[ZR1] MT-ZR1 vs Viper-ZR1 has the new Laguna Seca record!
12-20-2012, 10:49 AM
#81
Pro
Well it was the first and only comparison for the Gen V Viper so far. The results of the MT comparison will be negated if the next test & comparison says the Viper is easier to drive and they get much better performance out of it. It will look like MT was just trolling to get more attention and readers (they are good at that). Every mag test the ZR1 has been in didn't produce the results that many on this forum expect to see. But nobody here uses the worst test to indicate overall ZR1 performance. I've seen MT give a car a bad review, then a few weeks later completely reverse their opinions.
I believe when it's all said and done, this new Viper will shine brighter and that will help push the top performing C7 to a higher level.
I believe when it's all said and done, this new Viper will shine brighter and that will help push the top performing C7 to a higher level.
12-20-2012, 11:02 AM
#82
12-20-2012, 02:50 PM
#85
If C&D already did a test, why would they wait till Feb. to say anything? If they haven't done a test yet, how do you already claim to have inside info on what the results are?
12-20-2012, 02:59 PM
#86
They've probably already done the test or are testing it now. Magazine issues run a month ahead, and are usually 2 months ahead in terms of planning and articles being written. The Feb issue will be out mid Jan, roughly 20 days. It's safe to say the test has been run already and our friend here was privy to the results.
12-20-2012, 03:06 PM
#87
They've probably already done the test or are testing it now. Magazine issues run a month ahead, and are usually 2 months ahead in terms of planning and articles being written. The Feb issue will be out mid Jan, roughly 20 days. It's safe to say the test has been run already and our friend here was privy to the results.
Last edited by 4-Sho; 12-20-2012 at 03:09 PM.
12-20-2012, 03:20 PM
#88
Melting Slicks
Somtimes they wait until closer to the Mag release before they put it on the web site. If MT had one to test then I would think the others would too.
12-20-2012, 03:30 PM
#90
Sr.Random input generator
I love the lightning lap since it allows you to compare various cars at a rough track. My problem with it is that GM was always able to go substantially faster than their test driver could at VIR, and I don't think they use the same driver from year to year, not to mention the time of the year (winter) which favors cars with lower HP or AWD.
Last edited by X25; 12-20-2012 at 03:44 PM.
12-20-2012, 03:40 PM
#91
Melting Slicks
12-20-2012, 05:34 PM
#92
Melting Slicks
Several good points, but I take some exceptions.
First, I suspect the Corsas are not as good as Cups. The sustained lateral G data seems to bear that out and Chevy shod it's latest and greatest Z cars with Cups to get the numbers they now get. SRT should not have put the car on Corsa's though, as it used Cups on the ACR.
First, I suspect the Corsas are not as good as Cups. The sustained lateral G data seems to bear that out and Chevy shod it's latest and greatest Z cars with Cups to get the numbers they now get. SRT should not have put the car on Corsa's though, as it used Cups on the ACR.
You take exception to what here? That’s exactly what I said.
Second, Gilles actually can drive and drive well. I have raced with him and was impressed indeed, and seen him drive the ACRX with some fine professional drivers. That said, Pobst is excellent and a well designed car should inspire the confidence necessary to get any pro level driver to extract the best. And Pobst is not 2 seconds slow.
Third, FMVSS spec is the benchmark? Sorry I don't buy it. The ACR comes with the splitter extension in the trunk and if the coil over suspension was adjusted then get over it. Any person who seriously tracks their ACR is going to set it up and the ACR is stock as tested IMO. Is FMVSS an acronym for sour grapes?
But first let’s start with stock as in ride height. Lowering a car brings significant benefits in handling and aerodynamics. As such, a vehicle so modified is materially no longer stock and shouldn’t be compared to one that was not lowered from stock ride height. There isn’t a Viper owner alive who would accept the recent ZR1/Viper test in question if it was discovered that the ZR1 used had been lowered an inch. Not one. As well they shouldn’t. You said, “The ACR is stock as tested.” Wrong. Every single publicized ACR test (Motor Trend, the former Laguna record) involved a car that was explicitly stated to have been lowered from stock. Lap times from cars modified from stock ride height should obviously not be compared to cars tested at stock ride heights. All cars from the Smart car clear through to the Veyron can be lowered. Ease of lowering is not the issue.
In the street legal vein there is the splitter attachment. It materially increases the car’s performance (increases front downforce by a third) but its fitment renders the car no longer street-legal. Both facts are established and non-trivial. Case in point, as you quite correctly observed, the splitter is delivered in the trunk. Why do you think that is? I’ll let the Viper ACR’s aerodynamics engineer, Mike Shinedling, explain that for you:
“When we got into the wind tunnel, we found that in order to meet our balance targets the splitter had to increase the front overhang of the car, and given the Federal bumper requirements we knew this was going to be a challenge.
So the car is delivered with a street-legal setup. We call it the ‘fanged geometry,’ since the splitter kind of looks like it has fangs. We scalloped the splitter's center to allow us to meet these bumper regulations, and it also helps the customer get over speed bumps and approach angles and it keeps the nose of the splitter away from the parking curbs.
The track extension (a removable center section of splitter) is included with the car. It looks like a small piece. It's about a 4-inch increase in overhang, but it actually increases the front downforce by a third.”
http://www.autoweek.com/article/2008...#ixzz2Fcx8338G
So let me be very clear on this point, I am not the one saying the splitter attachment is significant but not street-legal DODGE is. That is why it is merely “included” with the car (in the trunk at delivery). So the facts in question were plainly stated by the engineers of record. Those who object to my observation that the splitter is significant but not street-legal need to take up the issue with Dodge’s engineers as they publicly established both facts.
The facts were made sufficiently clear to the magazines who tested the ACR that they freely mentioned it. In Car and Driver’s August 2008 test of the ACR they said, “For the street, Reece (Jeff, Dodge engineer on hand to tune the ACR) unbolted the front splitter (illegal for the street, it removes easily with eight bolts and fits under the hatch).” Subsequent to this, a reader wrote in and asked why specifically the particular splitter was illegal. I took the liberty of scanning in page 24 of the November 2008 issue of CD where they responded to the reader’s question so you can see for yourself the specific FMVSS statues (the bumper issues the ACR’s aerodynamics engineer referred to above) that define why Dodge is legally required to put the splitter in the trunk instead of affixing it to the car when sold. http://forums.corvetteforum.com/1570724102-post96.html Click the link in the post and read the letter in the upper left section of the page.
Dodge followed the letter of the law but not its spirit. I never thought I would see the day when the Viper Nation was reduced to doing that to win. In the past they could meet and soundly defeat their opponents on the same terms with no caveats at all. Any intelligent comparison between cars must necessarily be where the vehicles in question are tested under one standard (stock as delivered and fully street legal), not two materially different ones.
Herb Helbig: Let's be honest: the race has always been between us and Corvette--and it's been a beautiful thing. I mean, when you think about the magic of competition between guys like the Corvette guys and the Viper guys, we're really the same guys under the skin. I feel for them, because they've got more bureaucracy and more suits in their deal, so that's an advantage for us.
But covertly or not, it's always been about the Corvette and us. I mean, think about why the ZO6 ever came to be born. Why do you think the Blue Devil was ever conceived of? Because Bob Lutz said, "I don't want you to get your *** kicked by those guys over at Viper. Oh, by the way, they've been kicking your ***!" It's always been about that.
The Blue Devil guys are going to have to bring some pretty serious stuff to compete with this. And it's more than just sticking a supercharger on.
But those guys are like us. They're guys just like Mike and Matt and myself back there twiddlin' away, trying to figure out how to one-up us. And, you know, it doesn't get any better than that these days!”
Amen Herb. Amen.
12-20-2012, 05:58 PM
#93
Melting Slicks
Brian great post as always, but I think too much is being made about the tire difference. While there are other traits of the MPSC tire that may make it better than the Corsas the ultimate grip of both cars were pretty equal with both of them recording 1.08g on the skid pad.
Nice to see you back on this forum Mr. Wright, and great post.
I agree with everything you said, but particularly wanted to emphasize your comments about Randy Pobst. Oustanding driver, excellent journalist (for anyone who reads his monthly articles in SCCA's SportsCar Magazine), and someone whose credentials are simply beyond question. I've learned a lot from the guy, both watching him race (epic battles this season with Johnny O'Connell and Andy Pilgrim in their CTS-V) and reading his articles. Taking shots at a guy's driving abilities when he's been doing this at least 20 years and has won four World Challenge Championships doesn't strike me as the way to win a debate.
SRT will figure it out, and like others have posted, I surely hope they do. The ZR1 is the best Corvette to date, but it will take Viper advancements to ensure it's not the best Corvette will ever offer.
I agree with everything you said, but particularly wanted to emphasize your comments about Randy Pobst. Oustanding driver, excellent journalist (for anyone who reads his monthly articles in SCCA's SportsCar Magazine), and someone whose credentials are simply beyond question. I've learned a lot from the guy, both watching him race (epic battles this season with Johnny O'Connell and Andy Pilgrim in their CTS-V) and reading his articles. Taking shots at a guy's driving abilities when he's been doing this at least 20 years and has won four World Challenge Championships doesn't strike me as the way to win a debate.
SRT will figure it out, and like others have posted, I surely hope they do. The ZR1 is the best Corvette to date, but it will take Viper advancements to ensure it's not the best Corvette will ever offer.
Anyway, yes, I agree. Taking shots at Randy’s driving should have been beneath Ralph who really owes him an apology. SRT will indeed figure it out and we all hope they do. You are spot on about what might happen if SRT is not there to push us.
Brian (Bwright), very, very nice! There is a TON of meat in your post and I hope everyone at SRT (and everyone else too) reads those words very carefully as you hit on several major points. Very well said!
On my personal opinion, I'm actually a bit disappointed the new Viper didn't wipe my ZR1 off the Laguna Seca racetrack. Competition improves the breed and it is pretty clear, SRT took some shortcuts and probably had limited development dollars to work with and unfortunately it shows. I do think they did a nice job with what they likely had to work with, but still a bit disappointing nonetheless the Viper didn't perform a bit better. 2 seconds is LONG, LONG time on such a relatively short racetrack.
On my personal opinion, I'm actually a bit disappointed the new Viper didn't wipe my ZR1 off the Laguna Seca racetrack. Competition improves the breed and it is pretty clear, SRT took some shortcuts and probably had limited development dollars to work with and unfortunately it shows. I do think they did a nice job with what they likely had to work with, but still a bit disappointing nonetheless the Viper didn't perform a bit better. 2 seconds is LONG, LONG time on such a relatively short racetrack.
Same here. I think we were all imagining that the Viper would be faster so we could all dream of what the C7 ZR1 would have to top. Just inexcusable that they let Fiat/Ferrari reserve all the good stuff (MSRC, CCBs and MPSCs) for their corporate crown jewel. Unacceptable and Ralph needs to have a profound heart-to-heart with Sergio.
Great write up! the only thing I would say does not hold water ata track like Seca is the mods done to the end plates and wing angle, at a place like the "ring" and all the higher speeds there the aero and down force would be much more effective, Seca does not generate that kind of high speed. Again well written, a very enjoyable read!
"The Dodge Viper ACR remains the ultimate purpose-built, street-legal track car since its introduction in 2008. New for the 2010 model year is a shorter fifth gear ratio (changing from 0.74 to 0.80) for improved high-speed acceleration and higher straightaway speeds. This improvement is a direct result of SRT”s experience at the 12.9-mile Nürburgring Nordschleife circuit in Germany where during the lap-record run in 2008, it was found that a revised gear ratio would have resulted in a higher speed capability and potentially a shorter elapsed time.
The Dodge Viper ACR also receives a new short-throw shifter in 2010 for enhanced driver experience and better performance. The rear wing profile and end plates are redesigned to further optimize the vehicle aerodynamics and improve rear yaw downforce. These changes result in an increase in top speed of 4 mph (to 184 mph)."
http://www.egmcartech.com/2009/11/24...-la-auto-show/
12-20-2012, 07:23 PM
#94
You take exception to what here? That’s exactly what I said.
I am well aware that Gilles can drive and never said he couldn’t. But there is a big difference between “can drive” and winning your class at the 24 Hours of Daytona twice. Not to mention being a four time SCCA World Champion. Given Pobst’s background Gilles’ reaction was classless and quite frankly he owes Pobst an apology.
FMVSS is a standard by which competitors determine which vehicles are street legal and which aren’t. As anyone with a basic grasp of the issues can tell you, one cannot be a little bit pregnant. Either your ride is street legal or it isn’t. The performance difference between cars that are legal and not is usually significant, as it is here.
But first let’s start with stock as in ride height. Lowering a car brings significant benefits in handling and aerodynamics. As such, a vehicle so modified is materially no longer stock and shouldn’t be compared to one that was not lowered from stock ride height. There isn’t a Viper owner alive who would accept the recent ZR1/Viper test in question if it was discovered that the ZR1 used had been lowered an inch. Not one. As well they shouldn’t. You said, “The ACR is stock as tested.” Wrong. Every single publicized ACR test (Motor Trend, the former Laguna record) involved a car that was explicitly stated to have been lowered from stock. Lap times from cars modified from stock ride height should obviously not be compared to cars tested at stock ride heights. All cars from the Smart car clear through to the Veyron can be lowered. Ease of lowering is not the issue.
In the street legal vein there is the splitter attachment. It materially increases the car’s performance (increases front downforce by a third) but its fitment renders the car no longer street-legal. Both facts are established and non-trivial. Case in point, as you quite correctly observed, the splitter is delivered in the trunk. Why do you think that is? I’ll let the Viper ACR’s aerodynamics engineer, Mike Shinedling, explain that for you:
“When we got into the wind tunnel, we found that in order to meet our balance targets the splitter had to increase the front overhang of the car, and given the Federal bumper requirements we knew this was going to be a challenge.
So the car is delivered with a street-legal setup. We call it the ‘fanged geometry,’ since the splitter kind of looks like it has fangs. We scalloped the splitter's center to allow us to meet these bumper regulations, and it also helps the customer get over speed bumps and approach angles and it keeps the nose of the splitter away from the parking curbs.
The track extension (a removable center section of splitter) is included with the car. It looks like a small piece. It's about a 4-inch increase in overhang, but it actually increases the front downforce by a third.”
http://www.autoweek.com/article/2008...#ixzz2Fcx8338G
So let me be very clear on this point, I am not the one saying the splitter attachment is significant but not street-legal DODGE is. That is why it is merely “included” with the car (in the trunk at delivery). So the facts in question were plainly stated by the engineers of record. Those who object to my observation that the splitter is significant but not street-legal need to take up the issue with Dodge’s engineers as they publicly established both facts.
The facts were made sufficiently clear to the magazines who tested the ACR that they freely mentioned it. In Car and Driver’s August 2008 test of the ACR they said, “For the street, Reece (Jeff, Dodge engineer on hand to tune the ACR) unbolted the front splitter (illegal for the street, it removes easily with eight bolts and fits under the hatch).” Subsequent to this, a reader wrote in and asked why specifically the particular splitter was illegal. I took the liberty of scanning in page 24 of the November 2008 issue of CD where they responded to the reader’s question so you can see for yourself the specific FMVSS statues (the bumper issues the ACR’s aerodynamics engineer referred to above) that define why Dodge is legally required to put the splitter in the trunk instead of affixing it to the car when sold. http://forums.corvetteforum.com/1570724102-post96.html Click the link in the post and read the letter in the upper left section of the page.
Dodge followed the letter of the law but not its spirit. I never thought I would see the day when the Viper Nation was reduced to doing that to win. In the past they could meet and soundly defeat their opponents on the same terms with no caveats at all. Any intelligent comparison between cars must necessarily be where the vehicles in question are tested under one standard (stock as delivered and fully street legal), not two materially different ones.
Again, no argument. I, and many other Corvette drivers, would be proud and happy to own the new Gen V Viper. As a matter of fact, here is now retired SRT Manager of Vehicle Dynamics Herb Helbig’s response to the question, “The Corvette ZR1 at around 100 grand is the only competition for this, right?” from the Autoweek link posted above. I couldn’t agree more with what he says:
Herb Helbig: Let's be honest: the race has always been between us and Corvette--and it's been a beautiful thing. I mean, when you think about the magic of competition between guys like the Corvette guys and the Viper guys, we're really the same guys under the skin. I feel for them, because they've got more bureaucracy and more suits in their deal, so that's an advantage for us.
But covertly or not, it's always been about the Corvette and us. I mean, think about why the ZO6 ever came to be born. Why do you think the Blue Devil was ever conceived of? Because Bob Lutz said, "I don't want you to get your *** kicked by those guys over at Viper. Oh, by the way, they've been kicking your ***!" It's always been about that.
The Blue Devil guys are going to have to bring some pretty serious stuff to compete with this. And it's more than just sticking a supercharger on.
But those guys are like us. They're guys just like Mike and Matt and myself back there twiddlin' away, trying to figure out how to one-up us. And, you know, it doesn't get any better than that these days!”
Amen Herb. Amen.
We are discussing TRACK performance, so of course the ACR should have its TRACK splitter installed! Of course it should be lowered to it's "TRACK" setting! This isn't a race on public roads following speed limits where everything needs to be legal! You're simply sour that GM didn't offer anything more aggresive for "track use only". Don't blame SRT for that, you have connections at GM right? Tell them you'd like some more track options for the C7 models.
After one MT test, people here claim the Viper guys are sore losers. Well it's no different over here, still sore over Rings laps from 2 years ago.
Last edited by 4-Sho; 12-20-2012 at 07:29 PM.
12-20-2012, 07:36 PM
#95
Drifting
Good grief, you've been crying about the same thing for years now... just let it go. First it was the MPSC tires, "ZOMG, they're barely legal! It's not fair!" Then GM offeres the tires and all of a sudden it's no longer an issue. So you switch to "ZOMG, the ACR has a splitter extension that isn't road legal!" If GM offered the ZR1 with a longer track splitter, again you'd install it and stop crying. You keep mentioning the ACR's splitter comes in the trunk. I believe ZR1's are shipped with their splitter in the trunk too! I know mine was!
We are discussing TRACK RECORDS, of course the ACR should have its TRACK SPLITTER installed! Of course it should be lowered to it's "TRACK" setting! This isn't a race on public roads following speed limits where everything needs to be legal! You're simply sour that GM didn't offer anything more aggresive for "track use only". Don't blame SRT for that, you have connections at GM right? Tell them you'd like some more track options for the C7 models.
After one MT test, people here claim the Viper guys are sore losers. Well it's no different over here, still sore over Rings laps from 2 years ago.
We are discussing TRACK RECORDS, of course the ACR should have its TRACK SPLITTER installed! Of course it should be lowered to it's "TRACK" setting! This isn't a race on public roads following speed limits where everything needs to be legal! You're simply sour that GM didn't offer anything more aggresive for "track use only". Don't blame SRT for that, you have connections at GM right? Tell them you'd like some more track options for the C7 models.
After one MT test, people here claim the Viper guys are sore losers. Well it's no different over here, still sore over Rings laps from 2 years ago.
I interpret the current MT test as a match race between cars that could have been legally driven to the track (meeting all federal and state requirements). The ACR, when it set that impressive record, didn't meet that criteria.
The Vette, if it had been lowered for this MT test beyond that allowed by applicable federal regulations, wouldn't have met those criteria either. It wasn't. I read Brian's point as simply being that the ACR didn't play by those rules two years ago. Who knows if the effect of a federally compliant ACR would have been 1 second, 2 seconds, or nothing.
Recharacterizing that as "crying" over it is, in my view, mischaracterizing it.
12-20-2012, 07:43 PM
#96
At the risk of jumping into a discussion I don't belong in, I don't see Brian's comments as "crying" over anything. I read his point, simply stated, as "if we're comparing street legal cars on a track, all competitors should be street legal." If we're doing something else, then all competitors should be allowed to do something else, whatever the manufacturer offers to make it faster on a track.
I interpret the current MT test as a match race between cars that could have been legally driven to the track (meeting all federal and state requirements). The ACR, when it set that impressive record, didn't meet that criteria.
The Vette, if it had been lowered for this MT test beyond that allowed by applicable federal regulations, wouldn't have met those criteria either. It wasn't. I read Brian's point as simply being that the ACR didn't play by those rules two years ago. Who knows if the effect of a federally compliant ACR would have been 1 second, 2 seconds, or nothing.
Recharacterizing that as "crying" over it is, in my view, mischaracterizing it.
I interpret the current MT test as a match race between cars that could have been legally driven to the track (meeting all federal and state requirements). The ACR, when it set that impressive record, didn't meet that criteria.
The Vette, if it had been lowered for this MT test beyond that allowed by applicable federal regulations, wouldn't have met those criteria either. It wasn't. I read Brian's point as simply being that the ACR didn't play by those rules two years ago. Who knows if the effect of a federally compliant ACR would have been 1 second, 2 seconds, or nothing.
Recharacterizing that as "crying" over it is, in my view, mischaracterizing it.
I have never heard of any of the ACR owners on the Viper club mention they have had any problems with the law running the splitter extension. They can and do drive their cars to the track.
Again, if the ZR1 came with a splitter extension this wouldn't even be an issue. If the ZR1 held the Ring record with a "race" splitter installed, you know nobody here would say "Wait wait, it doesn't count! The car had our track splitter installed during the track test!" BTW, wasn't there a racing seat installed during the Ring laps?
Does the ZR1 come with suspension that will allow you to easily adjust the ride height (without the use of aftermarket modifcation)?
Last edited by 4-Sho; 12-20-2012 at 07:47 PM.
12-20-2012, 08:06 PM
#97
Melting Slicks
Originally Posted by 4-Sho;1582620179
Again, if the ZR1 came with a splitter extension this wouldn't even be an issue. If the ZR1 held the Ring record with a "race" splitter installed, you know nobody here would say "Wait wait, it doesn't count! The car had our [U
Again, if the ZR1 came with a splitter extension this wouldn't even be an issue. If the ZR1 held the Ring record with a "race" splitter installed, you know nobody here would say "Wait wait, it doesn't count! The car had our [U
track[/U] splitter installed during the track test!" BTW, wasn't there a racing seat installed during the Ring laps?
Does the ZR1 come with suspension that will allow you to easily adjust the ride height (without the use of aftermarket modifcation)?
Does the ZR1 come with suspension that will allow you to easily adjust the ride height (without the use of aftermarket modifcation)?
12-20-2012, 08:19 PM
#98
Tech Contributor
Member Since: Mar 1999
Location: Northern VA
Posts: 10,096
Received 3,858 Likes
on
1,162 Posts
"Ask Tadge" Producer
Again, if the ZR1 came with a splitter extension this wouldn't even be an issue.
Does the ZR1 come with suspension that will allow you to easily adjust the ride height (without the use of aftermarket modifcation)?
jas
12-20-2012, 08:37 PM
#99
That doesn't matter: it's against federal standards for that car to be registered for road use once the splitter extensions are added. Regardless of whether owners have been sited for it or not, it's not street legal anywhere in the US. Period.
It would be an issue if those extensions caused the car to run afoul of FMVSS. Why is this such a difficult concept for you and others to grasp?
It does, but lowering the car makes it such that it's no longer a factory configuration (ie: ride height) and, if cranked too low would make it non-street-legal.
jas
It would be an issue if those extensions caused the car to run afoul of FMVSS. Why is this such a difficult concept for you and others to grasp?
It does, but lowering the car makes it such that it's no longer a factory configuration (ie: ride height) and, if cranked too low would make it non-street-legal.
jas
Changing out the driver's seat wasn't a factory configuration, but it was done for maximum track performance and track safety.
12-20-2012, 08:44 PM
#100
Tech Contributor
Member Since: Mar 1999
Location: Northern VA
Posts: 10,096
Received 3,858 Likes
on
1,162 Posts
"Ask Tadge" Producer
Further, it doesn't matter whether people have had trouble with it or not. Hell, I don't have a plate on the front of my car and that's against the law in Virginia. I haven't received any guff from the local constabulary about it, but that doesn't make it any less illegal.
Changing out the driver's seat wasn't a factory configuration, but it was done for maximum track performance and track safety.
This is the point we're trying to get across to you and others, and it appears to be the point you utterly refuse to accept or understand. I'm really not sure why that is, unless you're purposely being dense in order to troll us.
jas