In a car that weighs nearly 2 tons and goes 190+ MPH?it wouldn't have power steering
In a car that weighs nearly 2 tons and goes 190+ MPH?You know, power steering can be done right. Not every car drives like a mid-70s Cadillac (or a new Corvette) just because it has power steering.
I find that impossible.. since most Porsches are just stretched and smoothed Beetles with big engine..![]()
Even the most die hard of Corvette enthusiasts will admit that the current Corvette (though better than it was when the C6 launched and worlds better than the C5) has power steering feel that can be described at best as "vague."
I fail to see how a time on another, more "normal" race track could be any more relevant, or relevant at all.... About the time though, congrats, another pointless time that shows nothing. 3 seconds on a track that is that big isn't all that much. Take both cars and run them again and you'll probably get a vastly different time. I'll care when someone takes them to Infineon Raceway or some other track that is like it in whatever country the tester's choose. ...
more like Z06 = GT-R..![]()
I fail to see how a time on another, more "normal" race track could be any more relevant, or relevant at all.
The 'Ring is more like a road than any stadium style race track, and we're not testing race cars here.
Also, run them again and the times won't be vastly different.
Well, that's the problem... times on the Ring can vary wildly depending on traffic, or lack of it, weather conditions, humidity, temperature, and even wind (with that absolutely long back straight, wind speed in that section will affect the lap times a great bit).
On a shorter track, say, Tsukuba, or SECA... little mistakes can still cause differences in times, but in the time it takes you to do one balls out time attack lap on the Ring, you can do half-a-dozen Tsukuba laps, or more... allowing you to get a more consistent time and to get closer to 100% than you can on the ring.
Niky pretty much hit the nail on the head why Ring times are pointless. You could easily take both cars out on a different day under different conditions (mainly traffic) and have them run a different time. Whereas if it was a closed track, like Tsukuba or Silverstone you would see closer times due to less variables and more laps to generate an average.
I firmly believe Ring times are worthless in the grand scheme of things other then using them to say, well that car is fast around the Ring and that one isn't. Times that are 2 or 3 seconds off from one another don't really tell a whole lot which is the point I'm trying to make.
Im not sure about the GT-R's run, but the ZR1 had a clean run with basically no traffic.
If im not mistaken there are a lot of days the 'Ring is closed to manufacturers only, and most of the fast runs are done with little to no traffic.
ZOMG IT ONLY WON BY A FEW SECONDS !!!!!!!!111one
IT WASN'T STOCK ANYWAY! IT HAD SAFETY EQUIPMENT ADDED!!!!!! SO IT DOESN'T COUNT!!!!!
/GT-R Fanbois.![]()
Even one car makes a difference though. Also how many laps to they typically do when they go for a Ring time? I don't know but I can't imagine it's more than one or two. On other shorter tracks they would be able to run 10, 15 or 20 laps and get an average time, which to me says more about the car's performance.
They had the Nissan GT-R on Top Gear tonight, looked really nice and the onscreen graphics are made by Polyphony.
Everyone and there mom knows this..
...And I'd still be the "crazy guy" and take the step-down to the Z06. Its nothing personal against the ZR1, but I wouldn't want to pay the money. The Z06 matches the GT-R under most circumstances, so why get the other one? Sure, I appreciate the "ZOMG" factor that the ZR1 has... But meh, its just not my style.
Going on the subject of Top Gear, I completely agree with Clarkson on the GT-R. It appears to be soulless and missing passion. Yes it's a technology marvel in terms of automotive engineering but that's not what driving is all about. If I'm going to have a super car I want something with character, with soul, with passion.
Out of the GT-R or the ZR-1 I would take the ZR-1 because it's built by a struggling company to show the world that "hey we can make something fast". Even though it's goofy looking and I think it's pointless, it has a heart. When it comes down to it, how many gadgets on your car or how fast it goes means nothing, if you don't love your car and if you don't love driving your car, what's the point?
I think I would be happier in my car over a GT-R in all honesty...and I'm ok with that. I think to many people let the numbers cloud their judgment.
I dont understand why people are hating on technology... I guess that means you guys dont want fuel injection because thats a gadget, or ABS, or any other innovation over the last 100 years. Technology is a good thing, thats why the GT-R, despite having less power and weighing more, keeps up with the ZR1 on the track
I dont understand why people are hating on technology... I guess that means you guys dont want fuel injection because thats a gadget, or ABS, or any other innovation over the last 100 years. Technology is a good thing, thats why the GT-R, despite having less power and weighing more, keeps up with the ZR1 on the track