Crown
Board: Porsche
Language: English
Region: Worldwide
Close
CloseForum - Thread
Re: CGT record demolished!
Haha Nick! Long live the Dutchies! 
Now don'tlet yourself be fooled. The car that ran the record was not a standard donkervoort, but had an additional huge rear wing, and som eother adaptations I don't exactly know... anyway, a good prestation.
For a moment, I feared the Enzo ran faster...
-Joost-
Now don'tlet yourself be fooled. The car that ran the record was not a standard donkervoort, but had an additional huge rear wing, and som eother adaptations I don't exactly know... anyway, a good prestation.
For a moment, I feared the Enzo ran faster...
-Joost-
Re: CGT record demolished!
Quote:
Joost said:
Haha Nick! Long live the Dutchies!
Now don'tlet yourself be fooled. The car that ran the record was not a standard donkervoort, but had an additional huge rear wing, and som eother adaptations I don't exactly know... anyway, a good prestation.
For a moment, I feared the Enzo ran faster...
-Joost-
The article claims the production model will be similarly equipped with the same performance. It only proves that focusing on performance only is a fools quest. There will always be someone doing it better and faster.
What does one of these babies cost? It would be a hell of a car around La Jolla. 
Re: CGT record demolished!
Quote:
nberry said:It only proves that focusing on performance only is a fools quest. There will always be someone doing it better and faster.
Nick - Just because someone will always be faster doesn't make performance a fool's quest. Performance can be alot of fun, even if it doesn't come with ultimate bragging rights...
Dec 15, 2004 12:48:00 AM
-
Carlos from Spain
- Rennteam Moderator
-
- Loc: Spain. , Spain
- Posts: 21152, Gallery
- Registered on: Feb 9, 2003
- Reply to: Grant
Re: CGT record demolished!
Quote:
Grant said:Performance can be alot of fun, even if it doesn't come with ultimate bragging rights...
Right to the point!, that is a truth the size of a cathedral as we say here. And I'm afraid thats pecisely the concept that Nick doesn't seem to be able to grasp still to this day as his posts always keep showing after all this time
Dec 15, 2004 1:20:23 AM
- Wild-Speed
- Senior
-
- Loc: Netherlands , Netherlands
- Posts: 730, Gallery
- Registered on: Jun 7, 2004
-
Reply to:
Carlos from Spain
Dec 15, 2004 8:53:41 AM
-
Dr. Phil
- Rennteam Master
-
- Loc: Denmark , Denmark
- Posts: 5884, Gallery
- Registered on: Nov 30, 2004
- Reply to: palenimbus
Re: CGT record demolished!
HAHAHA! I'm laughing my ass off here...How much is the Donkervoort in $$? One tenth of the Carrera GT? LOL! Now THAT's what I call kicking ass and taking names. OK, so the car isn't as beautiful as the CGT IMHO, and probably doesnt have the tech details, but the CGT is supposedly all about performance and being a driver's car. And the Donkervoort beat the CTG at its own game. With a 15 second margin! WOW! I know you don't like it guys..and that some of you try to defend the CTG by saying that the Donkervoort had a huge rear spoiler etc etc. Get over it. I know it sux if you just bought a $$$$$$ CGT, that a tiny car at the fraction of the cost can drive in circles around your car...but u gotta admit..it's funny 
Dec 15, 2004 10:54:00 AM
- Ryan in SD
- Senior
-
- Loc: San Diego
- Posts: 604, Gallery
- Registered on: Nov 14, 2004
- Reply to: Dr. Phil
Re: CGT record demolished!
Quote:
DrPhil said:
HAHAHA! I'm laughing my ass off here...How much is the Donkervoort in $$? One tenth of the Carrera GT? LOL! Now THAT's what I call kicking ass and taking names. OK, so the car isn't as beautiful as the CGT IMHO, and probably doesnt have the tech details, but the CGT is supposedly all about performance and being a driver's car. And the Donkervoort beat the CTG at its own game. With a 15 second margin! WOW! I know you don't like it guys..and that some of you try to defend the CTG by saying that the Donkervoort had a huge rear spoiler etc etc. Get over it. I know it sux if you just bought a $$$$$$ CGT, that a tiny car at the fraction of the cost can drive in circles around your car...but u gotta admit..it's funny
I think you are missing the point
Dec 15, 2004 10:59:10 AM
-
Carlos from Spain
- Rennteam Moderator
-
- Loc: Spain. , Spain
- Posts: 21152, Gallery
- Registered on: Feb 9, 2003
- Reply to: Dr. Phil
Re: CGT record demolished!
DrPhil,
If you think for one moment any CGT onwner here is the least bit worried or bothered by cars of the type of "Donkervoort" or "Radical Turbo" (which FYI is even faster), etc. being faster around the ring, then I'd think they will tell you that you need a lot to learn about what sportcars such as the CGT, Zonda or Enzo are really about and why their owners buy them, and what exactly vehicles like the Donkervoort, Caterham R500, Ariel Atom or Radical SR4 really are.
If you think for one moment any CGT onwner here is the least bit worried or bothered by cars of the type of "Donkervoort" or "Radical Turbo" (which FYI is even faster), etc. being faster around the ring, then I'd think they will tell you that you need a lot to learn about what sportcars such as the CGT, Zonda or Enzo are really about and why their owners buy them, and what exactly vehicles like the Donkervoort, Caterham R500, Ariel Atom or Radical SR4 really are.
Re: CGT record demolished!
We already had a thread regarding this, you should read ALL posts, Nick. Not only the ones regarding Ferrari.
The record "breaker" is a highly tuned and modified car. Kudos to the makers of this nice toy but you can hardly really call it a car.
I drove a Donkervoort for several hours about two years ago. It is the same story as with the Lotus Exige/Elise and Opel Speedster. Nice toys but otherwise, not recommended.
We also call them "the poor man's Porsches"...
The record "breaker" is a highly tuned and modified car. Kudos to the makers of this nice toy but you can hardly really call it a car.
I drove a Donkervoort for several hours about two years ago. It is the same story as with the Lotus Exige/Elise and Opel Speedster. Nice toys but otherwise, not recommended.
We also call them "the poor man's Porsches"...
Dec 15, 2004 3:39:19 PM
- ben, lj
- Expert
-
- Loc:
- Posts: 1373, Gallery
- Registered on: Jul 6, 2003
-
Reply to:
Carlos from Spain
Re: CGT record demolished!
Quote:
carlos fromspain said:
DrPhil,
If you think for one moment any CGT onwner here is the least bit worried or bothered by cars of the type of "Donkervoort" or "Radical Turbo" (which FYI is even faster), etc. being faster around the ring, then I'd think they will tell you that you need a lot to learn about what sportcars such as the CGT, Zonda or Enzo are really about and why their owners buy them, and what exactly vehicles like the Donkervoort, Caterham R500, Ariel Atom or Radical SR4 really are.
Yep, the Donkey car isn't the sort of thing I'd wanna be driving around. And, I'm not even referring to it's Donkey (as in ass) looks. The thing doesn't even have a top and looks like a Dodge Prowler. How's the leather, stereo, NAV, AC, air bags and power windows?
Re: CGT record demolished!
Quote:
Grant said:Quote:
nberry said:It only proves that focusing on performance only is a fools quest. There will always be someone doing it better and faster.
Nick - Just because someone will always be faster doesn't make performance a fool's quest. Performance can be alot of fun, even if it doesn't come with ultimate bragging rights...
Grant,my point is ALL of us (I include myself) tend to look at performance as the holy grail in judging cars. Porsche develops it cars with the ring in mind. In the article Porsche apparently practiced several months with the CGT before the timed run so as to come in with a great number.
This car blew it away by 15 sec! It will blow away the Enzo and others by similar margins. I have no idea what this car costs but you must admit it drives home the point that performance is not all what it is cracked up to be by experts like us.
What matters is the whole package that stimulate the senses. Certainly the CGT does as well as Ferrari.As for the the rest of Porsche's; well we know how I feel.
Re: CGT record demolished!
Quote:
nberry said:Quote:
Grant said:Quote:
nberry said:It only proves that focusing on performance only is a fools quest. There will always be someone doing it better and faster.
Nick - Just because someone will always be faster doesn't make performance a fool's quest. Performance can be alot of fun, even if it doesn't come with ultimate bragging rights...
Grant,my point is ALL of us (I include myself) tend to look at performance as the holy grail in judging cars. Porsche develops it cars with the ring in mind. In the article Porsche apparently practiced several months with the CGT before the timed run so as to come in with a great number.
This car blew it away by 15 sec! It will blow away the Enzo and others by similar margins. I have no idea what this car costs but you must admit it drives home the point that performance is not all what it is cracked up to be by experts like us.
What matters is the whole package that stimulate the senses. Certainly the CGT does as well as Ferrari.As for the the rest of Porsche's; well we know how I feel.
Well, first you have to define "performance" and then tell us what is it cracked up to be so we can know whether it's not. It's doubtful more than a couple % of us here care solely about "performance" in our street cars.
Re: CGT record demolished!
I agree with the need to define performance. For me, it's not just the specs (0-60, lap times), but the way in which these numbers are achieved. I like a very involving ride that has quick reflexes and lots of feedback. I am willing to sacrifice quite alot of comfort for these ideals.
As has been said, "It's not how fast you go but how you go fast..."
As has been said, "It's not how fast you go but how you go fast..."
Re: CGT record demolished!
Quote:
Grant said:
I agree with the need to define performance. For me, it's not just the specs (0-60, lap times), but the way in which these numbers are achieved. I like a very involving ride that has quick reflexes and lots of feedback. I am willing to sacrifice quite alot of comfort for these ideals.
As has been said, "It's not how fast you go but how you go fast..."
Ben,Grant, on this board as well as others, the defining test in measuring performance has been Ring times.Just review past discussions regarding perf. and clearly the Ring times were the holy grail.I have tried to debunk this by claiming other factors should be part of the equation.
Porsche has sold a lot of cars by tuning them for fast Ring times. They just got beat at their own game. Do you realize what a 15 sec difference is? Over a quarter of a mile.
Re: CGT record demolished!
Quote:
nberry said:
Porsche has sold a lot of cars by tuning them for fast Ring times. They just got beat at their own game. Do you realize what a 15 sec difference is? Over a quarter of a mile.
Yes, Nick, I am impressed by the Dutch Lotus 7. I think it looks like fantastic amount of fun. That thing is right up my alley! I'm more inclined to buy that thing than the CGT - especially given the price differential.
Re: CGT record demolished!
Quote:
nberry said:Quote:
Grant said:
I agree with the need to define performance. For me, it's not just the specs (0-60, lap times), but the way in which these numbers are achieved. I like a very involving ride that has quick reflexes and lots of feedback. I am willing to sacrifice quite alot of comfort for these ideals.
As has been said, "It's not how fast you go but how you go fast..."
Ben,Grant, on this board as well as others, the defining test in measuring performance has been Ring times.Just review past discussions regarding perf. and clearly the Ring times were the holy grail.I have tried to debunk this by claiming other factors should be part of the equation.
Porsche has sold a lot of cars by tuning them for fast Ring times. They just got beat at their own game. Do you realize what a 15 sec difference is? Over a quarter of a mile.
Yep, a 15 sec differential over a 1/4 mile is indeed a major one. So I guess the Donkey car does it in negative 4 seconds (Carrera GT's 11 less 15 seconds)? That is definetely very impressive.
FWIW, given the date the CGT set the previous record relative to deposits and orders on the car (not to mention production and customer deliveries), I'm fairly certain it wasn't the Ring time that sold the CGTs. So yes I would say buyers of these cars already considered factors other than performance as defined by Ring times when buying them.
Dec 15, 2004 5:51:15 PM
-
Carlos from Spain
- Rennteam Moderator
-
- Loc: Spain. , Spain
- Posts: 21152, Gallery
- Registered on: Feb 9, 2003
- Reply to: nberry
Re: CGT record demolished!
Nick, let me add a small detail you seem to repeatedly miss before you start teaching the whole board the proper way to value sportcars
The ring is the benchmark, or of great value in terms of comparing performance for cars that offer a similar package Nick
and the ring is very valuable in that aspect, its the ultimate "real world" performance benchmark, and its valuable for those of us who look for real world performance in the sportcar "class/package" we condider owning or driving, yet those who look for "other" things in sportcars couldn't care less about it as we can see.
So putting an M5, a 997S, a tunned Lotus Superseven, a CGT, and a Bentley Coupe on the same ring time list for comparison is... how should I put it... looking at sportcars too "simply" or from an innocent child's view please tell me you can tell the difference between a CGT and a Donkervoort and how to value their ring times accordingly nick
I know Ben and the other CGT owners do.
The ring is the benchmark, or of great value in terms of comparing performance for cars that offer a similar package Nick
and the ring is very valuable in that aspect, its the ultimate "real world" performance benchmark, and its valuable for those of us who look for real world performance in the sportcar "class/package" we condider owning or driving, yet those who look for "other" things in sportcars couldn't care less about it as we can see.
So putting an M5, a 997S, a tunned Lotus Superseven, a CGT, and a Bentley Coupe on the same ring time list for comparison is... how should I put it... looking at sportcars too "simply" or from an innocent child's view
please tell me you can tell the difference between a CGT and a Donkervoort and how to value their ring times accordingly nick
I know Ben and the other CGT owners do.
Dec 15, 2004 6:31:06 PM
-
nberry
- Rennteam VIP
-
- Loc: La Jolla, USA , United States
- Posts: 13737, Gallery
- Registered on: Apr 11, 2002
-
Reply to:
Carlos from Spain
Re: CGT record demolished!
Quote:
carlos fromspain said:
Nick, let me add a small detail you seem to repeatedly miss before you start teaching the whole board the proper way to value sportcars
The ring is the benchmark, or of great value in terms of comparing performance for cars that offer a similar package Nick
So putting an M5, a 997S, a tunned Lotus Superseven, a CGT, and a Bentley Coupe on the same ring time list for comparison is... how should I put it... looking at sportcars too "simply" or from an innocent child's view
I know Ben and the other CGT owners do.
I am always willing to learn. Your criteria of "similar package" is flawed. The CGT and other Porsche cars are designed with the Ring in mind. The M5, Bentley Ferrari and others are not. Yet every time a discussion on this board relates to performance you and others say how much better Porsche is by looking at Ring times. I joked with you by asking do you drive your Porsche around with Ring times displayed in the window?
Do you understand where I am coming from? When Porsche has the best times around the Ring then that is the ultimate performance measure. When it does not then "other factors" must be considered according to Porsche enthusiast.
BTW, The Donkervoort was designed for the Ring just as the CGT was. Following your criteria it is a fair measure in performance and the Porsche was found wanting. Which car would I own if money was not a consideration? The CGT in a heart beat because Ring times to me are not as important in appraising a car.
Finally hopefully in the future when the discussion on this board relates to performance, Ring times will not be used as the ultimate measure. The Donkervoort has administered a fatal blow to that argument.
Re: CGT record demolished!
Quote:
ben, lj said:
Yep, a 15 sec differential over a 1/4 mile is indeed a major one. So I guess the Donkey car does it in negative 4 seconds (Carrera GT's 11 less 15 seconds)? That is definetely very impressive.
I think Nick meant to say that 15 seconds difference is as much as 1/4 mile difference.
-Joost-
Dec 15, 2004 8:14:24 PM
-
Carlos from Spain
- Rennteam Moderator
-
- Loc: Spain. , Spain
- Posts: 21152, Gallery
- Registered on: Feb 9, 2003
- Reply to: nberry
Re: CGT record demolished!
Nick, I don't think I can put it more simply.
Q:The CGT was made for the ring?
A: yes
Q: The Donkervoort was made for the ring?
A: yes
Q: Can their respective times be used to make a comparison between the two?
A: No!
The CGT is a "supercar" made for the ring, and acomplishes it by being the fastest supercar in the ring, the Donkervoort is a "kit car" made for the ring and acomplishes it by being the fastest "kit car" around the ring. But since a supercar is completely different from a kit car (I give you this much and won't go into the differences), neither's acomplishement casts a shadow over the other's. Now you get it? I'll try it again:
Q: Just because a Euro 15k bone stock sportbike can do the ring faster than your Spider (by even more than the difference that seperates the Donkervoort with the CGT) does it mean that the bike is better than a Ferrari because its faster around the ring?
A: No? No conclusion can be drawn because the Spider is a car and the sportbike is a bike, they are not comparable, and to a less degree the Donkervoort vs the CGT but they are still not comparable.
And as you don't seem to grasp how the ring times can be used to adecuately give a view on real world performance between sportcars (vs 0-60 times or how fast or sporty the car "looks"), I'll end with examples of fair comparisons were the ring times are used for comparison. You can compare CGT, an Enzo, a Zonda and a SLR. You can compare a F430, a Gallardo and a 997TT. You can compare a M5, a RS6 and a E55-AMG. You can compare a Boxster, a Z4 and a SLK. You can compare a M3, a RS4 and a C-AMG. Etc. Given the specs of these cars, the different lap times in the ring give you an idea of how the cars perform as SPORTcars in the real world and to some degree also "how" they perform as well, since a lap time combined with the specs of the cars tells you that in order to achieve that lap time it has to archieve it via more "chasis" or more "engine", etc.
So to those of us that view performance as a very important aspect of the SPORTcar they want to enjoy driving SPORTLY, ring times are more significant than the manufacture's typical performance figures. For those that want only image then the ring times are instead a nuisance since some cars with a certain image and paper spec bragging rights of the king of the hill, get de-throwned in their class when it comes to really test the real world performance.
I.e. drivers are more interetested in ring times, and poseurs are interested more in HP figures and sporty looks. I understand that a "simple" more versatile more economic Porsche lapping the ring faster than your choice of "equivalent" car is a splinter in your paw since it hinders the main reason you buy the car for, and that you don't want ring times mentioned in the board, but get over it. I will be easier if you just get used to it cause you are not going to change it
So the more bickering from you about the ring times, the more they will be taken for what they really mean underneath in the above paragraph's context
Q:The CGT was made for the ring?
A: yes
Q: The Donkervoort was made for the ring?
A: yes
Q: Can their respective times be used to make a comparison between the two?
A: No!
The CGT is a "supercar" made for the ring, and acomplishes it by being the fastest supercar in the ring, the Donkervoort is a "kit car" made for the ring and acomplishes it by being the fastest "kit car" around the ring. But since a supercar is completely different from a kit car (I give you this much and won't go into the differences), neither's acomplishement casts a shadow over the other's. Now you get it? I'll try it again:
Q: Just because a Euro 15k bone stock sportbike can do the ring faster than your Spider (by even more than the difference that seperates the Donkervoort with the CGT) does it mean that the bike is better than a Ferrari because its faster around the ring?
A: No? No conclusion can be drawn because the Spider is a car and the sportbike is a bike, they are not comparable, and to a less degree the Donkervoort vs the CGT but they are still not comparable.
And as you don't seem to grasp how the ring times can be used to adecuately give a view on real world performance between sportcars (vs 0-60 times or how fast or sporty the car "looks"), I'll end with examples of fair comparisons were the ring times are used for comparison. You can compare CGT, an Enzo, a Zonda and a SLR. You can compare a F430, a Gallardo and a 997TT. You can compare a M5, a RS6 and a E55-AMG. You can compare a Boxster, a Z4 and a SLK. You can compare a M3, a RS4 and a C-AMG. Etc. Given the specs of these cars, the different lap times in the ring give you an idea of how the cars perform as SPORTcars in the real world and to some degree also "how" they perform as well, since a lap time combined with the specs of the cars tells you that in order to achieve that lap time it has to archieve it via more "chasis" or more "engine", etc.
So to those of us that view performance as a very important aspect of the SPORTcar they want to enjoy driving SPORTLY, ring times are more significant than the manufacture's typical performance figures. For those that want only image then the ring times are instead a nuisance since some cars with a certain image and paper spec bragging rights of the king of the hill, get de-throwned in their class when it comes to really test the real world performance.
I.e. drivers are more interetested in ring times, and poseurs are interested more in HP figures and sporty looks. I understand that a "simple" more versatile more economic Porsche lapping the ring faster than your choice of "equivalent" car is a splinter in your paw since it hinders the main reason you buy the car for, and that you don't want ring times mentioned in the board, but get over it. I will be easier if you just get used to it cause you are not going to change it
So the more bickering from you about the ring times, the more they will be taken for what they really mean underneath in the above paragraph's context
Re: CGT record demolished!
Quote:
Joost said:Quote:
ben, lj said:
Yep, a 15 sec differential over a 1/4 mile is indeed a major one. So I guess the Donkey car does it in negative 4 seconds (Carrera GT's 11 less 15 seconds)? That is definetely very impressive.
I think Nick meant to say that 15 seconds difference is as much as 1/4 mile difference.
-Joost-
Nick is a friend of mine, and I am just playing with him re: the way the sentences were written. We're all running our mouths about seconds and tenths of seconds when it all boils down to what makes your organ alert.
Re: CGT record demolished!
Quote:
ben, lj said:Quote:
Joost said:Quote:
ben, lj said:
Yep, a 15 sec differential over a 1/4 mile is indeed a major one. So I guess the Donkey car does it in negative 4 seconds (Carrera GT's 11 less 15 seconds)? That is definetely very impressive.
I think Nick meant to say that 15 seconds difference is as much as 1/4 mile difference.
-Joost-
We're all running our mouths about seconds and tenths of seconds when it all boils down to what makes your organ alert.
Ben you have a way of getting to the heart of the matter.
Carlos you can bring up Rings times as often as you like. I will be waiting to Donkervoort you.
Dec 15, 2004 9:36:45 PM
-
Carlos from Spain
- Rennteam Moderator
-
- Loc: Spain. , Spain
- Posts: 21152, Gallery
- Registered on: Feb 9, 2003
- Reply to: nberry
CGT owners selfesteem demolished?
This is hilarious!
The CGT gets its ass kicked by a toycar, and everybodys getting a heart attack! Hehehe.. Amazing.
It's funny, for some reason I dont think the posts (read: explanations) would have been so long if the CTG had come out victorious.
A couple of quotes:
Carlos from Spain said:
Q: Just because a Euro 15k bone stock sportbike can do the ring faster than your Spider (by even more than the difference that seperates the Donkervoort with the CGT) does it mean that the bike is better than a Ferrari because its faster around the ring?
-No, Carlos. It just means it's faster. And if going fast around a track like, oh..say Nürnburgring..isnt important, why the hell buy a CGT in the first place???
Tell me that Porsche's weeklong testing of the CTG on the Nurnburgring was just to secure the best laptime for supercars like the CGT??
Carlos, according to you, the guys at Porsche should now be sitting comfortably back in Stuttgart, smoking a Monte Christo going "Our flagship just got its ass kicked by a much cheaper car...but we don't care, cuz our car is the fastest car compared to..to slower cars like ours".
Hello??
Does this make any sense? Isn't the CGT built to be the best productioncar out there? And in order to be the fastest, too?
According to what youre writing (as I read it) the Donkervoorts time really doesnt count because it's an ugly, cheap car...and worst of all: It Isn't a Porsche!!!! ARGH! How dare they?
From what I can read the car is basically in production setup,- I would guess just as much as a CGT that was tested weeks prior to the test is.
So what the heck is the problem here?
Here's a good guess:
nberry said:
"When Porsche has the best times around the Ring then that is the ultimate performance measure. When it does not then "other factors" must be considered according to Porsche enthusiast."
-Exactly. Right on the money. This is "Raiders of the Lost Excuse"!
Usually we (i.e. the Porsche owners) frown or laugh at mod'ed standardcars with 400 bhp or even the new Merc E55-something with 650 BHP, because these cars may have a lot of power, but absolutely not enough control/driveability/grip...call it what u want.
These cars are fast on the straights but suck at cornering. This is why we buy Porsches, right? To get that perfect combination of speed and cornering ability. (+ looks and status I guess)..right?
So, depending on how much money we can spend on this ultimate ride and what our preferences are, we buy a Boxster a 911....or a CGT if the budget allows, right?
So if we buy a CGT we expect to get the ultimate ride, with the ultimate combination of style, design, technology, power, excitement, driveability...and speed, right?
Unless you can tell me they shove 612 BHPs in the car just for fun, I take it they wanted this thing to be the fastest car on the block.
Same thing goes for weight distribution, suspension, wheels, tires etc etc etc.
It all aims at one thing, and one thing only: Being the fastest car on the track.
Sure, the car is marketed towards and bought by rich people who aren't necessarily the best drivers in the World, but the "this is the fastest car on Nurnburgring"-image (or any track or road) is a pretty vital part of the package, I should think.
To make a very long story short:
This sounds like someones being a sore loser here.
Porsche can't be faster all the time.
Would I buy a Donkervoort for my needs? Not in a million years. Its too plasticky, too light, too simple, too impractical and too ugly IMHO.
Would I buy it if all I wanted was an ultimate driving machine? No doubt.
Like I said before: Donkervoort kicked tghe CGTs ass. Get over it.
The CGT gets its ass kicked by a toycar, and everybodys getting a heart attack! Hehehe.. Amazing.
It's funny, for some reason I dont think the posts (read: explanations) would have been so long if the CTG had come out victorious.
A couple of quotes:
Carlos from Spain said:
Q: Just because a Euro 15k bone stock sportbike can do the ring faster than your Spider (by even more than the difference that seperates the Donkervoort with the CGT) does it mean that the bike is better than a Ferrari because its faster around the ring?
-No, Carlos. It just means it's faster. And if going fast around a track like, oh..say Nürnburgring..isnt important, why the hell buy a CGT in the first place???
Tell me that Porsche's weeklong testing of the CTG on the Nurnburgring was just to secure the best laptime for supercars like the CGT??
Carlos, according to you, the guys at Porsche should now be sitting comfortably back in Stuttgart, smoking a Monte Christo going "Our flagship just got its ass kicked by a much cheaper car...but we don't care, cuz our car is the fastest car compared to..to slower cars like ours".
Hello??
Does this make any sense? Isn't the CGT built to be the best productioncar out there? And in order to be the fastest, too?
According to what youre writing (as I read it) the Donkervoorts time really doesnt count because it's an ugly, cheap car...and worst of all: It Isn't a Porsche!!!! ARGH! How dare they?
From what I can read the car is basically in production setup,- I would guess just as much as a CGT that was tested weeks prior to the test is.
So what the heck is the problem here?
Here's a good guess:
nberry said:
"When Porsche has the best times around the Ring then that is the ultimate performance measure. When it does not then "other factors" must be considered according to Porsche enthusiast."
-Exactly. Right on the money. This is "Raiders of the Lost Excuse"!
Usually we (i.e. the Porsche owners) frown or laugh at mod'ed standardcars with 400 bhp or even the new Merc E55-something with 650 BHP, because these cars may have a lot of power, but absolutely not enough control/driveability/grip...call it what u want.
These cars are fast on the straights but suck at cornering. This is why we buy Porsches, right? To get that perfect combination of speed and cornering ability. (+ looks and status I guess)..right?
So, depending on how much money we can spend on this ultimate ride and what our preferences are, we buy a Boxster a 911....or a CGT if the budget allows, right?
So if we buy a CGT we expect to get the ultimate ride, with the ultimate combination of style, design, technology, power, excitement, driveability...and speed, right?
Unless you can tell me they shove 612 BHPs in the car just for fun, I take it they wanted this thing to be the fastest car on the block.
Same thing goes for weight distribution, suspension, wheels, tires etc etc etc.
It all aims at one thing, and one thing only: Being the fastest car on the track.
Sure, the car is marketed towards and bought by rich people who aren't necessarily the best drivers in the World, but the "this is the fastest car on Nurnburgring"-image (or any track or road) is a pretty vital part of the package, I should think.
To make a very long story short:
This sounds like someones being a sore loser here.
Porsche can't be faster all the time.
Would I buy a Donkervoort for my needs? Not in a million years. Its too plasticky, too light, too simple, too impractical and too ugly IMHO.
Would I buy it if all I wanted was an ultimate driving machine? No doubt.
Like I said before: Donkervoort kicked tghe CGTs ass. Get over it.
Re: CGT record demolished!
It's amazing how obtuse some people CHOOSE to be!
Then why the HELL are you comparing the two cars only on speed?
NOBODY HERE said porsches are designed just to be fast on a track. Nobody here besides nick and his gang, who's twisting our points beyond recognition, and then he finds all sorts of attacks on the twisted logic he projects on us.
Dudes, you're attacking us for something YOU said.
The funny (or sad?) part is that the donkervoort isn't even the fastest car on N-ring. The Radical is faster than it, the damn GT3 Cup is even faster, and the 956 blows them apart.
Bullshit. It's not a race car.
Why the hell am I spending my time writing this? You're not going to read it anyway, you just make up some fantasy stories and say we said that.
Quote:
So if we buy a CGT we expect to get the ultimate ride, with the ultimate combination of style, design, technology, power, excitement, driveability...and speed
Then why the HELL are you comparing the two cars only on speed?
NOBODY HERE said porsches are designed just to be fast on a track. Nobody here besides nick and his gang, who's twisting our points beyond recognition, and then he finds all sorts of attacks on the twisted logic he projects on us.
Dudes, you're attacking us for something YOU said.
The funny (or sad?) part is that the donkervoort isn't even the fastest car on N-ring. The Radical is faster than it, the damn GT3 Cup is even faster, and the 956 blows them apart.
Quote:
It all aims at one thing, and one thing only: Being the fastest car on the track.
Bullshit. It's not a race car.
Why the hell am I spending my time writing this? You're not going to read it anyway, you just make up some fantasy stories and say we said that.
Forum
About Rennteam | Help | Terms of use | Privacy Policy | Support | Contact | Imprint | Archive
Powered by
Community
and
