Oct 18, 2007 10:35:49 PM
- Modrocket_stereo
- Veteran
-
- Loc: Chicago
- Posts: 1178, Gallery
- Registered on: Mar 8, 2003
Crown
Board: Other Sports Cars
Language: English
Region: Worldwide
Close
CloseForum - Thread
Oct 18, 2007 10:55:43 PM
- Moogle
- Rennteam Master
-
- Loc: Bay Area , United States
- Posts: 5019, Gallery
- Registered on: Aug 9, 2003
- Reply to: Modrocket_stereo
Re: How serious do you take Nurburgring lap times?
Poll isnt working, wont start for 12 hours apparently.
For road oriented cars this is less of an issue, but for cars with track pretentions marketed at track junkies, it is a good benchmark.
However, due to the overall length of the circuit and the varying drivers/tyres/weather in all the tests, a few seconds really doesn't mean anything.
For road oriented cars this is less of an issue, but for cars with track pretentions marketed at track junkies, it is a good benchmark.
However, due to the overall length of the circuit and the varying drivers/tyres/weather in all the tests, a few seconds really doesn't mean anything.
Oct 18, 2007 11:11:01 PM
- Modrocket_stereo
- Veteran
-
- Loc: Chicago
- Posts: 1178, Gallery
- Registered on: Mar 8, 2003
- Reply to: Moogle
Re: How serious do you take Nurburgring lap times?
AH MAN! This was the first time I made a poll here. Had to mess it up... 
Alright. I feel the same way. I brought up a point at another forum how I personally take them with a grain of salt but some one replied saying how important the Nurburgring is. This is what the guy had to say:
Nurburgring times are not in reality taken with a grain of salt at all, even as the times change and evolve with conditions. The 'Ring is an institution and historical document of peformance; it is regarded as the gold-standard.
As you well know, the Nurburgring is one of the most, if the most, demanding and "institutionalized" of road courses on Earth. It is the basis for all --or nearly all-- serious judgments of a car's performance potentials. They're not testing the car for lap times at Hockenheim, Spa Francorchamps, Imola, etc. for a reason. It is the Nurburgring that holds the most famous and relevant spot for lap times recorded. If you make the cut at the Nurburgring, you have made the cut --period. All GT-Rs since the R32 have been R&D'd at the Nurburgring (among other facilities).
Lots of tracks are technical and demanding. You left out Mt. Panorama/Bathurst which is regarded as the mini-Nurburgring. But they're not testing the car there either. They will undoubtedly RACE the car there. There is always going to be a name that stands out among others in any field. And testing lap times and conditions are most revered at the Nurburgring. The GT-R's racing potential has yet to be seen but if past is prologue then expect the best.
Alright. I feel the same way. I brought up a point at another forum how I personally take them with a grain of salt but some one replied saying how important the Nurburgring is. This is what the guy had to say:
Nurburgring times are not in reality taken with a grain of salt at all, even as the times change and evolve with conditions. The 'Ring is an institution and historical document of peformance; it is regarded as the gold-standard.
As you well know, the Nurburgring is one of the most, if the most, demanding and "institutionalized" of road courses on Earth. It is the basis for all --or nearly all-- serious judgments of a car's performance potentials. They're not testing the car for lap times at Hockenheim, Spa Francorchamps, Imola, etc. for a reason. It is the Nurburgring that holds the most famous and relevant spot for lap times recorded. If you make the cut at the Nurburgring, you have made the cut --period. All GT-Rs since the R32 have been R&D'd at the Nurburgring (among other facilities).
Lots of tracks are technical and demanding. You left out Mt. Panorama/Bathurst which is regarded as the mini-Nurburgring. But they're not testing the car there either. They will undoubtedly RACE the car there. There is always going to be a name that stands out among others in any field. And testing lap times and conditions are most revered at the Nurburgring. The GT-R's racing potential has yet to be seen but if past is prologue then expect the best.
Oct 18, 2007 11:59:49 PM
- Moogle
- Rennteam Master
-
- Loc: Bay Area , United States
- Posts: 5019, Gallery
- Registered on: Aug 9, 2003
- Reply to: Modrocket_stereo
Re: How serious do you take Nurburgring lap times?
Quote:
Modrocket_stereo said:
AH MAN! This was the first time I made a poll here. Had to mess it up...
Alright. I feel the same way. I brought up a point at another forum how I personally take them with a grain of salt but some one replied saying how important the Nurburgring is. This is what the guy had to say:
Nurburgring times are not in reality taken with a grain of salt at all, even as the times change and evolve with conditions. The 'Ring is an institution and historical document of peformance; it is regarded as the gold-standard.
As you well know, the Nurburgring is one of the most, if the most, demanding and "institutionalized" of road courses on Earth. It is the basis for all --or nearly all-- serious judgments of a car's performance potentials. They're not testing the car for lap times at Hockenheim, Spa Francorchamps, Imola, etc. for a reason. It is the Nurburgring that holds the most famous and relevant spot for lap times recorded. If you make the cut at the Nurburgring, you have made the cut --period. All GT-Rs since the R32 have been R&D'd at the Nurburgring (among other facilities).
Lots of tracks are technical and demanding. You left out Mt. Panorama/Bathurst which is regarded as the mini-Nurburgring. But they're not testing the car there either. They will undoubtedly RACE the car there. There is always going to be a name that stands out among others in any field. And testing lap times and conditions are most revered at the Nurburgring. The GT-R's racing potential has yet to be seen but if past is prologue then expect the best.
Doesn't make much sense, he seems to completely discount his self acknowledged evidence that times are affected by driver/course changes/conditions/tyres/etc.
That is why I respect Ferrari's Fiorano track times much more, the track is shorter and most times the variable conditions are very similar when the track times are set for new road cars.
The nurburgring is an institution simply because it is so demanding, not because it is any sort of real benchmark in how the road car will perform in it's native environment.
It's a great testing ground because of it's length and the nature of the turns/cambers/surfaces involved. In relevance to the real world, there are other places that are drastically different, for example dubai/iceland/etc where cars are also tested for those unique conditions.
Some people can be so narrow minded. Said individual probably hasn't been to the nurburgring or hasn't had significant track time. On a closed trackday it is sheer chaos, and even in the most perfect conditions, it's still incredibly difficult for the most competant driver to produce consistent lap times.
Oct 19, 2007 1:23:11 AM
- Modrocket_stereo
- Veteran
-
- Loc: Chicago
- Posts: 1178, Gallery
- Registered on: Mar 8, 2003
- Reply to: Modrocket_stereo
Oct 19, 2007 3:54:36 PM
- easy_rider911
- Rennteam VIP
-
- Loc: London , United Kingdom
- Posts: 22190, Gallery
- Registered on: Nov 8, 2004
- Reply to: Discover
Re: How serious do you take Nurburgring lap times?
In an age when there are all kinds of measures of a car's performance (for example, 0-100kph, 1/4 mile or fuel consumption simulating combined urban and extended) and which are all to a greater or lesser degree manipulated by car manufacturers 
, there needs to be an objective test...
IMO the Nurburgring Nordschleiffe IS that test.
It separates the cars that can 'walk the walk' from those that merely 'talk the talk', the achievers from the pretenders. 
You or I may only drive a 911 on public roads, some may only drive their F430 to Starbucks, but that is irrelevant. You simply can't differentiate between a car with prodigious capability from a lesser car on an ordinary slow drive in the suburbs. One needs to differentiate between those cars at the limits of their respective performance.
You or I may never utilise a car's full capability but when comparing the full capabilities of 2 or more cars, someone needs to have tested those cars against a challenge that really separates the best from the rest.
That is why we worship the Nordschleiffe.
Thank you Germany for creating this sacred stretch of road.
, there needs to be an objective test...IMO the Nurburgring Nordschleiffe IS that test.
It separates the cars that can 'walk the walk' from those that merely 'talk the talk', the achievers from the pretenders. You or I may only drive a 911 on public roads, some may only drive their F430 to Starbucks
, but that is irrelevant. You simply can't differentiate between a car with prodigious capability from a lesser car on an ordinary slow drive in the suburbs. One needs to differentiate between those cars at the limits of their respective performance.You or I may never utilise a car's full capability but when comparing the full capabilities of 2 or more cars, someone needs to have tested those cars against a challenge that really separates the best from the rest.
That is why we worship the Nordschleiffe.
Thank you Germany for creating this sacred stretch of road.
Oct 19, 2007 4:39:59 PM
- lambornima
- Junior
-
- Loc: Toronto Canada
- Posts: 130, Gallery
- Registered on: May 13, 2007
- Reply to: easy_rider911
Re: How serious do you take Nurburgring lap times?
not very, but I dont ignore them either. as for them not being manipulated by manufacturers... have you been in a cave for the last couple years? GM spending 2 weeks there with a non stock Z06 trying to get the best time possible and then spraying the times all over the media? what about Nissan with the GTR?
the truth is, that whatever the performance benchmarks are at the time, manufacturers WILL find way to manipulate them, as its a great form of marketting (especially in the modern day with hundreds of websites and fans displaying the info).
plus, due to the incredible length of the track, any change in conditions would throw off a time...looking at Autobild, they tested the Gallardo Spyder twice around the Nring, once they got an 8:01 and then they got an 8:11. thus, shorter track like the Hring or EVO's track are better comparisons.
the truth is, that whatever the performance benchmarks are at the time, manufacturers WILL find way to manipulate them, as its a great form of marketting (especially in the modern day with hundreds of websites and fans displaying the info).
plus, due to the incredible length of the track, any change in conditions would throw off a time...looking at Autobild, they tested the Gallardo Spyder twice around the Nring, once they got an 8:01 and then they got an 8:11. thus, shorter track like the Hring or EVO's track are better comparisons.
Oct 19, 2007 4:47:40 PM
- Modrocket_stereo
- Veteran
-
- Loc: Chicago
- Posts: 1178, Gallery
- Registered on: Mar 8, 2003
- Reply to: lambornima
Oct 19, 2007 5:50:04 PM
- lambornima
- Junior
-
- Loc: Toronto Canada
- Posts: 130, Gallery
- Registered on: May 13, 2007
- Reply to: Modrocket_stereo
Re: How serious do you take Nurburgring lap times?
Quote:
Modrocket_stereo said:
I feel that the N'ring is great for market and advertising. Moogle, how does 599 GTB fair against the F430 (not the Scuderia) in pace at Fiorano?
http://www.fastestlaps.com/track26.html
Oct 19, 2007 8:32:34 PM
- Modrocket_stereo
- Veteran
-
- Loc: Chicago
- Posts: 1178, Gallery
- Registered on: Mar 8, 2003
- Reply to: lambornima
Oct 20, 2007 4:37:27 AM
- SoCal Alan
- Rennteam VIP
-
- Loc: Orange County , United States
- Posts: 7268, Gallery
- Registered on: Mar 6, 2004
- Reply to: Modrocket_stereo
Re: How serious do you take Nurburgring lap times?
Quote:
Modrocket_stereo said:
With this day and age of go-faster cars, how serious do you take manufacturer and magazine claims of Nordscleife lap times? Is this a make or break figure for you?
I take it as seriously as taking Tiger Woods's 72 hole score on each course he plays on and using it to compare each golf course's relative difficulty. It's great for discussion, but nobody really does it.
The reason is, the score is based on too many factors.
Oct 20, 2007 6:30:53 AM
- Moogle
- Rennteam Master
-
- Loc: Bay Area , United States
- Posts: 5019, Gallery
- Registered on: Aug 9, 2003
- Reply to: SoCal Alan
Re: How serious do you take Nurburgring lap times?
Quote:
SoCal Alan said:Quote:
Modrocket_stereo said:
With this day and age of go-faster cars, how serious do you take manufacturer and magazine claims of Nordscleife lap times? Is this a make or break figure for you?
I take it as seriously as taking Tiger Woods's 72 hole score on each course he plays on and using it to compare each golf course's relative difficulty. It's great for discussion, but nobody really does it.
EXACTLY. Why can't people realize that all the aggregated lap times comparing cars on the nurburgring are incomparable.
DIFFERENT TYRES
DIFFERENT WEATHER
DIFFERENT DRIVER
DIFFERENT TRAFFIC SOMETIMES
ALSO (LENGTH) - Not a variable, but due to the sheer length of this track 2-3 seconds does NOT MATTER.
Often these conditions are not published as part of the score, so its impossible to judge these scores against eachother.
If there was a cohesive list of lap times of all cars where conditions were comparable, then it would be much more of a "benchmark".
Yes the track is aamzing, yes it is grueling. But due to all the variables, all the "comparison" figures are irrelevant.
Oct 20, 2007 10:20:52 AM
-
MKSGR
- Rennteam Moderator
-
- Loc: Germany , Germany
- Posts: 8098, Gallery
- Registered on: Jun 17, 2002
- Reply to: Modrocket_stereo
Re: How serious do you take Nurburgring lap times?
Quote:
Modrocket_stereo said:
I feel that the N'ring is great for market and advertising. Moogle, how does 599 GTB fair against the F430 (not the Scuderia) in pace at Fiorano?
Factrory claimed Fiorano time of the F430 is 1:27 vs. 1:26,5 for the F599
Re: How serious do you take Nurburgring lap times?
To answer this question, we have to start by asking ourselves why we even compare lap/accelleration/topspeed times of cars in the first place.
Why do we bother talking about 0-100 km/h times, when reality is that most of the time traffic wont even allow us going 100 in the first place?
Why talk about v-max, when it's hard to achieve anywhere and if road conditions allowed us to, most people wouldn't feel comfortable going at topspeed anyway?
Why is debating horsepower even remotely interesting, when most people who buy musclecars also live in sleepy surburban neighborhoods where showing off this power surely means either getting fined or risking other people's lives?
When was the last time you chased someone else in your sportscar for 22 kilometres and getting first from point A to point B was not just important, but absolutely imperative?
The only answer I can think of, is if you are James Bond.
And what about driver skills? The car doesnt drive itself, so why are the raw performance figures (recorded when the car was driven by a pro at the factory) even worth mentioning?
I understand that many ppl like a good dragrace on the public roads now and then, and some "chase" some other guy for fun for a short stretch - maybe even for many kms on the Autobahn or similar.
But my point is, that any comparison, any data, laptime, topspeed, accelleration etc etc only has academic interest.
It is designed to be only academic. Car manufacturers DEPEND on us to debate these things, to dwell on hundreds of a second around Track X or Y, to question whether car A or B really is THAT fast 0-100 etc etc.
Why? It's all about positioning your product in the market - and it's all about doing so, by doing what most men like the most: Comparing their toys. (Psycho therapists would probably claim that we are actually comparing something south of the border, but that's a different story ).
"My truck is bigger than yours", "My dad can beat your dad", "My airplane can fly higher than yours".
It's been instilled in us since our youngest days - and like the saying goes, "The difference between men and boys is the price of their toys".
Not much has changed, only now we demand some more "facts" and "comparisons" to support our claims that "my car is faster than yours".
Hence we look for viable yardsticks to compare the toys that we either have or wanted to buy if we could afford them.
(If you doubt this to be true, ask yourself this: Would you be interested in buying a high performance sportscar over a regular sporty car if all cars had the same performance specs?)
This coincides - naturally - with the car manufacturers' need for the very same. A yardstick they (the car companies) and their customers (us) would all agree is the Golden Standard when it comes to measuring if "my dad really is stronger than your dad".
Enter: The Nürburgring. A piece of public road built in the 20ies and being the battleground for numerous GP's and memorable events through time.
The NBR is - from a scientific POV - the worst place in the World to compare cars. Mostly because road and weather conditions change ridiculously throughout its 22 km layout.
With that many twists, turns and treatcherous slopes, you also have to have a minimum of 100 laps (2200 km) under your belt to even remotely begin to drive any car to its limits here.
That pretty much makes this a track that is solely interesting for super-enthusiasts, professional drivers and car manufacturers.
On top of that, some 10 people die each year on the track itself - not counting the people who draw their last breath outside the track after having crashed ON the track. In other words: There is a reason why they call it "The Green Hell".
It's a very dangerous track.
All in all this sounds like the last place you would want to compare performance on cars.
(I'm sure that scientists would laugh if they were asked to compare anything in a laboratory that kept changing)
Which is why I believe it is the best place in the world to compare BRANDS - not cars.
It is a PR-battleground. Not a performance battleground.
Why does it upset the automotive audience (that would be people like us) when a relatively cheap Vette Z06 beats the NBR laptime of far more "established" and - supposedly by law of nature - faster cars?
Simple - it upsets the balance between percieved value and actual value.
Suddenly a "mere mortal American truck" beats the very essence of European sportscars in its own backyard.
Now, how it beat it and whether the number is actually correct or not - or whether track conditions were the same, is really of no interest.
The interesting thing is the mere fact that SO many potential car buyers debate this. "Is it true? Did they cheat? Is the Vette reallly faster?" etc etc.
It's interesting, because it shows that the PR stunt worked like a charm. Pure and simple.
Does it really matter if the Vette is slower or faster than a GT3? No!
Could you drive the Vette at the same speed as Magnussen did? Of course not!
Will it make for good conversation at the cafe/bar? Of course it will!
Will it provide doubtful, potential Vette buyers a "rational" argument to actually consider buying this car over a, say, Porsche? Yes.
And there you have it.
PR: 1 - Common sense: 0
And we all eat it up like it was pancakes with syrup.
And we do so because it is absolutely vital to the whole sportscar industry - it is vital to why we even buy a sportscar in the first place.
It makes us able to roll quietly along in our hi performance sportscars in our quiet 20 mph neighborhoods, smiling and thinking "Yup! My dad really CAN beat yours..".
Because it said so in "Car Magazine".
So in short: Yes - NBR is very important - because WE want it to be.
Why do we bother talking about 0-100 km/h times, when reality is that most of the time traffic wont even allow us going 100 in the first place?
Why talk about v-max, when it's hard to achieve anywhere and if road conditions allowed us to, most people wouldn't feel comfortable going at topspeed anyway?
Why is debating horsepower even remotely interesting, when most people who buy musclecars also live in sleepy surburban neighborhoods where showing off this power surely means either getting fined or risking other people's lives?
When was the last time you chased someone else in your sportscar for 22 kilometres and getting first from point A to point B was not just important, but absolutely imperative?
The only answer I can think of, is if you are James Bond.
And what about driver skills? The car doesnt drive itself, so why are the raw performance figures (recorded when the car was driven by a pro at the factory) even worth mentioning?
I understand that many ppl like a good dragrace on the public roads now and then, and some "chase" some other guy for fun for a short stretch - maybe even for many kms on the Autobahn or similar.
But my point is, that any comparison, any data, laptime, topspeed, accelleration etc etc only has academic interest.
It is designed to be only academic. Car manufacturers DEPEND on us to debate these things, to dwell on hundreds of a second around Track X or Y, to question whether car A or B really is THAT fast 0-100 etc etc.
Why? It's all about positioning your product in the market - and it's all about doing so, by doing what most men like the most: Comparing their toys. (Psycho therapists would probably claim that we are actually comparing something south of the border, but that's a different story
)."My truck is bigger than yours", "My dad can beat your dad", "My airplane can fly higher than yours".
It's been instilled in us since our youngest days - and like the saying goes, "The difference between men and boys is the price of their toys".
Not much has changed, only now we demand some more "facts" and "comparisons" to support our claims that "my car is faster than yours".
Hence we look for viable yardsticks to compare the toys that we either have or wanted to buy if we could afford them.
(If you doubt this to be true, ask yourself this: Would you be interested in buying a high performance sportscar over a regular sporty car if all cars had the same performance specs?)
This coincides - naturally - with the car manufacturers' need for the very same. A yardstick they (the car companies) and their customers (us) would all agree is the Golden Standard when it comes to measuring if "my dad really is stronger than your dad".
Enter: The Nürburgring. A piece of public road built in the 20ies and being the battleground for numerous GP's and memorable events through time.
The NBR is - from a scientific POV - the worst place in the World to compare cars. Mostly because road and weather conditions change ridiculously throughout its 22 km layout.
With that many twists, turns and treatcherous slopes, you also have to have a minimum of 100 laps (2200 km) under your belt to even remotely begin to drive any car to its limits here.
That pretty much makes this a track that is solely interesting for super-enthusiasts, professional drivers and car manufacturers.
On top of that, some 10 people die each year on the track itself - not counting the people who draw their last breath outside the track after having crashed ON the track. In other words: There is a reason why they call it "The Green Hell".
It's a very dangerous track.
All in all this sounds like the last place you would want to compare performance on cars.
(I'm sure that scientists would laugh if they were asked to compare anything in a laboratory that kept changing)
Which is why I believe it is the best place in the world to compare BRANDS - not cars.
It is a PR-battleground. Not a performance battleground.
Why does it upset the automotive audience (that would be people like us) when a relatively cheap Vette Z06 beats the NBR laptime of far more "established" and - supposedly by law of nature - faster cars?
Simple - it upsets the balance between percieved value and actual value.
Suddenly a "mere mortal American truck" beats the very essence of European sportscars in its own backyard.
Now, how it beat it and whether the number is actually correct or not - or whether track conditions were the same, is really of no interest.
The interesting thing is the mere fact that SO many potential car buyers debate this. "Is it true? Did they cheat? Is the Vette reallly faster?" etc etc.
It's interesting, because it shows that the PR stunt worked like a charm. Pure and simple.
Does it really matter if the Vette is slower or faster than a GT3? No!
Could you drive the Vette at the same speed as Magnussen did? Of course not!
Will it make for good conversation at the cafe/bar? Of course it will!
Will it provide doubtful, potential Vette buyers a "rational" argument to actually consider buying this car over a, say, Porsche? Yes.
And there you have it.
PR: 1 - Common sense: 0
And we all eat it up like it was pancakes with syrup.
And we do so because it is absolutely vital to the whole sportscar industry - it is vital to why we even buy a sportscar in the first place.
It makes us able to roll quietly along in our hi performance sportscars in our quiet 20 mph neighborhoods, smiling and thinking "Yup! My dad really CAN beat yours..".
Because it said so in "Car Magazine".
So in short: Yes - NBR is very important - because WE want it to be.
Oct 21, 2007 12:29:27 AM
- SoCal Alan
- Rennteam VIP
-
- Loc: Orange County , United States
- Posts: 7268, Gallery
- Registered on: Mar 6, 2004
- Reply to: Dr. Phil
Re: How serious do you take Nurburgring lap times?
The question isn't: are Nurburgring lap times important or not. The question is: do you take it seriously?
Too many variables to take the actual times that seriously. It's good for entertainment, especially on Rennteam.
Relative times are interesting, but again, it depends on the margin of error. Do we know what that is? plus or minus 1%? 2%? The CGT is, what? 7:29? The GT2 is 7:33. Does that prove the CGT is quicker on the Ring than the GT2?
Using the golf analogy again, should Golf Digest hire Tiger Woods to play a round of golf at Pebble Beach, each time recording his score with a different set of clubs from a different model/manufacturer?
He might shoot a 68 one day with Titlelist 755's. Next month, he might shoot a 66 with Callaway X-20's. The next month, he might shoot a 62 with Ping G5's.
Then again, he might play 4 days in a row at Pebble Beach and shoot 62, 67, 71, 64, with the same Ping G5's.
Too many factors involved here to influence the score. Wind, humidity, thickness of the rough, speed of the greens, temperature. Maybe he improved his swing. Maybe he made it a little worse. Bad putting day. Good putting day. Maybe he had sex the night before with his wife. Maybe not.
What's the point?
Too many variables to take the actual times that seriously. It's good for entertainment, especially on Rennteam.
Relative times are interesting, but again, it depends on the margin of error. Do we know what that is? plus or minus 1%? 2%? The CGT is, what? 7:29? The GT2 is 7:33. Does that prove the CGT is quicker on the Ring than the GT2?
Using the golf analogy again, should Golf Digest hire Tiger Woods to play a round of golf at Pebble Beach, each time recording his score with a different set of clubs from a different model/manufacturer?
He might shoot a 68 one day with Titlelist 755's. Next month, he might shoot a 66 with Callaway X-20's. The next month, he might shoot a 62 with Ping G5's.
Then again, he might play 4 days in a row at Pebble Beach and shoot 62, 67, 71, 64, with the same Ping G5's.
Too many factors involved here to influence the score. Wind, humidity, thickness of the rough, speed of the greens, temperature. Maybe he improved his swing. Maybe he made it a little worse. Bad putting day. Good putting day. Maybe he had sex the night before with his wife. Maybe not.
What's the point?
Oct 21, 2007 3:13:56 AM
- WBH
- Expert
-
- Loc: CA
- Posts: 1963, Gallery
- Registered on: Jan 2, 2004
- Reply to: SoCal Alan
Re: How serious do you take Nurburgring lap times?
Indeed, NBR times are amusing points for discussion.... 
Recently was forced to visit NYC/London/Chicago regions for business and was reminded how pathetic are roads/topography/traffic/speed enfcmt/weather, etc in most of world....the real-world hell in which most car nuts reside
...returned to SF w/a greatly renewed appreciation for what a car nut's nirvana is the SF Peninsula
Would argue subjective pleasure a car provides in mid-range accel and mtn twisties driving (steering/brakes/chassis balance/linear throttle resp/tq/traction/exhaust note, etc) is far more interesting than any track/dragstrip claimed data....and much of most interesting driving occurs at <<150MPH on interesting roads (often at a mere 30-60MPH in mtn twisties
).....for me, subjective perf/precision/safety are far more valuable than any pseudo-quantitative, pseudo-precise datapoints.....which are typically quoted/argued most fervently by those who have never extensively driven any of the leading cars on interesting roads (prob most have never driven any of these cars period )....
Another consideration is one's own amateur driving sharpness/sensitivity to even subjectively appreciate/differentiate dynamic nuances of various highly-engineered/refined perf cars in real-world conditions....e.g., just as elder wkend-warrior athletes are rarely particularly adept and often prone to injury, have my doubts re: how sharp are typical fair weather, wkend-only drivers of F/P, who drive some POS commuter car/SUV 95%+ of time....and, in most ex-CA locales, often don't even drive a perf car on wkends for 5mos/yr....those girlie winter tires/wheels prob dampen one's enthusiasm for much spirited driving....and in places like Chicago/London/NYC/Dallas, etc not much challenging, convenient topography to provide interesting roads, even on those ?50 wkend days/yr of perf car-passable weather..... 
Recently was forced to visit NYC/London/Chicago regions for business and was reminded how pathetic are roads/topography/traffic/speed enfcmt/weather, etc in most of world....the real-world hell in which most car nuts reside
...returned to SF w/a greatly renewed appreciation for what a car nut's nirvana is the SF Peninsula Would argue subjective pleasure a car provides in mid-range accel and mtn twisties driving (steering/brakes/chassis balance/linear throttle resp/tq/traction/exhaust note, etc) is far more interesting than any track/dragstrip claimed data....and much of most interesting driving occurs at <<150MPH on interesting roads (often at a mere 30-60MPH in mtn twisties
).....for me, subjective perf/precision/safety are far more valuable than any pseudo-quantitative, pseudo-precise datapoints.....which are typically quoted/argued most fervently by those who have never extensively driven any of the leading cars on interesting roads (prob most have never driven any of these cars period ).... Another consideration is one's own amateur driving sharpness/sensitivity to even subjectively appreciate/differentiate dynamic nuances of various highly-engineered/refined perf cars in real-world conditions....e.g., just as elder wkend-warrior athletes are rarely particularly adept and often prone to injury, have my doubts re: how sharp are typical fair weather, wkend-only drivers of F/P, who drive some POS commuter car/SUV 95%+ of time....and, in most ex-CA locales, often don't even drive a perf car on wkends for 5mos/yr....those girlie winter tires/wheels prob dampen one's enthusiasm for much spirited driving
....and in places like Chicago/London/NYC/Dallas, etc not much challenging, convenient topography to provide interesting roads, even on those ?50 wkend days/yr of perf car-passable weather.....
Re: How serious do you take Nurburgring lap times?
Quote:
Dr. Phil said:
When was the last time you chased someone else in your sportscar for 22 kilometres and getting first from point A to point B was not just important, but absolutely imperative?
The only answer I can think of, is if you are James Bond.
Easy answer: happens several times per year - on the track
Re: How serious do you take Nurburgring lap times?
Since I live 30 minutes from the Ring and track there several times a week (whenever the weather is good) Nordschleife times are very important to me.
Now that the GT2 is the new King of the Ring with its magnificent 7.33 time, I am considering getting one (with a Cayenne GTS for family duty). Total cost about 280,000 euro.
The alternative is a supercharged M3 CSL with upgraded brakes and suspension that would be very close to the GT2 Ring time (about 7.35), be capable of family duty, and cost about 75,000 euro (including the upgrades).
I do like the idea of an all-in-one supercar and family transporter (Nordschleife to kindergarten with no car change), but the new GT2 and GTS offfer a very attractive (although less environment-friendly) combination.
Now that the GT2 is the new King of the Ring with its magnificent 7.33 time, I am considering getting one (with a Cayenne GTS for family duty). Total cost about 280,000 euro.
The alternative is a supercharged M3 CSL with upgraded brakes and suspension that would be very close to the GT2 Ring time (about 7.35), be capable of family duty, and cost about 75,000 euro (including the upgrades).
I do like the idea of an all-in-one supercar and family transporter (Nordschleife to kindergarten with no car change), but the new GT2 and GTS offfer a very attractive (although less environment-friendly) combination.
Re: How serious do you take Nurburgring lap times?
Quote:
MKSGR said:Quote:
Dr. Phil said:
When was the last time you chased someone else in your sportscar for 22 kilometres and getting first from point A to point B was not just important, but absolutely imperative?
The only answer I can think of, is if you are James Bond.
Easy answer: happens several times per year - on the track
EXACTLY!
Forum
About Rennteam | Help | Terms of use | Privacy Policy | Support | Contact | Imprint | Archive
Powered by
Community
and
