Holy fudgecakes! 7:22 has been achieved on the 'Ring by none other than...

[jergto]

No it isn't. I remember that picture well. That is from one of the early tests of the SRT-10 convertible.

Yea you're right, although that is still the older Viper. After some searching SRT engineers fixed the over heating problem that the exhaust was giving, no more crossover pipes.

Also after looking at the radical that has an even more ridiculous fast time than the Viper, I think its BS that that car is considered street legal. Good luck driving in the rain!

 

[niky]

Rain protection isn't a requirement for road legality. Otherwise Porsche Spyders and Gallardo/Murcielago convertibles would not be road-legal.

(of course the Lamborghinis have soft-tops... soft-tops that take forever and a day to put on and which would blow away in a stiff wind. A Radical with a brolly tied between the seats would work just as well).

 

[McLaren]

You do know that is the '92-'95 RT/10 right?

The have fixed that problem on the GEN III/IV, although it does still get hot, just not as hot as that picture which is of an rt/10 built in the early 90's.
It's also a fake, they cooked the eggs on a pan and moved it, because to get the sides crispy brown like in the picture you need a lot of cooking oil. It would've just spilled on the side if you put same amount of cooking oil on that door sill.

If they still have to put this warning label on the inside of the door, then it's obviously still very hot to touch, regardless of how hot the exhaust in a RT/10 got.

 

[Scaff]

Also after looking at the radical that has an even more ridiculous fast time than the Viper, I think its BS that that car is considered street legal. Good luck driving in the rain!

Quick ban all motorbikes!!!!!!!!!

Seriously do you have any idea how many road legal cars have existed that offer just as much rain protection (i.e. none) as a Radical?

Its also not 'considered' street legal, it 'is' road legal.



Scaff

 

[jergto]

We are talking about cars not bikes, if anyone thought the ACR is already a race car they should take a 2nd look at the Radical, fricken thing looks like a prototype.

Road/street legal have different rules in different countries, the only car that would probably pass here in the US with that small list of "road legal" cars that are faster than an ACR would be the Gumpert.


I would like a list of other cars that aren't included with a roof/retractable soft top. 💡

 

[Azuremen]

We are talking about cars not bikes, if anyone thought the ACR is already a race car they should take a 2nd look at the Radical, fricken thing looks like a prototype.

Road/street legal have different rules in different countries, the only car that would probably pass here in the US with that small list of "road legal" cars that are faster than an ACR would be the Gumpert.


I would like a list of other cars that aren't included with a roof/retractable soft top. 💡

There is some variant of the Porsche Boxster that was recently made. I'm sure several other examples do exist. For a car to be road legal, it simply (ahem) has to pass crash standards and then lighting and a few other constraints like volume measured at x distance. A roof is not a part of those thing, and most convertibles have it there because people want that bit of convenience, not because law requires. And even then, those soft tops are often more of an after thought than anything else, with poor visibility, sometimes a bit of weather sealing, and often a ton of wind noise.

 

[niky]

Ariel Atom. Road legal in the United States. On sale now as a current vehicle. Fully road legal. Less weather protection than a denim jacket.

http://www.arielatom.com/


Caterham Super Seven, fully road legal in the USA. Well, the Caterham has a top, of sorts, that you can buy, but it's not much of a top...

http://www.rmsci.com/caterhamusa/thecars.html

---

Both are more road-legal in topless trim than the Viper ACR is with full aerodynamics deployed. Which is why they sell the car with the track extension for the splitter in the trunk. No doubt, though, the car would still be wickedly quick even without the track extension, but I don't know if it'd be sub-7:20 quick, as Chrysler itself says the suspension package is optimized for use on the racetrack with the extension in place.

And as mentioned here or elsewhere, a Lexus LF-A with a roll-cage isn't road legal in most states, either. For good reason. Roll-cages aren't gentle on unhelmeted heads.

When people argue about road-legal track cars being "not road cars", I have to laugh. What makes a car not a car? Lack of airconditioning? (lots of sportscars without) Lack of radio? Just one seat instead of two? Or two instead of four? Lack of doors? A road car is a road car is a road car. Period.

 

[Keef]

The criteria should be whether or not you can pull into a typical McDonald's parking lot in Dayton, Ohio.

I'll concede that, in that case, some of my friends' cars aren't cars. They're sleds.

 

[niky]

Always gave me the giggles when a riced-out Civic with a B16789ABCD with over 200 ponies would outrace my pathetic little Sentra from the stoplight, only to come to a dead stop at the next speed bump while the driver tried to figure out how to cross it without getting high-sided... I would pass him going at a stately 20 mph, without needing to slow down at all...

 

[paskowitz]

IMO production car=certified street legal, 4 wheels, a roof, street legal tires, based off of a "mass produced" car (the base car would have to exceed lets say 250 units).

 

[JJ72]

There's no imo about this, if it complies with the law and produced over a certain number it is a production car. It's factual.

Whos law to comply to you can possibly argue, but if it's street legal in the area of testing you really can't fault it.

A friend of mine has a Lotus R340, it looks like a RC car and you can't attach a soft top to it, no A/C no radio no electric windows, but it is licensed and use on occasional basis.

 

[Famine]

I would like a list of other cars that aren't included with a roof/retractable soft top. 💡

They're called "roadsters".

Roadsters have no side windows or roof (retractable or otherwise) - Speedsters are the same, only they have no/minimal windscreens. The Ariel Atom is technically a speedster - and many classic sports cars of the 1920s-1940s were roadsters and speedsters.

IMO production car=certified street legal, 4 wheels, a roof, street legal tires, based off of a "mass produced" car (the base car would have to exceed lets say 250 units).

Which rules out every roadster and speedster ever made, the Ferrari FXX, Pagani Zonda R, the Reliant Robin, Panther 6, Peel P50, the Daihatsu Midget, the Benz Patent Motorwagen, recognised as the first car ever made, the McLaren F1 and Ford RS200 (both of which held the Guinness World Record for fastest accelerating production car, one of which held the Guinness World Record for fastest production car)... you get the drift.

A production road car is one you can go and buy and drive away. It doesn't need to be any fancier than that, or involve arbitrary distinctions involving the number of wheels (3 and 6 wheel cars have been made), the amenities offered (cars have been made without any kind of roof since the inception of the car) or the number made. You just need to be able to go to the dealership or factory, buy one and drive it away when they finish making it.

 

[Dan_]

Can I drive it from my home to the track? Yes.

Then it's road legal. Period. The Radical is the fastest.

Amenities like air-conditioning, stereo and a roof aren't relevant when evaluating road worthiness of a given car.

Now, cars that have these convenience items and still are fast as the ACR and the Apollo, are very impressive to me. I tend to give their numbers even more respect, though.

 

[GT Pro]

Why can't the whole Nurburgring penis-waving time-attack praxis be more standardised so that tyres are required to be the SAME for all those cars who want to claim a time?

Comparing cars who are synonymous mechanically but which differ in rubber compound fails as a useful means of comparison - their utility in the public arena.

 

[Exorcet]

Why can't the whole Nurburgring penis-waving time-attack praxis be more standardised so that tyres are required to be the SAME for all those cars who want to claim a time?

Would make the lap times pointless, as well as eliminate any distinction between stock and modified cars.

Cars are a system, not a system + tires.

 

[GT Pro]

Would make the lap times pointless, as well as eliminate any distinction between stock and modified cars.

Cars are a system, not a system + tires.

The difference between stock and modified cars goes well beyond merely tires (but they do make a large difference).

 

[niky]

Tires are an integral part of suspension design. A car may be made to work very well with a particular tire but will not work well with another.

On a dry, smooth track, a stickier tire will produce better lap times nine times out of ten... but if the car isn't designed to take advantage of the extra grip, sometimes funny things may happen.

Forcing "spec" tires would be like forcing all the cars to run to a specified weight, with a specific tire size and with intake restrictors. It would be most fair, then, but then it wouldn't be stock cars, anymore. Just stock car racing.

 

[Stotty]

Any time run by a manufacturer without independent verification is irrelevent as far as I'm concerned.

For the times to be relevent, the cars would need to be bought from a dealer, and run on the same day, by the same driver... otherwise there's far too much opportunity for the manufacturers to 'optimise the performance'.