Are Nurburgring laps times relevant in 2008?

[///M-Spec]

I'm creating this thread and including a poll in order to continue discussion of this topic, which started from another thread.

State your opinion: Is this venerable benchmark, now suddenly the holy grail of automotive manufacturers, relevant in this day and age?

Does a fast ring time make one car better than another?

Is this just a continuation of the horsepower war, where manufacturers are constantly out doing one another until the numbers get so huge (or in this case, low) that there is no longer meaning in them? Or is the market simply responding to demand?

If car makers are simply giving us what we want, are we --the consumers and car enthusiasts they cater to, going to win in the end?

Discuss.


IMPORTANT NOTE: Asshattery strictly prohibited. You all know the drill.

EDIT: Slight change in phrasing in poll option 3.


M

 

[Joey D]

Honestly Ring times are pointless in my opinion, the track has way to many variables for times to be consistent and to many manufactures run the Ring with questionable equipment. I'm all for putting a roll bar and harnesses in the car so if the driver looses control at 150mph he/she has a chance of surviving, but racing slicks/cut slicks and unrestricted engines are something I do not agree with. If the car is sold as something restricted to 155mph then that's how it should be tested.

And really, just because X car got lucky and pulled a better time than another car doesn't make it good. I'm all for tuning the suspension on the Ring since it is pretty grueling and is a good mark to make a car decent in the handling department but really I could not care less if some company builds a car that beats some other car around the Ring. It will probably be rubbish on the road.

I would be more impressed with fast times around an actual race track like Silverstone, Infieon Raceway, or Suzuka.

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

I'm not quite sure what I think. It is a great track, but it was and will still always be one track. The good thing is many cars have set times on it so we can compare them...somewhat. But the cars still have to show their performance around other tracks to prove themselves.

Is this just a continuation of the horsepower war, where manufacturers are constantly out doing one another until the numbers get so huge (or in this case, low) that there is no longer meaning in them? Or is the market simply responding to demand?


If car makers are simply giving us what we want, are we --the consumers and car enthusiasts they cater to, going to win in the end?

M

I think it's pretty cool that we have two cars that can go around the Ring so fast, yet be so different, and come at a relatively low cost. Of course the ZR1 has yet to be tested elsewhere.

 

[forza2.0]

IMO manufacturer stated times doesnt mean anything at all. Too many differentials to be able to make a fair and subject comparison between manufacturers.

Sport Auto ring times are the only times in which you can draw rough conclusions from or make rough comparisons due to the fact that they state weather conditions, track temperature, and tyres used. I would also like to think they give a pretty unbiased opinion on the car.

 

[Famine]

'Ring times ought to be assigned exactly the same importance as 0-60mph times...

 

[Leonidae]

IMHO, it's an important benchmark when measuring overall performance. Nurburgring has so vast variety of corners and surfaces etc that it tests all possible areas of performance. Braking, acceleration, cornering, reliability.. but then again , I consider laps that are done in trackday cars or kitcars irrelevant, since they're designed to be fast on track. Road car or production car usually doesn't have fully adjustable suspension from factory, nor huge wing, and achieving fast laptimes is more impressive since it needs some serious skill to keep the production car on track, since the suspension setup is usually a compromise between performance, safety and comfort.

just my 0.02 cents.

 

[MustangSVT]

I would say no. I say that because who knows what the manufacturers do to the cars that run at the Nurb. For all I know, a lot of these cars are running tyres that aren't exactly suitable for everyday road use (so they might be running something better than just summer tyres). Also who know if they shaved off a bit of weight somehow? So yes I think they're pretty meaningless.

For all purposes, I considers cars like Z06, F430, Gallardo, GT-R, Ford GT, Porsche 911 GT3 in the same "class". In order for one of them to be faster on the track being used by regular owners of these types of cars, it would really come down to the driver and how much they're willing to push it to the limit. Not whether or not "X" car is faster than "Y" car by a marginal increment.

 

[homeforsummer]

'Ring times ought to be assigned exactly the same importance as 0-60mph times...

You mean false importance...

0-60 times are deceptive. Sometimes I think "hmm, the figures for that car seem pretty slow", and then you realise it's because the tester had to change gear at 59mph and really it's actually much quicker than its rivals. In gear times are better, but the most relevant indicator of acceleration is maybe from 30-70mph through the gears, as this is the range you'd use on the open road, and town times maybe from 5-30mph, as it's not often you'll go racing off the line in town, but you may need a quick burst now and then.

This ties in nicely with...

The best indicator of a car's performance isn't it's Nurburgring lap time, it's how quickly and safely it can get you down a normal road. A car in the hands of a professional racing driver around the ring may be blindingly fast, but if the average Joe puts it through a hedge trying to go quickly on the road, then it isn't a particularly useable performance car.

 

[Keef]

I think a car's performance can be highly tuned through testing on the track (or any track, really) but I think the car's lap time itself is not at all a precise measure of its performance. Especially on a track as large as the Nurburgring. The longer and more complicated the track, the more mistakes the driver is prone to make. One of the best ways to make a lap time truly relevant is to have the same drive pilot all the cars. But that doesn't happen at the Ring.

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

This ties in nicely with...

The best indicator of a car's performance isn't it's Nurburgring lap time, it's how quickly and safely it can get you down a normal road. A car in the hands of a professional racing driver around the ring may be blindingly fast, but if the average Joe puts it through a hedge trying to go quickly on the road, then it isn't a particularly useable performance car.

But should the average joe be able to go quickly on a normal road?

 

[Keef]

But should the average joe be able to go quickly on a normal road?

Yes, they should.

Anyway, I can't wait to see the first manufacturer to put the Rong time in one of their advertisements. That'll make me giggle.

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

Yes, they should.

Anyway, I can't wait to see the first manufacturer to put the Rong time in one of their advertisements. That'll make me giggle.

So they should drive a Lexus?

 

[nissan tuner]

developing a car on the ring, i think, is still important. with all those different bumps and corners, its a great testbed for suspension and overall grip

 

[mustangGT90210]

I voted Maybe. I think it tests the suspension great, but beyond that, the time is just like a top speed. The average man will NEVER get close to it.

 

[The Porko]

I believe the times don't matter clearly because each manufacture has a different driver testing there car. Skill on a course like that would make a huge difference in regards to times.

But developing a car on that course i believe is still pretty important. Its a though track and manufractures can really test out there suspension setups and develop the car further then a majority of other tracks out there.

 

[Brett]

I think I am going to go with the "Maybe" vote. I go with that one because having a good time at the 'Ring can be a good indicator of what a car is capable of doing and also how well sorted the suspension on a vehicle is. At the same time, since cars are not usually tested at the same time of day and by the same driver, the times are only just an indicator of performance and cannot be taken overly seriously or the end-all be-all performance measurement.

So, my answer is 'Ring are somewhat relevant, while being somewhat non-relevant too.

Instead of providing comparison times for cars, the important thing the 'Ring does is that it helps the various manufacturers' engineers better develop a car.

 

[1X83Z]

'Ring times ought to be assigned exactly the same importance as 0-60mph times...

aka

A good comparative tool and a nice thing to argue about, but until you get behind the wheel of the car there's no way to even form a concept. Agreed you purple devil.

 

[Perfect Balance]

And really, just because X car got lucky and pulled a better time than another car doesn't make it good.

Cars don't really have good days and bad days, but the driver definitely makes a difference.


The 'ring is a high speed course, a faster car on the straights has a big advantage over one that is slightly slower but handles way better. It's simply too long of a track to have accurate results, because a few better exits out of a few turns easily yields seconds of time. I'd even say that wind makes a difference on a track as long as this.

EDIT: @homeforsummer:

If you're an average Joe, why are you trying to drive your car quickly on the streets in the first place? In that situation I hope you do put your car into a hedge.

 

[exigeracer]

I'm going to stay out of this one because I can't afford the time to formulate a full argument, but I don't think it matters anymore. I voted though.

0-60 times are deceptive. Sometimes I think "hmm, the figures for that car seem pretty slow", and then you realise it's because the tester had to change gear at 59mph and really it's actually much quicker than its rivals.

Reminds me of when Lotus first released times for the first 111R cars. Performance numbers rarely ever mentioned 0-100kph times because the shift occured right after 0-60, and the extra 2.5~ mph to 100kph happened right in that little space.

 

[Perfect Balance]

Reminds me of when Lotus first released times for the first 111R cars. Performance numbers rarely ever mentioned 0-100kph times because the shift occured right after 0-60, and the extra 2.5~ mph to 100kph happened right in that little space.

A lot like the Corvette. The first gear goes to 60mph so it has a fast 0-60, but in anything other than normal city driving, 1st gear really isn't used.

 

[Motominded]

i think they are important. Granted a street car "official" numbers should relate to how the car is sold on the street, but i believe there is no other proving ground of a car than the ring and it has been that way for 50 years.

 

[Famine]

'Ring times ought to be assigned exactly the same importance as 0-60mph times...

You mean false importance...

aka

A good comparative tool and a nice thing to argue about, but until you get behind the wheel of the car there's no way to even form a concept. Agreed you purple devil.

Dammit.

I make a deliberately amibiguous statement and both the people responding to it got my meaning spot on.

 

[nd 4 holden spd]

I just voted maybe, it's sort of an interesting novelty thing, but I don't think it proves anything. On such a long track, driver error is too misleading, and there will always be a bit/a lot of driver error. So yeah, it is a bit of fun, but doesn't really prove anything.

 

[Duke]

I voted Option 3, with a side order of Option 2.

aka

A good comparative tool and a nice thing to argue about, but until you get behind the wheel of the car there's no way to even form a concept. Agreed you purple devil.

Oh, so now that you have a car without an impressively fast 0-60 time, suddenly 0-60 times are nothing more than a "nice thing to argue about" instead of the sole factor (aside from the number of standard airbags) that determines a car's desirability? And you can't "even form a concept" until you actually drive the car?

You transparent bastard.

 

[Bram Turismo]

But should the average joe be able to go quickly on a normal road?

No, because you're not allowed to do that (Unless it's a race track of course)


I find those times absolutely pointless. Cars are being built mearly to show off on the 'Ring these days, rather than being tested on all kind of tracks, like for example Suzuka. A lot of people are being obsessed and astounded by the GTR's performance at the 'Ring, while in my eyes, this car was only designed to go fast around this track, and not another.

The GTR may have beaten a Porsche here, but I refuse to believe a Porsche will surrender that easy on a different track...

 

[Greycap]

The GTR may have beaten a Porsche here, but I refuse to believe a Porsche will surrender that easy on a different track...

Refuse freely.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjwJl4t-DF8
https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showpost.php?p=2927771&postcount=2020
http://www.nagtroc.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=22031
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Features/articleId=123940#24
http://www.carmagazine.co.uk/Magazine/Search-Results/April-2008-Issue/?
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews...t_r_vs_2008_porsche_911_turbo_comparison_test
https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showpost.php?p=3066276&postcount=2413

This far every Porsche below the GT2 has indeed surrendered, and even the GT2 got beaten in cornering.

But to my answer to the question, the times tell something about the cars but should not be taken as final comparison results.

 

[Joey D]

Cars don't really have good days and bad days, but the driver definitely makes a difference.

The car can be running better that day than another day due to weather, track conditions, etc. A lot of the times are based on a little bit of luck when the ideal conditions are present for the car. That's what I meant.

This is still why Ring times are pointless, there are a million variables that can happen so it proves nothing about the car. And as I've said until manufactures are completely honest with their test procedures then I see no point in comparing Ring times.

 

[McLaren]

Plain & simple, no, I do not think 'Ring times are that important anymore. You can set the fastest time there for all of anyone who cares, but the car's true performance is just going to be shown on other tracks.

 

[GilesGuthrie]

I voted Option 3, with a side order of Option 2.



Oh, so now that you have a car without an impressively fast 0-60 time, suddenly 0-60 times are nothing more than a "nice thing to argue about" instead of the sole factor (aside from the number of standard airbags) that determines a car's desirability? And you can't "even form a concept" until you actually drive the car?

You transparent bastard.

Aren't you mapping out a shift from theory to practice there?!

As has already been said, there are simply too many variables to consider one time "equivalent" to another. 'Ring times are an irrelevance.

Also, a car's speed on the road is much more a function of the driver's attitude than the performance of the car. Just ask the guy in the Focus ST who got seriously harassed along a back road by a late dude in a 1.4l Audi A2...

 

[1X83Z]

Oh, so now that you have a car without an impressively fast 0-60 time, suddenly 0-60 times are nothing more than a "nice thing to argue about" instead of the sole factor (aside from the number of standard airbags) that determines a car's desirability? And you can't "even form a concept" until you actually drive the car?

You transparent bastard.

You skipped the "a good comparative tool" bit. I would still purchase a quicker car all else being sort of equal. Acceleration, to me, is still the most important fun factor in a car... turning is awesome but since 95% of my driving is on straight roads, being able to gas it and hear your passengers let out a scream is where it's at.

I know TSX owners have a tough time understanding what it means to accelerate well.