Nurburgring Lap Times

Discussion in 'Car Comparisons' started by ajzahn, Oct 28, 2004.

  1. ...excuses... <A BORDER="0" HREF="http://www.supercars.net/PitLane?displayFAQ=y"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="pitlane/emoticons/wink.gif"></A>

    LF-A 350 bhp/ton

    and don't forget the incredibly number of excuses about the Gt-Rs....

     
  2. look at this masterpiece: Guibo has deliberately deleted from his list the claimed laps ofhis favourite cars: GT-R (273 bhp/ton) and the LFA (350. bhp/ton). to prevent embarrassment
    ......
    rotfl
     
  3. Why would I need to include them, when they have already been discussed??
    You know what has NOT been discussed? How the 458 can lap among cars with much greater power/wt ratios. You know what's STILL NOT being discussed? How the 458 can lap among cars with much greater power/wt ratios. <A BORDER="0" HREF="http://www.supercars.net/PitLane?displayFAQ=y"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="pitlane/emoticons/wink.gif"></A>

    Something else you're not discussing: The effect of tire pressures on lap times. Now, I wonder why mafalda, who knows everything about GT-R power and NRing lap times, is not discussing this. Probably to prevent embarassment. Just like he cannot figure out how to multiply/divide correction factors when they are clearly printed on a test sheet. Do you, mafalda, know the effect of tire pressures on lap times? Please respond in your next post, and do not pretend that I did not ask it (again).

    LFA's lap time is easy to understand: hundreds of laps over many years of testing on the NRing. Obviously, the more laps you do, the more likely you can find close to perfect conditions. How this continues to elude you is simply mind-boggling. But of course, you think a mag journo driver can find every car's limit after a single warm-up lap on a 20.6km track with dozens of corners, LOL.
     
  4. From F40 Le Mans:
    "Explain me why (verifying the Galgenkopf speed) could be EVEN ~ 6 or ~10 kph diffence comparing DR test?
    I think there are real differences between GT-Rs."

    See below, then explain to me why could be EVEN 9 kph difference comparing AutoBild vs Sport Auto tests? You must think there are real differences between these GT2s. Yet both appear to be one and the same!

     
  5. Autobild don't use the same method about the top speed point as the others. They use the telemetry top speed of the track sector just before the straight braking point vs regulary used the DH trap speed for the others.
    This means to accost or cancel the differences each other because they are in two different distance from the Galgenkopf and simply different in its value to how it could be verified in exactly the same straight point by the trap speed.
    We already seen it in the Suzuki's 7:29 telemetry. Was you to verified the 276 km/h on the trap point when was 290 km/h mentioned for the very high speed before braking just down the Antoniusbuche. 10 km/h difference in the same point it's a lot in anycase, because I already considered it by other examples on my other track experiences. Here in Mugello we have the same speed traps system and 10 km/h on the high speed point (over 250 km/h) it's in anycase a huge difference during the year with the same car. On the other way 10 km/h are exactly the difference from a 475 hp car vs the 535 hp same car on the same lap.
     
  6. Autobild don't use tha same top speed method about the speed point. Top telemetry speed sector vs DH trap speed the other.
     
  7. your final verdict is: 48 with 650+ bhp?!?!??
    yes or not?
     
  8. Prove to me this difference between Auto Bild and Sport Auto trap speed methods. By "straight braking point," do you mean the pure straight of the track (before Antoniusbuche)? How do you know HvS remained flat out in the GT2 through the kink and into Tiergarten?
     
  9. #2209 Guibo, May 19, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
    According to your logic (and ajzahn's) your answer is "yes."

    My answer is as it has always been with the GT-R: "No." Even at 7:34, the 2011 GT-R's time still does not "make sense" given its power/wt ratio.

    I even explain this in talking about the California:
    http://www.supercars.net/PitLane?viewThread=y&gID=3&fID=0&tID=10073&bottom=1980#post1988

    The key to the California, 458, and even SLS's good 'Ring times does not have to do with power. All can be answered by the application of technology. We see in the case of Koenigsegg that very high hp/wt, but relatively low attention to track tuning, results in lower than expected lap times; and relatively more dangerous, less progressive behavior as noted by Basseng. The Koenigsegg headline power number is impressive, but intractible in its delivery. Thus, the advantage is squandered even though turbo cars do better at high altitude. The Maserati MC12 in the same test shows what you need: long wheelbase + good aero development for stability, progressive behavior in steering, handling, and throttle. A very well-tuned car but with much lower hp/wt than another can still beat the other car. This tells us that lists of hp/wt used to mark an outlier as "cheater" is wrong. There is much more to how a car performs on the 'Ring than simply 2 specifications.

    Can you address issue of tire pressures? Yes or no?
     
  10. #2210 mafalda, May 19, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
    the question is "YOUR LOGIC"
    your answer is? yes or not?
     
  11. You must prove the 458 had 650+ ps...
     
  12. They use different methods. AutoBild was verifing 209.3 kph with the GT2 in the 3rd sector of the track. This means they use the highest speed verified on the sector by the telemetry and not the Ex-Muhle trap speed as SportAuto (121kph-1.35g) usually is using with its system. SportAuto mentioned with * the highest speed before braking. And with ** the traps mentioned for topspeed point. For "straight braking point" I'm talking about the point of highest speed point are able to achieve from the DH to Tiergarten. Was you or not the best with reasonable conclusion? My reasonable conclusion is that Autobild speed isn't in relation with the SA speed by 9 km/h just for this simple motivation whereas there may be hundreds of meters of difference.
     
  13. after the famous article by Harris, and I wrote "now starts the -witch hunt- against the Ferrari's test: all test-ferrari'll become" media manipulation ", the others tests will be reliable. I was right, as usual .. .
    Guibo once again uses two meters and two measures, and also claims to be credible
    Guibo now try to discredit the best test of 458, with the equation power/weight ratio = laptime!
    this equation, obviously, is good just only for the 458, and not for the GT-R and the LFA
    ... still do not understand why a 458 with 650+ps achieve 292 Kph @ Ring, and accelerate 0-200 10.4s...
    You are ridiculous!
     
  14. Your first two sentences have no bearing on highest speeds found at DH. Sport Auto merely lists the *cornering* speed at Ex-Muehle. It is not the fastest speed of the section, nor is it the peak speed before braking. It stands to reason that Sport Auto's "** top speed" @ Doettinger Hoehe is the fastest speed they can reach before lifting or braking, and you have no way of knowing if HvS applied brakes *before* Antoniusbuche or after into Tiergarten as Rohrl does. Show me proof that HvS braked into Tiergarten and not before the kink. Either way, there are 2 things you must account for here:
    1) If HvS brakes before the kink, then this shows that HvS does not drive with the commitment of Rohrl
    2) If both HvS and Rohrl brake at the same point (Tiergarten), then we can see 9 kph difference between the SAME vehicle with different drivers
    3) If HvS brakes before the kink and that is the speed given in the GT-R's supertest, then it shows that Suzuki at the same point was at about the same speed and that the max speed differential is due more to Suzuki's comittment in keeping the throttle pinned through the kink, rather than about power differences.

    Basically, your picture there does not prove a difference in max speed measurement at Doettinger Hoehe between Auto Bild and Sport Auto.
     
  15. I already answer in my post. Are you dumb enough to not read it? yes or not?

    Your answer to tire pressures...missing again. You have no clue, mafalda. Please admit it. I know you will not, just like you cannot admit that you don't even know what correction factors are about.

    And no, I do not have to prove the 458 had 650+ PS. You are so simple-minded, you cannot even understand why I make that list. Even after I just explained in prior post. <A BORDER="0" HREF="http://www.supercars.net/PitLane?displayFAQ=y"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="pitlane/emoticons/wink.gif"></A> Let me re-iterate: A CAR DOES NOT NEED TO HAVE EQUAL HP/WT TO RECORD SAME TIMES AS OTHER CARS ON THE 'RING. Do you disagree with this concept, yes or no?
     
  16. I'm surprised guibo hasn't gone insane yet trying to educate mafalda
     
  17. Patience. It's all that is needed when dealing with the mentally retarded.
     
  18. Yes? And why SportAuto published 264 kph on the DH speed trap for the Radical SR8 when the video shows 271 kph at the Tiergarten?
     
  19. "Your first two sentences have no bearing on highest speeds found at DH. Sport Auto merely lists the *cornering* speed at Ex-Muehle. It is not the fastest speed of the section, nor is it the peak speed before braking"

    The first two sentences have bearing about they had different methods. And you agree with how you are saying. AutoBild use the fastest speed of the section or the peak speed before braking.


    "It stands to reason that Sport Auto's "** top speed" @ Doettinger Hoehe is the fastest speed they can reach before lifting or braking... Basically, your picture there does not prove a difference in max speed measurement at Doettinger Hoehe between Auto Bild and Sport Auto"

    Yes? And why SportAuto published 264 kph on the DH speed trap (** top speed) for the Radical SR8 when the two videos shows for high speed 271 kph or 169 mph at the Tiergarten?
     
  20. ABOUT TYRE-PRESSURE, I'VE ALREADY ANSWERED. EVEN SO, I repeat: 0.01 atmo I think is not so important.
    about power/weight ratio, I agree
    in fact, for me the (fantastic) tested-laptime of your favourite cars (GTR and LFA) are ok. I'm against the stupid claimed-laptime.
    some laptimes are just a big spot and are not realistic
    GT-Rs
    LF-A
    ZR1
    Cayman MKI (8.11... ahahahhhaha )
     
  21. latest addition to the list:

    8:20 --- 148.32 km/h - Audi RS3 Sportback, 340 PS/1647 kg (sport auto 06/11)
     
  22. 8.20 <A BORDER="0" HREF="http://www.supercars.net/PitLane?displayFAQ=y"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="pitlane/emoticons/amazed.gif"></A> impressive! good job audi!!
    next?
     
  23. BMW 1 series M coupe
     
  24. BUT who is questioning different methods at Ex-Muehle??
    You still have not answered the question: Did HvS acheive his max speed before the kink, or at Tiergarten? The answer, in either case, is detrimental to your argument. Because
    1) if he brakes before the kink, that confirms HvS does not drive with a commitment of Rohrl, and it also confirms no major difference in trap speed between Suzuki and HvS at the same point (before kink). And therefore, the difference in speed almost entirely due to the downhill plunge into Tiergarten where cars can gain quite a bit more speed. Or
    2) if he brakes after the kink and into Tiergarten, then that shows a 9 kph difference between drivers in the same exact car.

    In either case, you cannot point to power differences to account for the differences in speed. In the GT2 case, it's the same car!

    Is your Radical video evidence from Sport Auto's supertest? You do realize that referencing two different runs from two different sources does not prove your point, correct?
     
  25. Who said anything about 0.01 atmo? And no, you did not answer WHY tire pressures affect performance. That was my question. But nevermind. You do not understand.
    When Evo tested the Scuderia, the front tire pressure was dropped to match the rears in effort to reduce understeer.
    "It feels like it would go a bit faster with less understeer, and reducing the front tyre pressures to match the rears (we normally stick with the manufacturer’s recommendations) does the trick."

    Before changes - 1:22.5
    After changes - 1:21.7 (-.97%)

    Dropping the front tires by 3 psi (from 32 to match the rear's 29) is 0.2 atmosphere, which is 20x's the amount you're talking about.
    What makes you think a GT-R will not benefit similarly from changes in tire pressures? At his local track, one GT-R owner saw a rise in pressures of 10 psi (0.68 atmo) between cold and hot tire temps and noted the car was much better when starting at BELOW mfr recommended pressure. It is not hard to imagine that there is 4-5s between 'Ring lap times due to tire pressures alone.
    And then there are the variables of the SAME tires within their lifecycles: At some point, they will perform far better than at other points. It is a safe bet that Nissan/Dunlop have monitored the tire performances over their lifetimes to know at which point the best result will be delivered. Factor in pressures + prime tires, we may see 7 seconds right there. Why not?

    Whether you are against "stupid claimed laptimes" is one thing. Whether you think it's due to cheating is quite another. Quite obviously, Nissan's time should be considered with the context of their effort.
     

Share This Page