Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Asian Forums' started by Tipo F130A, Sep 2, 2011.
The tires used on the LFA nur car are very similar to PSC's.
of course... and id take an LFA over pretty much 95% of the performance cars out there.
Bridgestone RE070s are OE fitment on cars like the WRX STi and S2000CR. They were the *slower* of two summer tires for the old GT-R. The Dunlops were faster. The old GTR Spec V had a special version of the RE070 that was grippier than the regular GT-R / LFA NRE RE070s: larger treadblocks with narrower circumferential grooving. Now, the new GT-R has an updated RE070 (called the R2), and an updated version of the Dunlop as well. All of the press GT-Rs thus far have been equipped with the Dunlops, not the newer RE070R2s. (Care to guess why?)
So, what you're saying is that the GT-R's Dunlops are in fact *better* than a Pilot Sport Cup. Interesting observation. Too bad nobody else has made a similar comment. Motor Trend said the opposite: Every car there that was not on Cup or Corsas would have been faster with them. They also said the GT-R's exceptional chassis makes the tires appear to be better than they really are.
One tire is 305mm, treadwear rated at 140, with 9/32" tread depth, and classified as an extreme summer performance tire.
The other is 345mm, rated at 80, with 6/32" tread depth, and classified as a DOT-approved track & competition tire (which generally have strengthened sidewalls and reinforced treadblocks for less squidge and more stable heat characteristics than non-track rubber). Quite obviously, these tires are not in the same class, but if you say they are similar in being black, made of rubber, round, and not intended for standing water, then I agree.
Where did i say dunlops were better? I checked my post again, didnt see it. So quit making shlt up.
you know that a tire twr consist of its tire depth and compound in relation to a standard tire. Considering it is done by each manufacturer independantly, its hard to compare tread ratings between manufacturers anyway. (but still, they should be similar)
Also some Extreme summer performance tires are DOT track tires with more tread on them so they can be sold to OEM's so they can get that edge while still having remotely some rain performance.
But then again, you should know all this. (and i also agree that the dunlop is better than the re070, but also the common psc too)
Can crystalballer confirm these treadwear measurements?
By deduction, that's what you were saying. If an RE070 is comparable to a PSC (as your post claimed), and we know the mk1 GT-R Spec V had an even better RE070, now replaced by the even grippier RE070R2 and grippier still Dunlops for the mk2, then where does that leave the mk2 Dunlops in relation to a PSC? You are trying to say they are the same as the Michelins? That wouldn't make sense because the latest RE070R2 and Dunlops are superior to the old RE070.
If it is hard to compare the tread ratings, then on what basis do you make the claim that the RE070 is comparable to a Michelin Pilot Sport Cup? I ask you for a source. You didn't give any.
If Bridgestone wanted to make a trackday-biased tire, why don't they offer a shaved version of the RE070 to match the tread depth (and lack of squidginess that entails) of a Cup tire? Instead, they have developed entirely different tires for track drivers, the RE-11 and RE55s.
Clearly, there is something different between an OEM summer performance tire and even a compromised version of Cup tires when the Cup+ tires on C&D's longterm M3 lasted through extended lapping much better than the OEM PS2s, which deteriorated rapidly.
Just for reference, often having the RIGHT tire is more important than having the sticky tire. if the slip profiles dont match what the car was designed and tuned for, you can end up worse off, even if you have a theoretically better tire.
Most cars actually have model-specific tires made for them from the factory. A factory (and often dealer) version of the identical model tire from tirerack can actually be a slightly different, optimized tire. Theyll fine tune things like belt angles and sidewall construction for the specific car. In normal cars, its usually for NVH and on-center feel. in performance cars, its usually for matching tire curves to the suspension as ideally as possible.
The re070 is similar by tread design. near slick outer contact patch with tread/ribs in center/inside of tire contact patch. If you were to shave a re070r/r2 or whichever you choose down a 6/32" tread depth, you would have tires with very similar performance/life.
Motor Trend opinions are no better source than any ones opinion. The PS2 is a much different tire than a PSC, completely different stucture, compound, and purpose. Even the PSC is a rather conservative tire in its category.
the RE-11 is not a track tire, it is also a extreme performance summer tire, and guess what, it has a 9/32" tread depth (180twr)
The Re-55s is also much more aggressive than any tire we are talking about. even comes in special compounds depending on weather you are going for single fast laps, short stints, warm temps, hot temps, etc etc.
Hell, using your logic, a Toyo R888 is more tame than a PSC because it has a 100tread rating.
take pic 1, shave it down and you would have a tire similar in tread depth and tread design to a PSC in pic 2.
If not Motor Trend's, then give me another source that says the RE070s are comparable to a PSC.
From that pic, it's pretty clear the MPSC has a more robust shoulder with next to zero squidge in the treadblock (namely, there is no treadblock there for the tread to deform). The outer circumerfential groove is also noticeably narrower than on the RE070. Actual LFA and Corvette tires below. If you cannot spot the differences, you need to have your blinders removed.
You're pretty much admitting that you really do think the GT-R's tires are better than a PSC tire. For how else could they *not* be if they are now better than the RE070R2s which are better than the Spec V RE070s which are better than the mk1 RE070s which are comparable to what the old GT-R had?
lol that's not from a bubagotti Venom you n00bs
New GT-R 570ps is coming, the war continues <A BORDER="0" HREF="http://www.supercars.net/PitLane?displayFAQ=y"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="pitlane/emoticons/wink.gif"></A>
There may be no major price difference in developing carbon fiber than an aluminum frame like that on the 458. The cost of the material itself is going to make up only a small part of the development budget. Hell for McLaren it may even be cheaper, because they are starting from scratch to begin with. The companies may ask themselves, is a carbon fiber chassis that costs X million to develop better than an aluminum chassis that costs X million to develop. It may be decided that for equal cost, the aluminum chassis would be better performance.
I do not know who is arguing what, so I do not know if this supports your argument or not, but the corvette has been very cheap for GM to develop. The C5 cost something like 250 million to develop and I am guessing that the C6 was pretty close. The C5 had a brand new chassis design (with the hydroformed rails) and the brand new V8. The C6 was really an evolution of the C5, so I would bet that even with inflation it was pretty similar, if not cheaper. 250 million is nothing to develop a car these days.
Or maybe the Feiero Fasterossa
all this 'facts' is just lies guibo is writing to fit into his argument to prove his points
best tires is the bugatti veyron
I think the question is, what is the cost for GM to develope the Corvette from the ground up, from the very first C1. And then the constant development through the C4, accounting for inflation. By the end of it, it's not likely that more money was lavished on the LFA. Another real question, which nobody seems to be able to answer, is what part of that budget was used for speed vs the rest of the car (build quality, safety, sound, etc.). We can make some estimate based on the final product, where one car seems certainly more focused on these aspects than the other.
Another factor that makes development cost comparisons fairly useless is that the figures listed for the Corvette might include development costs shared by other models. A V8 used in the Corvette might be the result of develoment costs shared among Cadillac, Vauxhall, Holden, etc. There is simply no way to reconcile these differences, based purely on MSRP between an LFA and a Corvette. There is no way to make this an apples to apples comparison, and then to proclaim some great achievement on an (artificially) lower budget.
With Nissan proclaiming many years ago constant refinement to the GT-R, did you expect it to stop? <A BORDER="0" HREF="http://www.supercars.net/PitLane?displayFAQ=y"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="pitlane/emoticons/wink.gif"></A>
dodge viper tires is wider and also faster
check the tread depth and the sidewall and also the steel belted radial
and still looking as boring as ever
well thats debatable
check the squidge numbers again on both and i think you will be shocked at the findings
come back when you know how to slip the angles
<A BORDER="0" HREF="http://www.supercars.net/PitLane?displayFAQ=y"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="pitlane/emoticons/wink.gif"></A> <A BORDER="0" HREF="http://www.supercars.net/PitLane?displayFAQ=y"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="pitlane/emoticons/wink.gif"></A>
"I think the question is, what is the cost for GM to develope the Corvette from the ground up, from the very first C1."
That is about the dumbest question to ask. Its not like Toyota started from scratch, the LFA was built on its knowledge that Toyota has built through out its history. Its not like Toyota gather a bunch of people that know nothing about designing cars and told them to build the LFA, no they had lots of experience on other previous car and furthermore the whole development process was based on what toyota has learned from developing cars. Hell, develpoment of the Lexus LS probably contributed lots to the LFA, should be count that.
This whole MSRP thing is stupid, because we have no idea what is being accounted for in MSRP. Is Toyota counting the cost to develop some of the carbon technology? Or is Toyota taking that as some general research and not figured into the MSRP? Just as aluminum hydroforming development cost on the Z06 is probably not figured into the MSRP of the Z06. Or maybe it is, we have no clue.
Not necessarily dumb because the C1 would have been drawing experience from previous GM product as well; they had a 30-year head start in making automobiles compared to Toyota, but I'm not even talking about that. As a starting point, it makes more sense to compare this way. Where did the Corvette start? C1. There has been a basis of 5 Corvette generations to build on, and while there have been revisions through the years, they've basically been the same: steel-framed car wrapped in a composite body, rolling down pretty much the same assembly line using basically the same methods.
Where did the LFA start? If you say Lexus LS, well, that's an extremely tenuous association for obvious reasons.
The hydroforming on the Z06 is a method that is used on other GM products, the prime difference being the material. Again, the inclusion of other vehicles in the R&D and production process clouds any reasonable comparison. Clearly, if the CF-weaving looms can only be attributed to the LFA, then that drives up its cost more; it can't share the burden with other vehicles.
Or are you proposing that we look only at what GM have invested in the Corvette during the C6 (not much) compared to what Lexus invested in the LFA (a lot more), and come to the conclusion that GM engineers are somehow better by doing more with less, when "better" is arbitrarily defined to be nothing more than objective performance as it relates to this thread?
Agreed on the MSRP thing being stupid. That was my point all along.
The CF weaving stuff for the LFA likely comes from the original branch of toyota, the loom making side. That was probably existing technology that side of the company had.
You really cant tell much from a tire from looking at the surface. Carcass construction is much more important. Really, most importantly is the slip curve relative to the suspension parameters.
But the actual machine itself is not. If Toyota were making looms in 2000 and adapted it to LFA production, that would be something to consider. They also have to train their personnel in not just operation of the looms, but the layup process as well. For GM, the process of component manufacture has been sourced out to their suppliers for years.
As for tires, I agree you would have to know more about the construction of the tire. I have yet to see any evidence, brought here or elsewhere, that suggests the RE070 is comparable to a Cup tire.
You are quite sure you can't tell the grip levels afforded by the old GY Eagle F1 Supercar tire vs a Pilot Sport Cup merely by looking at them? I think the fact that Dodge, Porsche, BMW (CSL), and GM have all spec'ed Pilot Sport Cups for their most potent track weapons should tell us there is a clear difference in these tires.