bluestreak
Enthusiast
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2005
- Posts
- 869
- Reaction score
- 0
Bluestreak, I think you took my post wrong for the most part. Your last paragraph is more to where I was heading with my last two posts.
I've come to the conclusion that Ralph and company tested both cars on their respective tires and they where probably essentially even hence why they sent the car that way. However they miscalculated since Pobst doesn't have the seat time like SRT's drivers so he was unable to match the ZR1's pace in the GTS on Corsa's.
There is no way they would have sent this car knowing there is a 2.1 sec gap. Looking at it objectively now clearly shows, as you said and i alluded to in my second to last post above, the car is there the tire isn't. So maybe it doesn't need CCB's, but it surely needs better tires since its power isn't enough to be dominant. I think maybe after we all calm down and sift through the hard facts we will get a better perspective of the car.
But nothing will make me happier than seeing a GTS with the new LS lap record. Give it the RIGHT tires SRT. As you can see you can't leave magazine drivers, regardless of skill, with the task of pulling out that last 10%. Help them out with the proper tire please so you will avoid a thread like this again. It's hell of a way to wake to 2.1 sec loss.
I honestly wasn't responding to you. I happened to be posting at the same time. Just injecting a little knowledge base regarding the tires for the doooooomsday theorists. Ralph and team may not have seen a 2s gap, but they almost certainly had the ZR1 ahead based on his comment "we have never seen a gap that big". As far as this mayhem goes, it doesn't matter if the Viper lost by .2 or 2 seconds, people will still think the sky is falling.
And also to make one thing clear, if you think any journalist or driver is is just going to head out to the course and beat Randy (even at 8/10ths) from hopping in a factory alignment car after never being in it, those people are fooling themselves. Even Randy toning it down is not 2 seconds off the pace. SRT showing up with their factory drivers is not going to prove anything. You don't think Jan Magnussen (no not Mero) wouldn't go faster in a ZR1? He might run a 1:29 in that thing with a couple of days of testing. You don't think Toshio Suzuki would go faster in the GT-R??? There is no real credibility in showing up with your factory driver. For the rest of the world, the car must pass the test on test day with independent party testing. And most everytime, on corsas, the Gen V will get beat. Period.
Let me know when you have extensive experience driving both cars on a road course.
Ah, I can see what I'm working with here and it ain't much. Let's see if I can talk at a level you'll understand.
Interesting. I make a claim based purely on the article at play here, but you call me on it with "facts". And then you refuse to provide me backing to your facts. It sounds to me like you haven't clue 1 what you're talking about.
But I'm game. Let's use your post #431 in this thread as well as the Motor Trend article in question. Ready?
You said
Clearly the tires play the biggest mechanical role in a vehicle on the track, but there was more at play here.
We see a small difference in the two cars' braking performance in the instrumented tests. The ZR1 pulled a 91 ft stop, which is eyeball popping. The Viper did it in 93 ft, which is also eyeball popping. Neither is anything to be ashamed of; quite to the contrary they're both fantastic numbers. And they speak to both cars' tires as well as their brakes.
With that, back to your quote on brakes. I claim that the brakes were one of the biggest challenges the Viper faced on the track after a few laps. If the brakes are fading, it means the car can't slow enough to get the grip it needs in the front end for:
What the driver is left with is a car that's plowing because it's moving too fast for turn-in, OR he's braking way earlier so that he can slow down enough for turn-in. But, our friends at Motor Trend said this about turn-in:
Hm.
Back to you:
I'll give you a big "maybe" here, and that's about all. The reason for my nod to you is that Randy said in the aforementioned article, Tires could be the cause of that. But so could overly stiff sway bars and springs. Having never been in a Gen5 Viper, I can't say for sure. But the writer of the article did note:
That would lead me to believe that the Viper's suspension is a bit too taught and non-compliant, even though they didn't come right out and say it.
You say:
Let's return to the article where the acceleration of the cars were tested from a stand-still. Nothing can quite brutalize a set of rears like launching from a hole and blasting up to 60MPH or tearing up a quarter mile. In both cases, the cars were identical. 60MPH in 3.4 seconds, and the quarter in 11.4@128MPH. Impressive numbers for both, and it means their tires are working fairly identically WRT acceleration.
I said it wasn't tires because they pulled similar Gs AND the Viper's brakes were overwhelmed on the track. Read the article again.
And further:
More still:
I'm not seeing any mention in the article or the tweets between Ralph and "Motor Trend" regarding tires. Perhaps Pirelli and "Motor Trend" are in cahoots?
Clearly. Carry on.
jas
Don't try to play that "drive extensively in both cars bit" I've been at the track and watched FAST drivers heat soak a ZR1. Anyone can tool around at snail's pace and keep a car cool. GT-R's are notorious overheaters, yet there are guys slow enough not to overheat them. Drive the car at 1:33 laguna pace, which is like 2:00 or less at VIR for 30 minutes, then talk to me about not heat soaking.
Where is that list of Road Race cars? How many ZR1's are RACING actually vs Z06's?? Not DE, RACING?? Vs how many Z06s? but sure, you are the only one who knows the ZR1 is a better platform for track and race......
Instrumented braking tests mean squat, as anyone worth their salt knows that the Carbons work even better the hotter they get. While steels get longer, CC get shorter. So the true difference in braking cannot be measured on cold tires with cold brakes as the car sits still and they get the equipment set up........ The true difference is measured several laps into a session, which is far more indicative of the TRUE braking difference. MPSC are also quite slow to come up to temperature as well, so we are potentially looking at a big gap here with hot CC and hot MPSC.
You are starting to sound like an amateur and not someone who's been at the track actually.
And now you have the nerve to talk about drag racing as it pertains to road racing seriously? NT01 are far better drag racing tires than MPSC, yet MPSC will still go quite a bit faster around a track. You are really reaching for straws now.
Another thing, you keep ignoring the part where they say the Viper had more understeer and oversteer everywhere, which could be setup, but just as easily be a set of tires with more tread and less grip squirming all over the place vs a dailed in set of MPSC which have fantastic turn-in grip and cornering speed with less tread depth. Similar to RA1 being horrible on the track full tread, but aces shaved. Two completely different tires, probably 2 seconds in that alone.
Not only that, but you continue to harp on the G readings. The Viper was "close" but got out cornered in every turn but 1. And increase in G's in all of those turns as would be provided by MPSC would certainly close the gap by a significant margin.
For a guy who claims to drive on track, you sure seem to be completely reliant on the magazine to give you all of your information. Sorry, I'm not convinced.