johnglenntwo

Not intimidated either!So we are back having some intellectual arguments!

If traction control didn't work why would they have bothered to make it illegal on the most sophisticated formula one cars? And I don't beleave the C6r used it to fly like a bird at LeMans compared to a stock ZR1 at the ring. It is a relative thing.
Technology is fun for me to follow. Now we here that the SEQ trans in the C6r uses a basic tranny. So cool, simple and cheap. It's easy to see with some more PCM programming and a switch how they could probably make it automatic as well, cool!

raj

I, for one, am truly heartened to see a manufacturer of mass production vehicles like GM (who, incidentally, are on track to sell more cars than any other in 2011), elevating their game and documenting a record setting lap of the Nurburgring. Rather than succumbing to the majority opinion and viewing this as an exercise in futility, they have set the standard for manufacturers of more elite brands whose raison d'etre is performance. GM has thrown the proverbial gauntlet with this move, echoing the words of a famous statistician: "In God We Trust, All Others Must Bring Data". Kudos to GM for raising the benchmark in more ways than one!

Notch

How did you come up with that? Seriously.

Please don't make things up about what we post.

Notch

http://www.businesswritingblog.com/b...s_okay_an.html

http://www.dailywritingtips.com/can-...Cbut%E2%80%9D/

Z07

I've spotted Guibo on several forums. His style is always to suggest something very strongly without having the guts to actually say it. I note you're pretty much the same. Why do you even defend this 7:18 claim in any way unless you're trying to validate it or claim it to be equal to video evidence? It's nothing more than hearsay and if you keep defending it people will draw the obvious conclusions however strongly you deny them and that's all I've done.

Where does it say that it is okay in the context that you used it?

^This is just a straight-forward case of wrongly using a joining word to begin a second sentence that could and should be linked to the first. I don't normally bring such things up but you were being arsey about 'sentence structure' whilst getting it dreadfully wrong yourself.

Is this going to be the bit where you escape from a losing argument and take a detour onto several things that are completely unrelated and then eventually get right about something and claim a victory?

Z07

Guibo... Notch... that includes you.

bgreen83

man on man. This thread is exhausting lol.

On a lighter not, Congrats to chevy! Having the fastest production car on the planet, at the N-Ring at least.

Guibo

It's still not proof and does nothing to validate or invalidate the claim.

So you're telling me that the scientific essays of, say, lab rat experiments submitted to respected journals don't claim anything happened to the rats? That makes no sense.
A video at least shows a lap happened...with a car of questionable power, tires, brakes, and alignment. You can somehow tell what tires and camber a car is running by looking at an in-car video? Wow, you're amazing.

Did we really need a video to believe GM's claim of a strong headwind? Your video can't differentiate if the wind is the reason or if it's the shifting that's the result.

Whom have I accused in this thread of benchracing?

Proven by whom? The manufacturer in question? LOL. Surely, you can spot the problem with such a premise, can't you?

OK, let's put it this way. Let's assume that the justice system works on your method: a person is guilty until proven innocent.

Prosecutor: "You're guilty of murder."
Defendant: "I'm innocent."
Prosecutor: "Prove it."
Defendant: "I have a video that puts me in a location other than the crime scene at the time of the crime."
Prosecutor: "Who produced this video?"
Defendant: "I did."
Prosecutor: "Sorry for taking up your time. Have a nice day."

How do you know Sport Auto's results are theoretical best times?
Sport Auto's results were never called into question before when they confirmed Porsche's, BMW's, and Pagani's claims. Why would they be questionable now?

Guibo

And what is it that you claim I don't have the guts to say? That GM and Nissan cheated?
I've spotted you on several forums too. Are you not in fact these same members?:
mc_h, mc_hammer, BD-, Trommel, Trommel2, igotmycracpipe

All of whom who, in various guises, have been banned for trolling on 6speedonline and supraforums?

If you are, then you are the same who benchraced the LP570 and 458 into times that they did not acheive on TopGear's track, correct? You'd also be the same who claimed the ZR1 on its 7:26 lap finished the Doettinger Hoehe straight 90m ahead of the GT-R when it wasn't.

Z07, could you clarify what you meant in this thread when you said:
"The record now stands at 260.1mph and is held by the Keating TKR."
http://forums.corvetteforum.com/1572444367-post160.html

Notch

"The answer is yes. It is perfectly acceptable to start sentences with the conjunctions and and but. However, it is slightly informal."

Jaxian

This thread is much easier to read through once you have put all the usual Ring Trolls on /ignore.

OnPoint

tapoff1r2

Very Cool

Shurshot

Like starting a sentence with 'However"

I do it all the time but get blasted for it by editors (in addition to my omitting words I read in but do not appear in print)

Z07

What are you talking about? Of course a video helps to validate the claim. Just because you might get away with a mild tune doesn't mean that you can discount the evidence altogether.

There's no physical proof that anything happened. People can simply lie. Suppose a company is overly eager to push a drug to the market they could selectively hire or bribe scientists to ******** the results.

By cross-examining it against other videos and examinng how long it takes to reach a given speed on a number of opposing straights you can certainly gauge a rough estimate of power. Probably not accurate enough to pick up a 5% hike but you'd certainly spot a 50% hike.

Tires? You could probably pick-up on the use of slicks by cross-examining it against other videos and magazine laps although you probably wouldn't pick-up on the use of say MPSCs vs MPS3s.

This - "7:18" - you can't gauge anything from. Did the lap happen at all? Did someone cruise round in a 956? Did the car have 800hp? There's just 3 questions that a video can answer and a claim can't. A claim has all the weaknesses of a video (and far more) and none of its strengths. It's the very worst possible form of evidence if you could even class it as such.

Sure it can. That isn't the only flat section in the video. The speeds on opposing straights in the first video were unusually high, the speed on the main straight was low and vice versa in the new video. There's only really one logical conclusion to that.

Come now Guibo. This is hardly the only thread or forum you've ever bored people to death on now is it?

More a case of:

Prosecutor: "You're guilty of murder."
Defendant: "No I was here at the time in question." *puts forth CCTV footage for examination*

vs

Judge: "How do you plead?"
Defendant: "Innocent."
Judge: "Good good, on your way then."



You're missing the point entirely. It's not about theoretical best laps. That's benchracing.

The gap between theory and practice is as much a fundamental aspect of a car's performance as engine power, 0-100mph, lateral g or anything else.

Z07

At least you don't go round lecturing other people on sentence structure at the same time like our friend Notch.

Z07

That's an answer to a question that I didn't ask.

I used to think that until I started reading your posts.

Guess again. At least that user had the wit to change their username rather than boring over a dozen car forums to death with same username over and over again.

I imagine they were probably bored to the brink of insanity by your incessant ramblings.

I was referring to this but yes, it's not an official record and is therefore not valid AFAIK and has been beaten by the Veyron SS anyway. Any further questions?

http://www.speedlux.com/keating-tkr-...1-mph-416-kmh/

Yes we spotted you benchracing that mc_h character on nagtroc. At least he had the good sense to admit he was wrong, whereas you stuck to your completely absurd estimate of '30 yards'. The truth is that you can't accurately gauge the distance because of camera angle and lens distortion but suffice to say you were both wrong along with the other imbecile you befriended.

This is basically the algorithm by which your brain operates on a permanent, unflinching basis.

Mopar Jimmy

Guibo Decison Tree


This thread.

Z06 Sport

Good point. It's also good to start at the first before derailment.

Guibo

Who said anything about discouting altogether? I'm saying a video in and of itself doesn't tell you much about the vehicle in question.
It's funny, but isn't a mild tune enough for some impressive gains in a GT-R? That's the line I've been hearing on nagtroc.

FDA approval is a bit more rigorous than that.
If a scientist claims to be able to cure cancer, would you believe him based on a video that he releases? Or would you prefer independent, 3rd party testing of said claims? Or are you claiming that all mag test results are questionable?

So what you're saying is that you might not even pick up a 40% hike. Wow, that's some great "proof" you've got there.

What other magazine laps of this ZR1? What other magazine laps of the ZR1 on PS2s? Please don't say...Sport Auto.

Wait, the speeds on the opposing straights in the first video were unusually high? You mean with the benefit of better tires and PTM for a much better launch out of corners, the new car was slower on those straights? How do you know it was wind and not, say, the old car being juiced up? You don't. The only way to know is to dyno these cars are run these cars against the clock, preferably in the same conditions. We have none of this in either video.


CCTV footage, provided by whom? See, the source of the video makes all the difference. In this case, it was the courthouse's video which makes the case. Not a video production by the defendant.