HKS CT230R Tuner or Racer?

  • Thread starter Thread starter GYMKHANA_RYAN4
  • 420 comments
  • 30,232 views

Tuner or Racer?


  • Total voters
    319
Huh? I've told you no such thing. As I've said, and I say it again, to me, "racing" in order to beat a best time is not what makes a race. That's all I've said here, nothing else. I wasn't saying that a race against the clock cannot be a race, nor that you're agreeing with it. In fact, I've previously said it could well be a race, depending on the format. And I've made the point that the format of an event is what I consider to be the most important factor here, not that it's a case of "racing" in order to beat the best time.

You said:

But it seems you're actually agreeing with me here that "racing" to beat the fastest time doesn't make a race in formal terms.

Which I did not say at all.

It's all a form of "racing", but there's a difference between what's traditionally called a race and a time trial, just like there is a difference between a qualifying session and the main race. It doesn't make these both races, it makes these both a form of "racing". If you go ahead and call the parent term of a race and a time trial a race, then yes, a time trial is a race, and a race is a race, and you've got an ambiguity. But, if people use race to refer not to the parent but to the child term "race", then a time trial is not a race, and I don't see where all sporting bodies would have agreed to race being the parent term for races (as in wheel-to-wheel races) and time trials. Where is this universally defined?

I agree that the tomato is a fruit. But if I go ahead and call the parent term for all fruits tomato, then the banana is a tomato as well. Now, one could well argue that the banana is not a tomato, if one refers not to the parent term, but to the sibling.

Race: Definition: Merriam Webster: A contest of speed. Or, alternatively, a contest involving progress towards a goal.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/race

-

See, here's the problem. "Wheel-to-wheel racing" is a sub-term. "Time trial" is a sub-term. Racing is a parent term. You're excluding the tomato simply because it isn't a banana.


Nobody needs to prove any of their opinions, unless they actually don't think they're opinions, but facts.

"I don't consider time trials racing" is a statement of opinion. "Time trials are not races" is a statement of fact. You don't need to defend the former, but on this site, people are likely to call you out.

Not necessarily, no. And not really in the same format as a time trial either.

That's simply not true for all rally events. Some rally events are judged based on how close you come to the "ideal" time. Faster isn't necessarily better.

Let's re-phrase. Most professional rally events are time trials. Other rally events may include time-matching where the closest to a target time wins. It's still racing against the clock or to match the clock. Still a race, in much the same way a time trial is a race.

Whether there is wheel-to-wheel racing involved or not is, quite frankly, irrelevant. In a time trial it actually is all about the fastest time, and time trials aren't set in stages. A rally is not exactly what a time trial is, or rather, a rally isn't a time trial.

Yet, what is different about a rally and a time attack? The winner of a professional rally event such as the WRC or similar events like the BRC and Asia Pacific rally is whoever sets the fastest time for the total course length for the event. Whether or not that is in one continuous run or in stages.

But it does.

So, if they call it a breakfast cereal, it's not a race, but if they call it a race, it is?

So? But qualifying sessions are "racing" to beat the fastest time, no? And I said that's not what makes it a race. And I've equally said it's the format of the event that's more relevant here. And from what I seem to read here, you seem to be agreeing, no?

Again, and just in case this wasn't clear, I'm not saying "racing" to beat the fastest time cannot be considered a race, I've merely said it isn't a sufficient requirement. The format is equally relevant. And isn't that exactly what you're saying above?

It sounds like you're suggesting that the format of an event is most relevant here, and not the fact that it is a case of "racing" to beat the best time. Oddly enough, that's exactly what I've been saying.

So what's wrong with the format of a time attack? You have entrants that are categorized according to class, ranked according to finishing order, and winners are given prizes. That sounds a lot like WRC, BRC, APR, Pikes Peak, the New Zealand Race to the Clouds and other races around the world.

The rest of your post... well... rehash. The confusion here is what you consider the "parent term" and how it's defined.

Your other point is in regards to the format. Your problem is that a time attack has as its target a set time instead of beating other drivers. Yet prizes are given for beating other drivers, so time attack is head to head racing. And, as you've pointed out, there are rallies where the target is also a set time. And those are also considered races.

I don't know what more you want from a racing event. I'd ask... what does a time attack actually lack that other forms of racing don't?
 
Last edited:
I believe if it's not street legal - it's a race car. Very simple and straight forward. If it's not street legal, and it's not a race car, then what is it? A UFO?
 
You said:

But it seems you're actually agreeing with me here that "racing" to beat the fastest time doesn't make a race in formal terms.

Which I did not say at all.

This is what I was referring to:

You're telling me I'm agreeing that a race against the clock is not a race. I'm not.

I've never said such thing. As I've said before, what I was saying was that "racing" to beat the fastest time isn't a sufficient requirement for there to be a race. I didn't say that "racing" to beat the fastest time isn't a race. These are two entirely different statements.

And if you're not agreeing that "racing" to beat the fastest time isn't a sufficient requirement for there to be a race, then you must necessarily consider F1 qualifying sessions as races in their own right, and that was the point here.

Race: Definition: Merriam Webster: A contest of speed. Or, alternatively, a contest involving progress towards a goal.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/race

That's what you bring forward as the universal definition of "race" to cover all motor sporting bodies?

Have you read the very first alternative?

"the act of running"

Or, as I've previously mentioned, the act of driving fast. Surely, if you bring forward Merriam Webster to universally rule all motor sporting bodies, then all motor sporting bodies would have to consider the act of driving fast to be a race, no?

So, then driving fast is racing? It doesn't even have to be a contest of speed? Or are you saying there's only one right definition of "race" even in the dictionary? You know, I could probably find you another dictionary to confuse the issue even further. The whole point was that "race" is an ambiguous term.

Something you, oddly enough, seem to agree with at points, but then at other points in your argument you seem to completely ignore it, and act like it means one, and only one, thing?

See, here's the problem. "Wheel-to-wheel racing" is a sub-term. "Time trial" is a sub-term. Racing is a parent term. You're excluding the tomato simply because it isn't a banana.

Actually, I was excluding the banana, because it isn't a tomato. In fact, I wasn't really excluding anything at all, I was simply talking in specifics. As I've said myself, "racing" is a parent term, but what's considered to be a race, in formal terms, isn't just dependent on dictionary definitions, or placings within taxonomies, it depends on a range of factors, and people can understand different things when they say "race" without having to be wrong. That was the point.

As said, "racing" to beat the fastest time isn't a sufficient requirement for there to be a race. And you'll have to either agree, or consider F1 qualifying sessions to be races in their own right.

"I don't consider time trials racing" is a statement of opinion. "Time trials are not races" is a statement of fact. You don't need to defend the former, but on this site, people are likely to call you out.

But if they feel the need to call me out, then surely, the burden of proof is on them. It's up to them to convince me, and not the other way around, or?

And why should I accept a particular dictionary definition as to what I consider to be a race and what not, if the dictionary equally makes me believe that the act of driving fast is a race. My whole point was that "race" is ambiguous, something even dictionaries will attest to, and you cannot just argue that it means one, and only one, thing. Or can you?

Where exactly does it say that "race" denotes the parent term for time trial and wheel-to-wheel racing, and nothing else?

Let's re-phrase. Most professional rally events are time trials. Other rally events may include time-matching where the closest to a target time wins. It's still racing against the clock or to match the clock. Still a race, in much the same way a time trial is a race.

As long as we don't make blanket statements that a rally is a time trial, I really don't have any issues here.

Yet, what is different about a rally and a time attack? The winner of a professional rally event such as the WRC or similar events like the BRC and Asia Pacific rally is whoever sets the fastest time for the total course length for the event. Whether or not that is in one continuous run or in stages.

The format. It's very different. If it wasn't, these would actually be the same type of event.

So, if they call it a breakfast cereal, it's not a race, but if they call it a race, it is?

Not exactly. It's more a case of if nobody calls it a race, why would it be a race? This, of course, extends out, if only half the people call it a race, why should it be a race to everyone?

So what's wrong with the format of a time attack? You have entrants that are categorized according to class, ranked according to finishing order, and winners are given prizes. That sounds a lot like WRC, BRC, APR, Pikes Peak, the New Zealand Race to the Clouds and other races around the world.

Nothing's wrong with it. It's simply important to me to highlight certain differences between formats of different events. I've said it previously, if you want to subsume all these under the parent term "race", then everything becomes a race. But if the reasoning behind this is no other than to cover just about anything under "race", because it matches some dictionary definition, what would be different about the reasoning to cover anything under "race" using a different dictionary definition? And then we could well say driving to the train station fast to catch the train on time is a race, and we could really call just about any car a race car. While one can't keep others from doing what they're doing, surely, one must not adhere to the terminology of anyone else, or? Unless you're saying it really is universally defined, just like the tomato is universally classified as a fruit? So far, I've not seen any universal classification of terminology with respect to "race", even looking at dictionaries, it can well mean different things, and if anyone would actually want to tell me it is universally classified, I'd call ******** on that, and I'd like to see proof. As said, the burden of proof would be on them here, because it is them who are calling my opinion factually wrong. So then, where are the facts? Mind you, I don't need any facts in order to firm my opinion, it is, after all, just an opinion.

It is, after all, just an opinion that qualifying sessions aren't races. I'd never call them races. That the F1 governing body doesn't seem to call them races either really has nothing to do with it. But, it would be something I'd put forward if one would make a factual statement that says these are races.

I simply don't see how all this is so clear cut defined as you make it out to be. I think it's more a case of wishful thinking, than an actuality.

The rest of your post... well... rehash. The confusion here is what you consider the "parent term" and how it's defined.

You sure that's what's actually the case? I have to ask again, do you believe "race" can only mean one thing? And everyone who has a slightly different understanding of "race" is necessarily wrong? And no, I haven't figured it out yet, as you seem to agree to the ambiguity of "race" at times, but then you seemingly ignore it in your argument.

Your other point is in regards to the format. Your problem is that a time attack has as its target a set time instead of beating other drivers. Yet prizes are given for beating other drivers, so time attack is head to head racing. And, as you've pointed out, there are rallies where the target is also a set time. And those are also considered races.

I don't know what more you want from a racing event. I'd ask... what does a time attack actually lack that other forms of racing don't?

Why do you suddenly make this about a time attack, and what I find lacking? To me, this has been about the term "race" and what it means. Particularly, it has been about the ambiguity of "race", and my disagreement with the fact that some people seem to act like it wasn't, and their claim that others are wrong, supposedly, because "race" means a very particular thing, which is somehow universally defined, and everyone who doesn't have the same understanding of "race" is wrong. Yet, when asked for the actual facts, as to where this is universally defined, all I'm getting in return are dictionary definitions where one alternative has been handpicked and all others are ignored. Is that what I'm supposed to accept as proof? Really?

Edit: Apologies for not proof-reading my post earlier, to say necessary where I should have said sufficient was a clear error on my part. And the word censored out is the one starting with bull, just in case it shouldn't have come across. Wouldn't actually have though it was worthy of censorship, but well, I'll make a note for future reference. :)
 
Last edited:
I've never said such thing. As I've said before, what I was saying was that "racing" to beat the fastest time isn't a sufficient requirement for there to be a race. I didn't say that "racing" to beat the fastest time isn't a race. These are two entirely different statements.

And if you're not agreeing that "racing" to beat the fastest time isn't a sufficient requirement for there to be a race, then you must necessarily consider F1 qualifying sessions as races in their own right, and that was the point here.

Again, the goal of qualifying is merely to qualify for the main race, which means the qualifying isn't an event in its own right. Is it a race? Yes. Is it a standalone racing event, no.

Would it make you feel better if you consider the fact that the fastest time a time attacker is trying to beat was set by another competitor? Racing does not require the other participant to be physically present during the other competitor's run. (Rally, again)


So, then driving fast is racing? It doesn't even have to be a contest of speed? Or are you saying there's only one right definition of "race" even in the dictionary? You know, I could probably find you another dictionary to confuse the issue even further. The whole point was that "race" is an ambiguous term.

Something you, oddly enough, seem to agree with at points, but then at other points in your argument you seem to completely ignore it, and act like it means one, and only one, thing?

Racing, as a sport, is a contest of speed, or a contest in which participants aim to be first to attain a certain goal. A sport is a contest. A contest without other contestants is not a contest. (And again, a time attack is a contest with at least two contestants, the record holder and the attacker, as well as dozens of other attackers). What's so ambiguous about that? You're arguing that ambiguity is a pro- for your side, but it isn't.

Actually, I was excluding the banana, because it isn't a tomato. In fact, I wasn't really excluding anything at all, I was simply talking in specifics. As I've said myself, "racing" is a parent term, but what's considered to be a race, in formal terms, isn't just dependent on dictionary definitions, or placings within taxonomies, it depends on a range of factors, and people can understand different things when they say "race" without having to be wrong. That was the point.

A race is a race. Anytime two contestants compete to attain a goal in a contest of speed or distance is a race. If you and I were trying to be the first to reach the 100th page of this thread, it would be considered a race.

Now, what you're looking for is a universal Sports Code ruling as to what constitutes a race or not. Which we both know isn't there, because the term is considered unamibiguous enough to not require explanation. All we can go by is examples. Certain organizations, such as the FIA, consider hillclimbs to be races, and those are time trials, with cars racing individually to set the fastest time. Some hillclimbs give you multiple heats, some single heats, just like a time attack or time trial on track.

"Time attacks" are in their infancy in the west, so few organizations sanction them, but those that do consider them races.

Of course, governing bodies can't even agree as to what constitutes a "production" car, so let's leave it at that.


But if they feel the need to call me out, then surely, the burden of proof is on them. It's up to them to convince me, and not the other way around, or?

It's the job of both sides to convince others viewing the debate that they're right. Whether or not one of the debaters is able to convince the other is often inconsequential, otherwise one could hold on to their position as long as humanly possible solely in order to win. Which is why the Creation versus Evolution thread is so darn long. :lol:

And why should I accept a particular dictionary definition as to what I consider to be a race and what not, if the dictionary equally makes me believe that the act of driving fast is a race. My whole point was that "race" is ambiguous, something even dictionaries will attest to, and you cannot just argue that it means one, and only one, thing. Or can you?

Where exactly does it say that "race" denotes the parent term for time trial and wheel-to-wheel racing, and nothing else?

I simply don't see how all this is so clear cut defined as you make it out to be. I think it's more a case of wishful thinking, than an actuality.

Here's a challenge. Find an exception to the rule. Then find another. Then find another. Now find an exception to the rule that is universally not considered racing. Any ambiguousity in terms actually supports my position rather than yours, as I'm not arguing on the side of exclusion, I'm arguing on the side of inclusion... that the sport of racing at the very least includes time trials and wheel-to-wheel racing.

Now what's not ambiguous is that the racing we're talking about is racing as a sport. And a sport requires competitors. In other words, racing your engine does not make a "race". Racing to the store does not make a "race".Racing from stoplight to stoplight against another car does. What makes it an official race? Depends on the officials. Just as in a similar argument in the drift forum, that drift cars can't be AWD or FWD. Meh. It depends on the sanctioning body whether or not they allow it.


Why do you suddenly make this about a time attack, and what I find lacking? To me, this has been about the term "race" and what it means. Particularly, it has been about the ambiguity of "race", and my disagreement with the fact that some people seem to act like it wasn't, and their claim that others are wrong, supposedly, because "race" means a very particular thing, which is somehow universally defined, and everyone who doesn't have the same understanding of "race" is wrong. Yet, when asked for the actual facts, as to where this is universally defined, all I'm getting in return are dictionary definitions where one alternative has been handpicked and all others are ignored. Is that what I'm supposed to accept as proof? Really?

Because I would like to know what part of the format of time attack excludes it from being called a "race" in your eyes. As I've stated, it's a competitive event between a number of contestants for fastest time, merely with the added bonus of trying to beat another contestant's time set during a previous event.

You're arguing two sides... one is that you don't consider a time attack a race. The other is that "race" is an ambiguous term that could mean anything, and you're arguing that my definition of a time attack as a race is me excluding other definitions, when in fact, it's the other way around.


I'll make a note for future reference. :)

No problems. As long as you caught it yourself and corrected yourself, no foul. 👍
 
Last edited:
I believe if it's not street legal - it's a race car. Very simple and straight forward. If it's not street legal, and it's not a race car, then what is it? A UFO?
All of the cars in GT5 can be potentially street legal, there is no way to tell if they are registered for the road or not (you can not tell by the way a car looks). If you treat them as "your" cars which are in your garage, you can state "yes, i have registered them all, they are all road legal". No one can dispute you then as they are your cars in your garage in GT5 after all. This is a blurring effect between reality and what is yours in your GT world.
 
Obviously a race car.
Just because it's made by HKS doesn't mean it's a tuner, wake up people.

- Not street legal
- Purpose built machine for a racing event (Time Trial in AWD Unlimited category)
 
IMG0047.jpg


This car is about cr60K in the UCD and it'll beat just about any non-racecar around the track when it's fully tuned.

5339502211_4eaf5b382b.jpg

This car is very slow and very expensive. It costs more than 10x more than the first one I showed. It's not a race car.


Price. Doesn't. Matter.

the ZZII is a Beast of a car and tommy kaira was a branch of Autobacs.... or at least i think thats how you spell it.
 
Built to race against the clock. Not allowed on the streets. No headlights. And I've read all 21 pages, and nobody mentioned it, the rear spoiler is bolted on the chassis, not on the body, so you can't even open the boot.

Race car. Without a doubt. Built by a tuningcompany.
 
Built to race against the clock. Not allowed on the streets. No headlights. And I've read all 21 pages, and nobody mentioned it, the rear spoiler is bolted on the chassis, not on the body, so you can't even open the boot.

Race car. Without a doubt. Built by a tuningcompany.

👍👍👍👍
 
Ok, I have the answer people. Are you ready. You sure? Ok.

It's A Driving Machine. :dunce:

Think of it like the Paganini Zonda R. It's not built to actually race. It's not road legal either. It is just built to be fast.
 
Ok, I have the answer people. Are you ready. You sure? Ok.

It's A Driving Machine. :dunce:

Think of it like the Paganini Zonda R. It's not built to actually race. It's not road legal either. It is just built to be fast.

*sigh.

Please read the thread.
 
Ok, I have the answer people. Are you ready. You sure? Ok.

It's A Driving Machine. :dunce:

Think of it like the Paganini Zonda R. It's not built to actually race. It's not road legal either. It is just built to be fast.

Actually you're wrong.
Zonda R is a track car, so techically it's a race car which isn't made to follow any class/regulations.
Same can be said with Maseratti MC12 Corsa and Ferrari FXX.
 
Seeing as the CT230R is one of my absolute favourites in this game, I suppose I can give my view of this.

The game clearly classes it as a tuner car, and I therefore view it as such. In the arcade races you race it in it's against Mine's Skylines and High End G37, it appears in the Tuning Car Grand Prix and it comes on Sports Softs. Those are mainly signs of a tuner car. It can compete with race cars easily, and it has many race car parts (although it crucially lacks an FC Tranny stock and also doesn't have much downforce). It doesn't have headlights either so it isn't entirely useful in many series with night races. I say tuner, but Jesus Christ, is that poll close. :eek:
 
Technically, it is not a race car, as it wasn't built to conform any regulations whatsoever. It isn't racing any other cars on the track, so it's not a race car, because it isn't raced. But it isn't a tuner car either, because its been modified to the point where its pretty much a new car in its entirety. A tuner car is basically a normal street legal car modified to be faster and better than its stock counterpart. Racing cars are built for one purpose: to win races. But the CT230R is built to show off their products and beat time records. Basically its just a publicity car, to show off what HKS can do. But if they decide they want to race it, then that makes it a race car.
 
Technically, it is not a race car, as it wasn't built to conform any regulations whatsoever. It isn't racing any other cars on the track, so it's not a race car, because it isn't raced. But it isn't a tuner car either, because its been modified to the point where its pretty much a new car in its entirety. A tuner car is basically a normal street legal car modified to be faster and better than its stock counterpart. Racing cars are built for one purpose: to win races. But the CT230R is built to show off their products and beat time records. Basically its just a publicity car, to show off what HKS can do. But if they decide they want to race it, then that makes it a race car.

I agree with the blue part.

Technically, it is not a race car
Based on what grounds...you know time trial is a racing discipline, right?

it wasn't built to conform any regulations whatsoever
But it is-built to race in AWD Unlimited class for Tsukuba Time Trialing [time trial is a racing discipline (like rally)].

it isn't racing any other cars on the track, so it's not a race car, because it isn't raced
"Just because it isn't raced it isn't a race car" - what?! Jaguar XJ13 is a race car yet it has never been raced, that not racer too?
 
Had this debate in a lobby the other day.

Is the HKS a tuning car or a racing car?

I would class it as a tuner for these simple reasons.

1) HKS is a tuning company, they sell and provide parts for tuned cars.

2) It doesn't feel like a race car. The handling feels more like that of a road going GT-R, with a bit more understeer.

3) The price tag is nothing like that of most racing cars. It's something like 200k .cr which is miles off any race car you can buy with an equal amount of power, the closest too it are the GT300 cars which are waaay less powerful (despite handling being fantastic)

4) It took part in the Tsukuba Super Lap TT. This was an event for tuned cars on sports tyres.


Anyone agree/disagree with my point?

Opinions Needed!

Thanks

Ryan

The HKS CT230R is for Boyracers. End of story :yuck: .
 
it all depends on the definitions: what do you call a tuner car... or a race car


but a few points or questions?
1.what do you call a car that is allowed only on tracks?
2 does a tuner car has to be road legal?
3 does a race car have to compete in a racing series?

as long as you don't agree on the definitions of what a tuner-car or a race car is, how can you decide in which categorie this car belongs.


the best way to describe this car i think is a purpose build track car. similar like a Zonda R

but if i have to choose i would call it a race car

why

1. just because it's build by a tuning company it doesn't mean necesarily it's a tuner car cause if you follow this you can also say that a race-car company can not build road cars (Ferrari) or a tracktor manufacturer can not build super cars (lamborghini) etc....
2. race cars don't need to compete in racing series. Just because a race car doesn't fit into the regulations of any championships it doesn't mean it's not a race car.
3. it's not allowed on the road and in my book a tuner car has to be road legal


and also i wouldn't take GT5 as a reference cause if you do that then you can call the Ferrari F40 a european hatchback because it can compete in the european hatchback series
 
It was built to destroy lap records and I guess to improve the reputation of HKS. As it isn't road legal, no lights, I wouldn't consider it a Tuner, but then again it isn't really a race car either. I voted race car as that feels to be the best fit. I was expecting it to be awesome, but I am terrible with it. I think I push it too hard as I think it has more grip than it really does. Looks awesome though.
 
It was built to conform to Time Attack regulations. Time Attack is a racing series recognized by several sanctioning bodies, much like rally is. Both are essentially time trials.

Let's put it this way:

The HKS CT230R is a vehicle built by a tuning company (HKS) to compete in a series where the winner is the person who completes a course in the shortest time. It follows the limitations imposed by the rules and regulations of that series. Body panels and outlines must follow those of the production model it's based on. Tires are as per allowed by the rules. Engine based on the production engine originally found in that car.

The Subaru Impreza Rally Car is a vehicle built by a tuning company (Prodrive, typically) to compete in a series where the winner is the person who completes a course in the shortest time. It follows the limitations imposed by the rules and regulations of that series. Body panels and outlines must follow those of the production model it's based on. Tires are as per allowed by the rules. Engine based on the production engine originally found in that car.

Take out the names of the companies involved... what's the difference? And don't say that Time Attack doesn't count because it's less regulated than the World Rally Championship... because a few decades ago, WRC (via Group B) allowed you to have an absolutely insane amount of power.
 
Given the Circumstances, I'd call the HKS a tuner;

Race cars compete against each other with everyone present on the track.

The HKS does compete against others, but the opponents are not present on the track when competing.

Therefore, the HKS is not a "race car".
 
So what about rally, then? They're on the same track, but at different times. The only time you see two rally cars anywhere close to each other is when one has broken down and is sitting on the side of the road.
 
Back