My Time Trial Results

  • Thread starter Thread starter Wan
  • 241 comments
  • 36,350 views
Apex Mastery Series — 1997 Toyota Mark II Tourer V
IMG_4463.webp

Vehicle Dynamics Analysis

The 1997 Toyota Mark II Tourer V is not a car that hides its behavior from the driver.

With 280 PS, a 1,470 kg curb weight, rear-wheel drive, and only Racing Soft tires as a modification, the Mark II retains a relatively honest mechanical character. There is enough grip to drive the car quickly, but not enough chassis composure to completely disguise its weight transfer.

That makes the Nürburgring Nordschleife particularly revealing.

Lap Time: 7:46.521

The defining characteristic of this car is not outright grip. It is feedback.

The Mark II communicates its changing balance very clearly, but the same sensitivity that makes it informative also makes it demanding. Weight transfer happens quickly and with considerable amplitude, meaning that steering, braking and throttle inputs all have a noticeable effect on the attitude of the chassis.

This is a car that rewards precision rather than aggression.

Vehicle Specification

Vehicle: Toyota Mark II Tourer V
Year: 1997
Power: 280 PS
Weight: 1,470 kg
Drivetrain: FR
Tires: Racing Soft
Modifications: Tires only
Track: Nürburgring Nordschleife
Lap Time: 7:46.521




IMG_4461.webp

Vehicle Dynamics Overview

The Mark II’s greatest strength is also its greatest challenge: feedback.

The chassis does not feel isolated from the driver. Changes in load, steering angle and throttle position are transmitted clearly through the car. When the balance begins to move away from neutral, the driver receives enough information to recognize it before the situation becomes critical.

However, the relatively high mass means that once the weight begins to move, it cannot simply be ignored.

The car is therefore sensitive in a very particular way:

It is agile in response, but heavy in consequence.

A small input can produce a noticeable change in attitude, while correcting that attitude requires respecting the inertia of the entire vehicle.

This becomes increasingly important as the Nordschleife moves from high-speed compression zones into rapid direction changes.

Chassis Behavior and Driver Feedback

The most important characteristic throughout the lap is the relationship between steering input and longitudinal load transfer.

Under braking, the front axle gains authority while the rear becomes progressively lighter. If the transition is too abrupt, the rear of the car becomes much more difficult to stabilize.

On turn-in, the Mark II responds quickly enough to feel surprisingly agile for its mass. But this agility should not be confused with low inertia.

Once the chassis begins rotating, the driver has to manage the rate of rotation rather than simply asking for more steering.

That makes smooth weight transfer particularly important.

The car essentially tells the driver:

Do not fight the weight. Manage it.

That is the fundamental driving philosophy of this lap.

Steering Response and Apex Placement

The Racing Soft tires provide a large increase in available grip, but they do not remove the underlying character of the chassis.

Turn-in is responsive, allowing the Mark II to be placed accurately toward the apex. The challenge comes immediately afterward.

Because the car reacts strongly to load transfer, excessive steering input can create unnecessary yaw and force the driver into a second correction.

The fastest approach is therefore to establish the car’s attitude early, settle the chassis, and then make the smallest possible steering correction through the apex.

This is especially important through the Nordschleife’s sequences of rapid elevation and direction change.

The Mark II rewards a clean racing line because every unnecessary correction creates another weight-transfer event.

Powertrain Analysis

The 2.5-liter turbocharged 1JZ-GTE gives the Tourer V enough performance to exploit the Nordschleife’s faster sections while still requiring careful throttle management.

The important characteristic here is not simply peak power.

In an FR car of this weight, throttle application directly influences rear-axle load and therefore chassis balance. The driver cannot treat the accelerator purely as a power control.

It is also a balance control.

Progressive throttle application allows the rear axle to remain predictable while the car transitions from rotation to acceleration.

The opposite approach, opening the throttle too aggressively while the car is still heavily loaded laterally, can quickly turn available rear grip into wheelspin or power-induced rotation.

The Mark II therefore rewards drivers who can combine steering release with progressive throttle application.

Corner Phase Analysis

Entry

The entry phase is where the Mark II’s weight becomes most apparent.

Braking needs to be progressive rather than abrupt. The objective is not simply maximum deceleration, but controlling how quickly the front axle becomes loaded and the rear axle becomes unloaded.

Once the braking phase is complete, the car can be turned toward the apex with a relatively clean steering input.

The key is to avoid combining excessive braking, steering and sudden weight transfer at the same time.

Strength: Excellent feedback about the changing balance.

Limitation: Large weight transfer makes mistakes difficult to hide.

Rotation

Rotation is arguably the most interesting part of driving the Tourer V.

The car is surprisingly responsive for a 1,470 kg sedan, but its response is accompanied by substantial inertia.

This creates a narrow distinction between:

rotation that helps the corner

and

rotation that has to be corrected.

The driver therefore needs to allow the chassis to rotate naturally rather than forcing additional yaw through excessive steering or abrupt throttle changes.

A clean apex comes from managing the vehicle’s momentum rather than trying to overpower it.

Exit

Corner exit is where the 1JZ-GTE becomes especially useful.

Once the steering angle begins to unwind, throttle can progressively become the dominant input.

The important point is timing.

Early throttle is not automatically faster if the rear axle is still heavily loaded laterally. The ideal transition is to reduce steering demand as throttle application increases.

This allows the car to move naturally from:

Rotation → Stabilization → Acceleration

rather than trying to perform all three simultaneously.

Nürburgring Nordschleife Dynamic Analysis

0%–15% — Tiergarten to Flugplatz

The opening section immediately establishes the character of the car.

The initial acceleration allows the 1JZ-GTE to build speed quickly, but the first sequence of direction changes exposes the Mark II’s sensitivity to transient load transfer.

Through the Hatzenbach complex, the Racing Soft tires provide strong initial response, but the chassis still requires disciplined steering transitions.

The important technique is to avoid creating unnecessary oscillation in the chassis.

Flugplatz then changes the problem completely.

The car becomes unloaded over the crest, followed by a rapid return to the track surface. The priority is therefore not maximum steering aggression, but keeping the car settled before and after the compression.

The Mark II rewards restraint here.

15%–35% — Schwedenkreuz to Fuchsröhre

This is one of the most demanding sections for the Tourer V because high speed magnifies every weight-transfer event.

At Schwedenkreuz, the car must remain stable while carrying significant lateral load.

The most important factor is maintaining a clean transition between braking, turn-in and apex commitment.

Aremberg then requires a much more conventional heavy braking approach before immediately transitioning into the downhill section.

Fuchsröhre is where the Nordschleife begins to expose the difference between grip and stability.

The compression increases the vertical load on the car, but the driver still has to manage the rapid change in chassis attitude.

For the Mark II, the objective is not to create additional movement.

It is to allow the suspension and tires to absorb the track while maintaining a stable steering platform.

35%–55% — Adenauer Forst to Karussell

Adenauer Forst is a perfect demonstration of why the Mark II cannot be driven purely through aggression.

The braking phase loads the front axle heavily, followed by an immediate direction change.

The car needs to be allowed to rotate without excessive steering correction.

Through the downhill technical sections, throttle modulation becomes increasingly important.

The 1JZ-GTE provides sufficient torque to influence rear-axle balance, particularly when the chassis is still carrying lateral load.

A progressive throttle application therefore becomes part of the cornering technique rather than simply the beginning of acceleration.

At Breidscheid, the transition from braking to rotation and then into the uphill section needs to be exceptionally clean.

This is where the Mark II’s feedback becomes an advantage.

The car gives enough information to tell the driver when the chassis has settled.

55%–75% — Caracciola Karussell to Hohe Acht

The Karussell introduces another major load-transfer event.

The banking allows the car to carry substantial lateral load, but the exit from the concrete section is equally important.

The transition back onto normal track surface can disturb the chassis if the steering or throttle input is too aggressive.

The correct response is a controlled release of the steering rather than an abrupt correction.

The climb toward Hohe Acht then combines elevation change with high lateral demand.

Here the Mark II’s feedback becomes particularly valuable.

The driver can feel the difference between a stable slip angle and a chassis that is beginning to move beyond the intended balance.

The objective is to remain within that stable window rather than constantly correcting after the limit has already been exceeded.

75%–100% — Brünnchen to Döttinger Höhe

The final section is a combination of rapid direction changes, compression and acceleration.

Brünnchen rewards precise placement because the car’s mass becomes increasingly difficult to redirect once the wrong line has been established.

Pflanzgarten is even more demanding.

The car becomes light over the crests and then immediately returns to a loaded state. Steering inputs must therefore remain measured, particularly during landing phases.

For a sensitive FR sedan, the priority is maintaining a stable platform rather than chasing every possible fraction of entry speed.

Through the final technical corners, exit speed becomes increasingly important.

Galgenkopf is especially significant because the quality of the exit determines the performance all the way down Döttinger Höhe.

The best lap therefore finishes with the same philosophy that defined the beginning:

Control the chassis first, then use the power.

Engineering Evaluation

Strengths

  • Excellent driver feedback
  • Very clear communication of chassis balance
  • Responsive turn-in for a 1,470 kg sedan
  • Strong straight-line and corner-exit performance
  • Rewarding throttle modulation
  • Racing Soft tires provide substantial usable grip
  • Clear relationship between driver input and vehicle response

Limitations

  • Significant weight-transfer sensitivity
  • High inertia once the chassis begins rotating
  • Requires careful braking transitions
  • Abrupt steering inputs can create unnecessary yaw
  • Throttle application must be managed carefully while lateral load remains high
  • High-speed elevation changes expose the limitations of the chassis more clearly than a smoother circuit would

Final Engineering Assessment

The 1997 Toyota Mark II Tourer V is an interesting example of how a car can be both communicative and demanding.

It does not necessarily possess the most refined chassis behavior, but that is precisely what makes it interesting to drive.

The car constantly communicates its condition.

You can feel when the front axle is becoming loaded, when the rear is becoming light, when the chassis is beginning to rotate and when the tires are approaching the edge of their available grip.

The challenge is that the information arrives together with a substantial amount of inertia.

That creates the defining characteristic of the Tourer V:

A sensitive car with a heavy chassis.

It can change direction quickly, but once the mass begins moving, the driver must respect the momentum already created.

The 7:46.521 lap therefore becomes less about extracting maximum grip from the Racing Soft tires and more about managing the relationship between mass, momentum, rotation and throttle.

Final Character Statement

The Mark II Tourer V is an honest car.

It tells you what it is doing.

It tells you when the front is loaded.

It tells you when the rear is becoming light.

It tells you when the chassis has begun to rotate.

And, importantly, it tells you when you have asked too much from it.

That makes the car sensitive, but also remarkably rewarding.

The fastest laps come from listening to that feedback rather than trying to suppress it.

The Mark II does not hide its weight from the driver. It teaches the driver how to manage it.

Apex Mastery Evaluation

Overall Character: Responsive, Communicative, Sensitive, Inertial, Demanding

The 1997 Toyota Mark II Tourer V is not defined by a perfectly composed chassis. It is defined by how clearly it communicates its imperfections.

Its responsiveness allows the driver to place the car accurately, while its substantial weight transfer demands discipline through every major transition.

The result is a car that rewards a driver who can read the chassis and anticipate its next movement rather than simply reacting to it.
IMG_4462.webp

Final Verdict

7:46.521

A strong Nordschleife performance from a lightly modified 1997 Toyota Mark II Tourer V, achieved with nothing more than Racing Soft tires.

Its greatest advantage is not simply the 280 PS output or the additional grip provided by the tires.

It is the amount of information the chassis gives the driver.

Its greatest weakness is exactly the same thing.

The Mark II tells you everything. The difficult part is responding correctly.
 
Apex Mastery Series — Super Formula SF19 (Toyota)
IMG_4754.webp


Vehicle Dynamics Analysis

The Super Formula SF19 is a very different kind of machine from the road-based cars normally featured in this series.

With 648 HP, only 660 kg, and Racing Soft tires, the SF19 combines an extremely high power-to-weight ratio with substantial aerodynamic performance. At Suzuka, this creates a car that can appear simultaneously sensitive, stable, and highly agile.

That combination is what defines the SF19.

It reacts immediately to driver input, yet at high speed it can feel remarkably planted. It is extremely responsive, but that responsiveness does not necessarily make it unstable. Instead, the car constantly changes its behavior according to speed, load, steering input, braking pressure, and throttle position.

The challenge is not simply finding the limit.

The challenge is keeping the car inside its ideal operating window for an entire lap.

Vehicle Specification

Vehicle: Super Formula SF19 (Toyota)
Condition: Completely Stock
Power: 648 HP
Weight: 660 kg
Tires: Racing Soft
Track: Suzuka Circuit
Lap Time: 1:38.224




IMG_4753.webp

Vehicle Dynamics Overview

The first impression of the SF19 is its sensitivity.

Small inputs can produce immediate reactions, particularly when the car is already carrying significant aerodynamic load. Steering, braking, and throttle application all have to be connected smoothly because the car rewards precision but exposes inconsistency very quickly.

Yet sensitivity does not mean instability.

That is what makes the SF19 so interesting.

At high speed, the aerodynamic platform gives the car a level of stability that allows the driver to commit to corners at speeds that would be impossible in a conventional road car. The car feels light and agile mechanically, while the aerodynamic load gives it an almost contradictory sense of security.

The result is a car that can feel:

Sensitive. Stable. Agile.

All three characteristics exist at the same time.

Chassis Behavior and Driver Feedback

The SF19 communicates a great deal through its response to steering, braking, and throttle.

During the Suzuka lap, the car repeatedly demonstrated that it could accept large changes in direction without producing an obvious break in grip. The S-Curves were particularly revealing: the car could transition from one direction to the other while maintaining a smooth trajectory and consistently high lateral load.

The important factor is rhythm.

The SF19 does not simply require the driver to turn quickly. It requires the driver to maintain a continuous sequence of inputs.

A small interruption in that rhythm can change the next corner.

This is particularly noticeable through Suzuka’s linked corners, where the exit of one corner becomes the entry condition for the next. A steering correction, braking mistake, or premature throttle application can therefore influence several hundred meters of the lap.

That is one reason why the car can feel so demanding even when it remains fundamentally stable.

Steering Response and Apex Placement

The steering response is exceptionally direct.

At Suzuka, this is especially valuable through the S-Curves, Degner complex, and 130R. The SF19 can be placed very precisely, allowing the driver to exploit narrow lines without requiring large steering corrections.

The key is not to overdrive the steering.

The car already has the response required to change direction quickly. Adding unnecessary steering input can disturb the trajectory rather than improve it.

A clean apex is therefore less about forcing the car toward the inside and more about placing the car correctly before the apex arrives.

This becomes particularly important in the S-Curves, where the car must be positioned for the following corner rather than optimized for each individual apex.

Powertrain Analysis

With 648 HP and only 660 kg, the SF19 has an enormous power-to-weight ratio.

However, the most important characteristic of the powertrain is not simply acceleration.

It is how the driver connects throttle application with the aerodynamic and mechanical balance of the car.

At Suzuka, throttle application must be progressive when the car is still carrying lateral load. Once the car is sufficiently straightened, the SF19 can deploy its power extremely effectively and rapidly build speed.

This is particularly important exiting the Hairpin and Spoon.

A good exit is not created by simply applying full throttle as early as possible. It comes from reaching the point where the car can accept full throttle without compromising the trajectory.

That distinction becomes increasingly important in a car this sensitive.

Corner Phase Analysis

Entry

The SF19 is exceptionally capable under heavy braking.

The braking phase at the end of the main straight demonstrates this immediately. From approximately 300 km/h, the car can be reduced to around 166 km/h for Turn 1 while maintaining enough front-end response to support a controlled trail-braking phase.

The important characteristic is how naturally braking and rotation can be connected.

Instead of treating braking and cornering as two separate actions, the driver can use the remaining braking pressure to help position the front of the car.

This allows the SF19 to enter Turn 1 with considerable precision before immediately transitioning toward Turn 2.

The same principle appears again at Casio Triangle, where the car must absorb one of the most severe speed reductions of the lap.

Rotation

Rotation is where the SF19’s sensitivity becomes most apparent.

The car responds quickly to changes in steering and brake pressure, but the driver must avoid creating unnecessary disturbances in the chassis.

The S-Curves demonstrate this particularly well.

The recorded speeds remain within a high-speed range of approximately 192–242 km/h through the sequence, while the trajectory remains smooth. Rather than making abrupt steering corrections, the car can be guided through the direction changes with a continuous sinusoidal movement.

This is where the SF19 feels genuinely agile.

It does not need to be forced into rotation.

It needs to be placed correctly and allowed to rotate.

Exit

On corner exit, the priority becomes stability and throttle timing.

The Hairpin is a clear example.

The late-apex approach creates the opportunity to straighten the car earlier, allowing full throttle to be applied around 3,386 m and producing a rapid increase in speed toward 241 km/h.

Spoon requires even more discipline.

The driver must manage throttle while the car is still carrying lateral load, making small adjustments to avoid compromising the exit trajectory. Once the car is aligned, the SF19 can accelerate extremely hard toward the back straight.

The fastest exit is therefore not necessarily the earliest throttle application.

It is the cleanest one.

Suzuka Circuit Dynamic Analysis

Main Straight → Turn 1 / Turn 2

The SF19 reaches approximately 300 km/h at around 571 m before the braking zone.

The braking phase is severe, but the car remains highly controllable. Speed is reduced to approximately 166 km/h around 902 m before the driver carries braking pressure into Turn 1.

This is an excellent demonstration of the SF19’s front-end response.

Rather than separating braking from rotation, the two phases overlap. The front axle remains loaded while the car is positioned toward Turn 1, allowing the transition into Turn 2 to remain smooth.

By approximately 1,177 m, speed has recovered to around 220 km/h and the car is using the full width of the track on exit.

The important characteristic here is not merely braking performance.

It is the continuity between braking, rotation, and acceleration.

S-Curves

The S-Curves are arguably one of the clearest demonstrations of the SF19’s character.

Speeds remain approximately within the 192–242 km/h range through the sequence, while the car repeatedly changes direction.

The trajectory is smooth rather than jagged, and the lateral load transitions remain controlled.

This is where the combination of sensitivity and stability becomes most obvious.

The SF19 responds immediately to steering input, but its aerodynamic platform allows those inputs to be made without constantly breaking the car’s balance.

The driver therefore does not need to fight the car.

The driver needs to maintain its rhythm.

Degner 1 / Degner 2

Degner 1 is taken at approximately 199 km/h, requiring confidence in the car’s high-speed response and placement.

Degner 2 is a different problem.

The speed drops to approximately 92 km/h, and the car must be positioned tightly while maintaining a clean balance between braking and rotation.

The important observation here is the absence of a significant correction during the corner.

The SF19 can be placed precisely enough that the driver does not need to rely on obvious understeer or oversteer corrections to complete the sequence.

That precision is one of the car’s greatest strengths.

Hairpin

The Hairpin requires a completely different driving approach.

After the high-speed sections, the car must be brought down dramatically in speed before being rotated toward a late apex.

The late-apex line is particularly important because the corner is ultimately about exit speed.

Around 3,386 m, full throttle can be applied early enough to generate a rapid acceleration phase, with speed rising toward approximately 241 km/h on exit.

The contrast between the Hairpin and the S-Curves demonstrates the SF19’s versatility.

It can be extremely precise at high speed, but it still demands careful load management at low speed.

Spoon Curve

Spoon is one of the most technically demanding sections of the lap.

The car approaches at approximately 273 km/h before the first major reduction brings speed down toward approximately 157 km/h around 3,987 m.

The challenge is not simply making the first apex.

It is preserving the car for the second part of the corner.

Throttle control becomes critical as lateral load remains significant. Small adjustments are required to keep the car balanced without compromising the exit.

By approximately 4,257 m, the car can begin accelerating decisively toward the back straight, reaching approximately 234 km/h during the exit phase.

Spoon therefore rewards patience more than aggression.

130R

The approach to 130R demonstrates the SF19’s aerodynamic character better than almost any other corner.

The car reaches approximately 275 km/h before the corner.

The defining characteristic here is confidence.

A high-downforce car can generate the stability required to maintain a very high cornering speed, but the driver still needs to commit to the line.

This is where the SF19’s three defining characteristics converge:

Sensitivity gives it the response.
Aerodynamics give it stability.
Low mass gives it agility.

The result is a corner that feels far removed from the behavior of a conventional GT car.

Casio Triangle

Casio Triangle is the most violent braking event of the lap.

Speed drops from approximately 275 km/h to around 144 km/h through the braking and chicane sequence.

Despite the severity of the deceleration and rapid direction changes, the SF19 remains composed over the kerbs.

The car can attack the chicane aggressively without producing the kind of excessive bouncing or instability that would immediately compromise the exit.

The challenge is therefore precision rather than survival.

Every input has a consequence.

Final Corner → Finish

The final corner is primarily about preparing the car for the run to the finish.

Throttle application must be smooth enough to avoid disturbing the rear of the car, while still allowing the SF19 to accelerate as early as possible.

The car crosses the finish line at approximately 235 km/h, completing the lap in:

1:38.224

Engineering Evaluation

Strengths

1. Extremely high power-to-weight ratio
2. Exceptional aerodynamic stability at high speed
3. Very direct steering response
4. Strong high-speed direction-change capability
5. Excellent braking performance
6. Precise apex placement
7. Strong traction and acceleration when correctly positioned
8. High level of driver feedback
9. Capable of maintaining very high lateral speed through linked corners

Limitations

1. Extremely sensitive to driver input
2. Small mistakes can influence subsequent corners
3. Difficult to maintain a perfectly consistent rhythm
4. High-speed confidence is essential
5. Throttle application must remain closely connected to chassis balance
6. The car’s behavior can change significantly depending on load and corner phase
7. The same aggressive input does not always produce the same result

Final Engineering Assessment

The SF19 is not difficult because it lacks stability.

It is difficult because it provides so much performance while simultaneously demanding such a narrow level of precision from the driver.

This is an important distinction.

The car can be remarkably stable at speeds where a conventional car would already be overwhelmed. At the same time, its sensitivity means that the driver cannot simply rely on that stability and drive aggressively without consequence.

The SF19 constantly asks for small corrections, precise positioning, and consistent rhythm.

That is why the car can feel both forgiving and unforgiving.

It is forgiving because the aerodynamic platform provides tremendous stability.

It is unforgiving because the performance available from that platform makes every unnecessary input more significant.

Driver Experience

My biggest impression after the lap is that the SF19 combines three characteristics that normally seem contradictory:

Sensitive.
Stable.
Agile.

The car reacts extremely quickly, yet it rarely feels completely nervous.

It is incredibly agile, yet it can remain planted at very high speed.

That combination gives the SF19 a very distinctive character.

However, this also creates its greatest challenge.

It is difficult to maintain a perfect rhythm for an entire lap.

There are simply too many variables.

A small difference in braking pressure, steering input, throttle timing, or vehicle positioning can change the behavior of the next corner. The car is constantly giving the driver information, but interpreting that information correctly and consistently is another challenge entirely.

That is what makes it so interesting to drive.

The SF19 does not simply demand speed from the driver.

It demands consistency within a constantly changing operating window.

Final Character Statement

Overall Character: Sensitive, Stable, Agile, Aerodynamic, Demanding

The SF19 is a car that feels extremely alive beneath the driver.

It does not have the heavy inertia of a road-based performance car, nor does it rely purely on mechanical grip.

Its character comes from the interaction between low mass, high power, aerodynamic load, and an extremely responsive chassis.

The car is fast because it is precise.

It is exciting because it is sensitive.

And it is demanding because maintaining that precision for an entire lap is much harder than achieving it for a single corner.

Apex Mastery Evaluation

Lap Time: 1:38.224

Overall Character: Sensitive, Stable, Agile, Aerodynamic, Demanding

Final Verdict: The Super Formula SF19 rewards a driver who can maintain rhythm rather than simply chase aggression. Its greatest strength is the ability to combine immediate response with remarkable high-speed stability, while its greatest challenge is keeping those characteristics under control for an entire lap.

At Suzuka, the SF19 does not ask whether the driver can push the car.

It asks whether the driver can remain precise while pushing it.
 
Back