Guibo

How is that question pissing on your cheerios? Please, feel free to answer it.

ALMS21

Just go back and look at EVERY single one of your posts on this forum. Every one of them has to do with some pissing contest where you are taking a position opposite a Corvette. You, sir (term used loosely) are nothing more than an instigator and agitator.

Seriously, what have you offered to this forum other than taking an opposing position on anything vs Corvette? If it isn't Porsche, then it's the GTR and if its not the GTR then it's BMW, et al. All of which are nice enough cars and ones that I, personally, have owned. The difference is that I would never even dream of going on 6speed or Rennlist or NAGTROC and spouting my opinons and the virtues ad nauseum of the Corvette. You offer nothing other than to stir the pot and get threads closed. How do you not comprehend that? I'd be willing to bet that 95% or more of those on here can't stand you or have you on their ignore list. For Christsake man, can't you take a hint?

thebrander

That's correct. Porsche is no doubt trying to deceive us. It's their last stand.

You ready to buy a Vette yet?

Steve Snake Driver

Zora just let me know that David E Davis did a 7.999 so I guess that covers the magazine testing end.

My numbers are as valid as yours are.

Guibo

They're actually not. By resorting to this level of sarcasm, you're admitting that you can't refute what I've said.

Steve Snake Driver

Hard to refute something that doesn't exist...like an OFFICIAL, not halfa$$ed, second or third hand opinion passed along as fact by your breathless whispering buddies lap time. You and Notch or Nick or Scratch and Dent Sale keep missing the point - but not so much that you stop from making pointless posts in threads.

So back to THIS thread...
C6Rs won both GT classes at Le Mans.
A ZR1 lapped Nurburgring in 7:19.63 which is FASTER than RECORDED PORSCE 911 times.

If you make a post in this thread that addresses anything other than the FACTS as they exist, you are trolling the thread. Not the lap times you get on your knees and pray for...not the time slip you eagerly seek in your box of Cracker Jacks, not a vision you had in a dream....none of those count.

And yes, very perceptive. I resort to sarcasm to refute unrefutable non-existant facts.

UE Triplefi

I wonder if it's now fair to say once you reach beyond 400 hp you need traction control and "traction augmentation".

For example,

ZR1 is a fine example of using finely tuned traction control and GT-R employing "traction augmentation" with its patented AWD to achieve best N-ring lap time.

Steve Snake Driver

It would be hard to find a performance car that doesn't have some sort of electronic management of traction or handling though I think you are right about more being necessary the more hp produced. I don't have the recent article handy, but some testers were complaining about a car having a very slow drop off in rpm when the accelerator pedal was released to avoid sudden oversteer. Some American cars employ torque reduction programs during shifts to reduce strain on the drive train and avoid traction loss.

Guibo

The "fact" that you are providing cannot be corroborated by an independent 3rd party. That makes it no more valid than GM merely claiming the time.
"OFFICIAL"? Which official governing body was on hand to witness that this was, in fact, a bone stock production-spec ZR1 producing no more than the tolerance allowed by SAE hp rating standards, by which GM has been advertising their products? The simple fact is, there is no official governing body overseeing lap "records" on the 'Ring.

Guibo

If by "best N-ring lap time," you mean 7:19-7:24, then I agree that it definitely helps. ZR1 has not only finely tuned traction control, but also very fat and sticky tires, so it's a bit of both (TC and augmentation). GT-R has DCT as well, plus a driver with thousands of laps of development, and these help to acheive the lap times we see.

Mopar Jimmy

Great week for Corvette and Corvette Racing!

This new ZR1 times beats the Viper ACR's best time at the ring by almost 3 seconds, right?

Was this new ZR1 time with the new Pilot Cup tires offered on the car for 2012?

Looks like the ZR1 truely is the KING OF THE HILL!

Notch

That is simply not true.

Z07

Well aware of what it means and my original point still stands. All claims are fraudulent until proven otherwise. Whilst proving fraud is something else, I'm quite happy to accuse them of it until they provide the extremely simple proof of their innocence. This isn't a courtroom, it's an internet forum. Guilty until proven innocent does not wash here and it doesn't wash anywhere with respect to record setting.

PS: Sentence structure - you shouldn't use a joining word at the beginning of sentences OR you could just quit it.

Guibo

A video, produced by them, provided by them, with no independent scrutiny of the vehicle in question, constitutes proof?

Would you trust a scientific essay as valid on the basis that the only "independent" verification of claims stated by said essay were provided by none other than the essay's author?

Out of curiosity, who proved Nissan innocent of their claimed times?

Z07

Clearly it provides better proof than an interview and a few slipped words.

Apples and oranges. With an essay or a spoken claim there's no real proof that anything at all actually happened. A video at least shows that the lap happened and provides something that can be analysed to weed out gross cheating.

Well there was considerable debate about the CBA Nissan's speed on the 'ring's main straight relative to the 2008 ZR1 but ironically I think the best evidence comes from the latest ZR1 video.

But you're trying to start a benchrace again Guibo. Lord knows, you always start one and then accuse others of doing it.

This is exactly why claims are unacceptable. There is no proof, so they promote benchracing and people who support the claims start using other times, manufacturer reputation, basic performance stats and even racing pedigree to try and turn non-proof into proof. An unproven claim is always BS until proven otherwise.

It's fundamentally harder to cheat on the same scale in a video. The very fact that you actually need to have done a lap in the given time at all instantly puts it one up on a claim and, as you've mentioned, people are keen to pick up on anomalies, albeit falsely sometimes, but the more obvious the cheating, the more people and evidence there are to discredit the video and the less people and evidence there are to support it. As with most things there will usually be two sides in varying sizes but when you produce no video, there is largely just one side all calling BS/invalid with a few die hard benchracers trying to validate something without anything to validate it with.

FWIW I've even seen you trying to validate the 7:18 time using the 7:24 time from Sport Auto on at least 3 other forums. Frankly this is just an absurd exercise. Theoretical laps do not count. Any car is theoretically capable of a better lap time than anybody achieves because nobody ever runs a perfect lap on the 'ring but theory doesn't count. Besides this, Sport Auto is the absolute last source I would use to validate anything to do with any 911.

Z07

Now that's probably a better word to use. The irritation comes from the fact that some people are trying to pass off a claim as being equal to a video. It isn't, never has been and never will be.

Give it up man. FFS, do you think if I write to the International Athletics Federation and tell them I've ran an 8s 100m that time will be deemed valid and count as the new world record. It won't, it's a claim, it's invalid. Granted, a video may also be deemed invalid, but they'd probably at least invite me to an event to validate it on the basis of a video. Without a video it's just a joke.

Notch

Your 8 sec in the 100 meter may or may not be true. If it is true, your claim is a valid claim. If it is not true, your claim is invalid claim. But certainly, the act of making the claim does not make the claim itself invalid.

Notch

Who is trying to pass of a claim as being equal to a video?

pcguy2u

Z07

Seems to be pretty much what you and Guibo are doing but of course admitting it would be too easy. If Chevy, Nissan, Radical, Gumpert and Dodge have videos to substantiate their claims, then clearly Porsche's claim minus a video isn't worth mentioning in the same thread because, as you've just said, it isn't equal. Just as mentioning my name in the same thread as Usain Bolt following my claim is also absurd.

At the end of the day who makes such claims these days without a video. Porsche and... oh yeah... Lexus.