visceral Vipers were a work in progress. Team Viper heard th criticisms of the 1992 RT/10 and bit their tongues. The GTS Coupe would fix all that."
    That is some 20 pages before they even start talking directly about Le Mans.


    "u did say weight reduction was the only factor, since i dismissed the slick tyre point and the shorter gearing (scientifically, i might add)"

    Nope, you haven't dismissed the shorter gearing scientifically.
    LOL, so what YOU dismiss determines what I'VE said? Come again? I've said these factors affect acceleration: driver skill, test conditions, tire compounds. There's probably a whole sh*tload more that I haven't mentioned yet. Maybe a real drag racer can shed some light on this.


    "u have to account for the possibility that the 2 mile straight, at one point in the 24H, will be clear, and gear the car accordingly = 200+ gearing = GTS-R LM-spec box (what else they gonna use?)"

    Excuse me? You gear a car, for an ENTIRE race, based on ONE chance condition where ONE part of the track is clear of 200+ cars? Now you're really grabbing at straws.

    GTS-R LM-spec box is only a part of it. You haven't touched on the differential gear ratio. The final drive? What is it for the Zakspeed Viper. We already know that it's vastly different between the C5-R and the street Corvette.
    Does the GTS-R LM-spec box use sequential shift?


    "i would explain to u how i 'guess' the power of cars but its pure physics therefore its complicated and boring, and proves u wrong which hey, i dont wanna do (i will if u ask nicely, lol)"

    Please, prove me wrong.










     

Share This Page