Jun 26, 2005 8:10:22 PM
Jun 26, 2005 9:59:56 PM
Quote:
andrea said:
On the last number of Quattroruote.
Jun 26, 2005 10:44:36 PM
Jun 27, 2005 6:07:12 AM
Quote:
svtrader1 said:Quote:
Carlos from Spain said:
Looks like the CGT won the track lap times again.
The CGT will probably be faster than the Enzo 9 out of 10 times on a short track. At the 'Ring it will be a different story all together.
Jun 27, 2005 7:20:27 AM
Quote:
Carlos from Spain said:Quote:
svtrader1 said:Quote:
Carlos from Spain said:
Looks like the CGT won the track lap times again.
The CGT will probably be faster than the Enzo 9 out of 10 times on a short track. At the 'Ring it will be a different story all together.
Based on what, we don't have any Enzo lap times on the ring becuase Ferrari is too scared to lap in the ring, and specifically prohibited any private owner to provide theirs for testing too...
Quote:
Moogle said:
numbers alone are never sufficient to express the full spectrum of any given experience.
especially one as visceral as driving
i hate it when people try to sum up something that cannot be summed up by a clinical chart
Quote:
andrea said:
For the acceleration test the main problem for Enzo and C GT is the traction because Murci is 4wd.
Quattroruote underlines the facilty to get 0-100 time for Murci.
Enzo, after long practice with launch control(trick: anticipating the 2 gear) did best time for 0.07 sec.
Quote:
Fanch said:
Thanks for taking the time to translate!
i wonder, isn't the 4WD a DISadvantage for acceleration from standstill?
I would have thought tha the time taken to transfer grip to the front axle is more penalising than anything else.
I could be wrong, I just thought that 2WD cars are always quicker off the mark than their 4WD counterparts? (given the same characteristics of course).
Quote:
Fanch said:
Ah ok, thanks for the clarification Rossi, makes sense I guess.
So when the car already has inertia, like exciting a corner at speed, 2WD have more traction on rear axle which makes sense obviously, does that make them more efficient, faster? Not sure, but probably, otherwise, all race cars would be 4WD right?
Quote:
Mike S said:
what is safe about a car that can go 0-200khm's in around 10 seconds?that's like saying throwing in a extra weave in the seatbelt's thickness is going to make a HUGE safety difference
![]()
Jun 28, 2005 6:04:03 AM
Quote:
Rossi said:Quote:
Mike S said:
what is safe about a car that can go 0-200khm's in around 10 seconds?that's like saying throwing in a extra weave in the seatbelt's thickness is going to make a HUGE safety difference
![]()
... easier to handle near the limit, especially in wet conditions ...
Jun 28, 2005 4:28:44 PM
Quote:
0-100 in 4 seconds for the Carrera GT?? Probably due to traction but still 4 seconds?? Many other car mags have achieved times of 3.5 seconds.
"At the 'Ring with long straights, I believe the Enzo would have a clear advantage, because, it out accelerates the CGT"
Yes it BARELY out accelerates the Carrera GT but whatever the Enzo gains in the straights, it loses on the turns against the Carrera GT.
Quote:
HoboPie said:Quote:
0-100 in 4 seconds for the Carrera GT?? Probably due to traction but still 4 seconds?? Many other car mags have achieved times of 3.5 seconds.
"At the 'Ring with long straights, I believe the Enzo would have a clear advantage, because, it out accelerates the CGT"
Yes it BARELY out accelerates the Carrera GT but whatever the Enzo gains in the straights, it loses on the turns against the Carrera GT.
Normally the Enzo has a significant acceleration advantage and the CGT an advantage in tighter corners, but this test is interesting because while the Enzo has only a small acceleration advantage and it is a small course it managed to keep up while at a braking disadvantage and apparent traction problems out of corners.
The only place left to make up time is the handling.