sydneyACE

It's all anyone is talking about these days...

I just got done reading a nine-page thread here which digressed into a ZR-1 vs Z06 argument complete with some members donning tin-foil hats and claiming that GM was sandbagging the Z06 and lifting on the rear-straight so it wouldn't out-do the ZR-1.
There was so-much speculation as to why the ZR-1 was only 3 seconds faster (or conversly that the Z06 should have been faster), that it just goes to show, how many variables Nurburgring introduces to the timings. I would venture to guess that when they were timing that latest Z06 run, that the lap-times (few as they probably were) varied by up-to 4-8 seconds. Which is why I think it's silly when people get all worked-up about Nurburgring times and act like they are the tell-all, end-all in performance.

What it all boils-down to.. The consistency just isn't there. Too many variables...

It's 13 miles long, which allows for a HUGE variance between a good driver and a great driver. A huge difference between a good day and a bad day, a huge difference between this tire or that tire, etc.
*On a 1:00/lap track, a difference of 3 seconds (because of a tire-change, different driver, or whatever) becomes a 23 second difference on Nurburgring.*
It's very hard to get enough laps in a particular car to REALLY learn the track. I mean how many laps do these guys even get in one day?
Weather and temperature conditions also vary wildly.
With a track that long, every variable (primarily the ones NOT related to the car itself) is compounded to the extreme.

It's an amazing circuit and I'm not dissing the track itself, but it's not a good benchmark for these types of tests.

They need to find a shorter track, a few dedicated drivers (for consistency), and a sanctioning body to ensure nobody "cheats".

What do you all think?

63Corvette

Yes..................................IF they are "similar" cars.

95jersey

Go look up "Lightning Lap". Similiar thing, by rating cars lap times around VIR. Guess what's on top of that list as well.... :-)

vettehardt

I thought that is what Top Gear was for!!! Same track, same driver, but different weather throws some times out the window.

sydneyACE

I think Top Gear is doing a pretty good job with what they have.
However, their track is a little small. The don't have any good, long, high-speed turns. Follow-through and Bently are kinda fast, but just not very long... Plus it rains too much there (like you said), and track temp probably varies greatly.

I dunno, I guess I'm just nit-picking. Like I said, they're doing the best they can with what they have.

TLGunman

No. The Nurburgring doesn't have any sort of standard, or sanctioning body to keep it apples to apples, so the times will always be debated.

sydneyACE

I like the looks of that "Lightning Lap". Have to do some more reading, and see what the details are. So far it looks like a way better benchmark than the "Ring". At least the testing-body is "independant" and consistent.

muskamatt

No, because even if the z06 or zr1 is faster than the GTR or slower than the GT3RS, I would NEVER have the ***** to hit some of those CORNERS at 170+ mph.

A formula one car is super fast, but not if I am driving it :-)

RX-Ben

Useless in real life, great for advertising.
Tires are everything and usually never get disclosed (other than rumors). Toss on a set of A6s all of a sudden you can claim a crazy fast time. And, of course, the driver experience factor is huge.

Even if everything was spec'd, same driver, etc - if you are serious about tracking your car you will change a bunch of things/run into class rules so it is a useless metric for anything other than waxers/hot stove leaguers.

More interesting to me is the claimed Ultima test where they took .8 seconds out of an Fxx (w/Schumi driving) on a car w/AC (& 720hp!) that they drove to the track (though surely swapped on some sticker slicks).

http://jalopnik.com/5390985/50000-ul...r-track-record

AU N EGL

COULD BE.

Most companies use "segmented times."

They take the "fastest segments" and put them together for the lowest lap times. Could be construction on the track, raining on part but not all the track, Pit In to Pit Out times, not full lap times.

GM is one of the only companies that does not use segmented times.

ie too many variables to really compare lap times.

GS023

http://www.youtube.com/results?searc...19l514l2.3l5l0

rustyguns

But as long as GM does it the same every time, that works for me If the others cheat........ it just ruins their reputation and destroys their sales ! CHEATERS NEVER PROSPER!

rocsvette

Nurburgring is a very specialized track but it's ok if you are doing comparisons. As pointed out previously it is so long that variations will always be a factor between runs. Even the weather changes on the same day at different parts of the track. Also you have the "segment" times vs. straight run.

Here at the NCM we now have the Nurburgring ZR1 and Z06 and at Bash we will have Track Rat Jim Mero, the driver, doing a seminar about setting the records. He'll be joined by team member Jeff Mosher about what went into making these runs.

Biggest issue with comparison is that each company prepares its cars its own way so there isn't really a leveled field

sydneyACE

This thread is starting to baffle me lol!

I look at the poll (currently 9 to 5) voting FOR the Ring as a good benchmark. Then I look at the posts, and all but 1 are giving reasons why it's NOT a good benchmark.

It makes me think that those that voted yes have no evidence to support why they did so.

There are 7 posts (including mine) that describe why the Ring is a bad comparison benchmark, yet only 5 votes (again, including mine) that say it's no good.

What's going-on? LOL!

Those that voted "yes" support your vote! (Maybe there's something the rest of us are missing.)

So far the concensus in the POSTS is;
It's not consistent because:
Every manyfacturer doesn't use the same driver (or at least the same independent group of drivers). IMO this is #1 reason why it's no-good.

Each manufacturer preps its own cars. (They can "cheat" by using non-production tires, etc.)

Weather on the ring varies too much.

Some manufacturers use "segmented" times.

Z06Norway

I think it is a very good benchmark.

I agree, that a 4 sep. split difference on Nurburgring is nothing, because of the distance and time elapsed.
Would we gawk over a 0.10 sec difference between Porsche GT2 RS and ZR1 on Willow springs ?

There will always be different track conditions regardless of test track you should choose, i trust the vendors pick the best possible time they can squeeze out of their car

Why would a 1 minute track be better ?

Nurburgring is as close as you get to Normal road, actually it is a toll road. i know it does not look like most US roads, but in Europe we have lots of roads like this, thats where you outshine a competitor in driving skills, not on I95, flooring it


Rune

rocsvette

I have a copy of an article written by Shields Bergstrom who has driven for Aston and is currently in DTM in Germany and in it he goes through all the technical reasons that the 'Ring isn't really the proper test bed for street based cars.

TBIRD57

Car guys.

Pfadt Racing

I think that the answer to the straight up question of if it is good to compare one lap time to another and assume they indicate the actual target performance from each vehicle, then the answer is no. As others have mentioned, there are simply too many variables especially on bridge-to-gate (BTG) times. This is why we have not posted our times in our 'Ring Rental Corvette there, because if we did, undoubtedly someone would say our products make the car go slower than (enter best Z06 time on stickiest tires in dry weather with experienced driver here).

From our experience at the 24hours of the Nürburgring, we can tell you that running an actual race there will yield pretty consistent results lap-after-lap, and that offers a much better representation as to the outright pace of a certain vehicle or class of vehicle.

But, in our opinion, it IS a valid testing grounds for vehicles and chassis specifically for a number of reasons. I don't think that comparing a 7:41 lap from car A and a 7:47 lap from car B is reasonable. BUT, to say that "both of those cars have fast, valid times at the Ring" is certainly a metric you aspire to. So it could be more of a pass/fail situation where the measure of success is judged by the relative performance on the Nordschleife. I think (judging by the responses here especially) that it is fair to say many people recognize that the resolution in comparison procedure from two completely separate cars at different times, is not entirely accurate to call it apples to apples.

63Corvette

"But, in our opinion, it IS a valid testing grounds for vehicles and chassis specifically for a number of reasons. I don't think that comparing a 7:41 lap from car A and a 7:47 lap from car B is reasonable. BUT, to say that "both of those cars have fast, valid times at the Ring" is certainly a metric you aspire to. So it could be more of a pass/fail situation where the measure of success is judged by the relative performance on the Nordschleife. I think (judging by the responses here especially) that it is fair to say many people recognize that the resolution in comparison procedure from two completely separate cars at different times, is not entirely accurate to call it apples to apples."

I concur!

VetteDrmr

Aaron said it much better than I could have. The Ring is a great evaluation of a car; experiencing many conditions in a single lap. The lap is long enough for heat soak to rear its head for the entire car, as opposed to a best hot lap on a (much) shorter track.

And, as far as the manufacturer's bringing their best game to the Ring, what's wrong with that? If you aren't bringing your A game then you pay the penalty.

Have a good one,
Mike