Quote:
Originally Posted by Cris
(Hopefully) my final comment this makes interesting reading:
Bedford Times
Gumpert Apollo S - 1:19.40
Caterham R500 - 1:20.20
Ariel Atom 3 - 1:21.50
Brooke Double R - 1:22.50
Porsche Carrera GT - 1:23.30
Porsche 997 GT2 - 1:23.50
Nissan GT-R - 1:23.60
So we have a mid engined racer followed by a front engined kitcar, followed by a mid engined kit car etc. The CGT is 0.2 of a second quicker than the GT2 and 0.3 than the GTR. This would suggest to me that it wouldn't take much work for a GT2 or GTR to be fettled to be quicker than the CGT. Given that these three cars have similar 'ring times (ie close) that would suggest that it wouldn't take that much to bring either the GT2 or GTR to the level (if not quicker) of the CGT. Perhaps the PDK gearbox on the GT2 would shave a couple of tenths off it's track-time. Perhaps the v-spec likewise. I fancy that one of Herr Ruf's cars would also be quicker than the CGT.
|
Cris, were these lap times performed under the same testing conditions? i.e driver, weather, etc?
The problem with comparing lap times between cars is that they vary in laptimes depending on when and by who it was tested under. Best Motoring 5 lap battles offers some indication of how fast a certain car is against another on the same day, then on another day and driver, the same car is 1 second per lap faster or slower.
I have seen lap times between the Carrera GT vs GT2 997 and the Carerra is around 1 second a lap quicker on 4-5 different tracks but as these are probably performed on separate occasions, the results do not depict the real gap in performance between the 2 cars.
Quote:
Any car with enough time and development can be quicker on a race-track than any car. A Corvette C6R is quicker than a F430 or Murcie at Le Mans. On a b-road a WRC car would wipe most things out. Does that mean my neighbour's Ford Focus is better than my GTR?
Unless anything interesting turns up I'm going to shut up on this topic.
Cheers
Cris
|
Thats true, particular circuits play to a car's and the driver's strength, and if a racing team and driver takes advantage of it then you have the best chance of coming out the fastest. But every racing car builder, whether they built FWD, RWD, front engined, rear engined or mid-engined cars all agree that low COG, low weight, low drag, and high chassis strength are the fundamentals to great pace on *any* track.
If a car builder fails to create a car that fully meets the above targets, then they resort to secondary tools such as downforce, balance, transient response, horsepower, gearing, etc etc to make most of what they have. If a car builder doesnt have mid-engined layout for their disposal, they have to do what they can to package the weight between the front and rear axles if the tracks they race on require response, one reason why the JGTC Supras used 4 bangers instead of the 2JZ. The Corvette racing car is another example of packaging the weight between the axle lines.
Those with mid-engined cars have more potential, but this doesnt automatically mean they are the fastest on any track, their principle strength lies in situations where sudden changes of direction is needed such as chicanes or during low speed corners providing the car engineer is competent enough to deploy suspension settings to take advantage of it. Transient response and manueverability outweighs ultimate grip.
People need to also realise in situations where there are no low speed turns or chicanes for a mid-engined car to take advantage of, this layout has virtually no drawbacks with the exception of limited passenger seating and luggage space for road use. In the racing world, either professional or amatuer you'd want the most response to steering input dont you???
Another factor with a supercar such as the Enzo is it produces enormous downforce, and very low drag at the same time - making the car hard to beat on high speed bends aswell as the low speed ones!