4 seconds faster

LurkerPatrol · November 17th, 2007, 2:18 AM

Stupidest question in the world, but have you noticed that TG always seems to use 4 seconds as their improvement amount for anything that does a lap of the track?

Whenever they say something along the lines of "The stig says if <insert some change here> then it would be 4 seconds faster". Example is the Koenigsegg CCX without the wing.

The same goes for 4 second difference between wet and dry times.

There are more examples of this, I'm 300% sure of that, I just don't remember them.

Anyway, after hearing it numerous times, I've just taken this 4 second thing to be B.S., what do you guys think?

TomCat · November 17th, 2007, 2:23 AM

I agree, its way too vague.

If a RWD and a AWD both drive in the rain and get the same time, there is no doubt that the RWD would post a faster lap in the dry. I think that also applies to cars with more torque then others, making them far more difficult to drive in the wet. Or cars that are just better designed and offer more grip, even in slick conditions.

Gman333-X-ferrari · November 17th, 2007, 2:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TomCat

I agree, its way too vague.

If a RWD and a AWD both drive in the rain and get the same time, there is no doubt that the RWD would post a faster lap in the dry. I think that also applies to cars with more torque then others, making them far more difficult to drive in the wet. Or cars that are just better designed and offer more grip, even in slick conditions.

^ You pretty much said all there is too say... images/smilies/lol.gif

/Thread

Yea, and it also depends on driver ability. Not very SIARPC is going to be the same...

LurkerPatrol · November 17th, 2007, 2:52 AM

I know I made a very pointless thread didn't I images/smilies/sad.gif

I agree with both, I think if you a driver thats too careful on the track the amount is going to be much higher.

Wouldn't the amount also depend on the brand, size, and width of the tires being used? If you had a car on racing slick tires go on a dry versus wet track, I'm assuming the driver would be forced to be careful and that thinking time would add more to the wet/dry time difference.

Gman333-X-ferrari · November 17th, 2007, 2:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LurkerPatrol

I know I made a very pointless thread didn't I images/smilies/sad.gif

I agree with both, I think if you a driver thats too careful on the track the amount is going to be much higher.

Wouldn't the amount also depend on the brand, size, and width of the tires being used? If you had a car on racing slick tires go on a dry versus wet track, I'm assuming the driver would be forced to be careful and that thinking time would add more to the wet/dry time difference.

True.

I think we needn't worry about it too much. It's just a (very) rough rule-of-thumb, used to see what would've been. images/smilies/smile.gif

nannocrob · November 17th, 2007, 4:41 AM

If the car didn't crash and kill the Stig, than it would have been four seconds faster than the Zonda.

bartboy9891 · November 17th, 2007, 7:38 AM

It's just a general reference, most people don't really care anyway.

fbc · November 17th, 2007, 7:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bartboy9891

It's just a general reference, most people don't really care anyway.

Agreed - it's TG after all, you can't take it too seriously.

TomCat · November 17th, 2007, 7:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fbc

Agreed - it's TG after all, you can't take it too seriously.

http://forums.finalgear.com/top-gear/ariel-atom-allowed-but-caparo-isnt-23088/

thedguy · November 17th, 2007, 5:45 PM

If the Stig could be bothered to launch a 4wd car properly... it would be 4 seconds faster.

I get irritated as hell when they say a 4wd/awd car is disadvantaged on the drag strip because they have to save the clutch. Apparently they've never met an American or Aussie drag racer.

Blind_Io · November 17th, 2007, 11:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LurkerPatrol

... I'm 300% sure of that...

With a statement like that you are not allowed to question any one else's use of math or numbers. Ever.

M3lover · November 18th, 2007, 1:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bartboy9891

It's just a general reference, most people don't really care anyway.

Yeah, I don't see any point of them being completely anal with the numbers (Think german / American reviews).

How lame and un TG'ish would it be that they said something like:

"The new wing on the CCR should give a 3,72 sec. better time"

(Maybe not all that lame, but being a student of engineering we have really strict guidelines for how many decimals you can use, and with the amount of uncertainty there is in guessing a laptime of a new car you can't really do it any better than within seconds...)

vyllu · November 18th, 2007, 1:13 AM

The wet/dry difference came from the Black Stig's lap times in the Liana.

Walsh_e · November 18th, 2007, 5:08 AM

The 4 second rule in the SIARPC segment seems moderatly accurate, when the segment first started the average time was 1:50, most of the better drivers got 1:54 in the wet so it would seem close enough, when Mark Webber went around in the rain he had a 1:47, seeing as most of the F1 boys are around 1:44 it would again seem slightly less for them (3 seconds). I'm not to sure if it would count with the new car thou, it should (in theory) have a better chassis, tyres etc, so the difference should be less between wet and dry.

As always thou it depends on driver skill, plus as we saw in the last season drivers having the air conditioning on (Coogan) might also have some effect on the cars performance.

LurkerPatrol · November 18th, 2007, 5:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blind_Io

With a statement like that you are not allowed to question any one else's use of math or numbers. Ever.

Wow I'm sorry dude...

I didn't mean for it to be some anal-retentive thing, I just wanted to know whether it should be taken seriously or not and after noticing the pattern, I just assumed that it wasn't and wanted to get other's opinions.

November 17th, 2007, 2:18 AM	#1
LurkerPatrol Come see me eat nipples.. Joined: Apr 24th, 2006 Last Online: 2:07 AM Location: San Diego, California Age: 22 Posts: 2,167 Car: ?rac tahW Rep Power: 235	4 seconds faster Stupidest question in the world, but have you noticed that TG always seems to use 4 seconds as their improvement amount for anything that does a lap of the track? Whenever they say something along the lines of "The stig says if <insert some change here> then it would be 4 seconds faster". Example is the Koenigsegg CCX without the wing. The same goes for 4 second difference between wet and dry times. There are more examples of this, I'm 300% sure of that, I just don't remember them. Anyway, after hearing it numerous times, I've just taken this 4 second thing to be B.S., what do you guys think? __________________ Warning: Age of poster not necessarily an indicator of maturity level. Differentiate twice before breakfast - my professor

November 17th, 2007, 2:23 AM	#2
TomCat Joined: Dec 11th, 2005 Last Online: 1:19 AM Location: Arizona Age: 25 Posts: 4,120 Car: 2004 Chrysler PT Turbo; 1985 Toyota 4Runner Rep Power: 65	I agree, its way too vague. If a RWD and a AWD both drive in the rain and get the same time, there is no doubt that the RWD would post a faster lap in the dry. I think that also applies to cars with more torque then others, making them far more difficult to drive in the wet. Or cars that are just better designed and offer more grip, even in slick conditions. __________________ When in doubt, throttle out.

November 17th, 2007, 2:52 AM	#4
LurkerPatrol Come see me eat nipples.. Joined: Apr 24th, 2006 Last Online: 2:07 AM Location: San Diego, California Age: 22 Posts: 2,167 Car: ?rac tahW Rep Power: 235	I know I made a very pointless thread didn't I I agree with both, I think if you a driver thats too careful on the track the amount is going to be much higher. Wouldn't the amount also depend on the brand, size, and width of the tires being used? If you had a car on racing slick tires go on a dry versus wet track, I'm assuming the driver would be forced to be careful and that thinking time would add more to the wet/dry time difference. __________________ Warning: Age of poster not necessarily an indicator of maturity level. Differentiate twice before breakfast - my professor

November 17th, 2007, 7:38 AM	#7
bartboy9891 I'm not Moe Joined: Dec 1st, 2004 Last Online: Yesterday Location: University of Michigan Age: 20 Posts: 8,809 Car: 1996 Grand Am SE sedan, and dad's 2006 S60 2.5T Rep Power: 77	It's just a general reference, most people don't really care anyway. __________________

November 17th, 2007, 5:45 PM	#10
thedguy ^ will bore you to death Joined: Jun 18th, 2004 Last Online: Yesterday Location: Under the Counter at McD's Posts: 7,419 Car: 1990 Mazda MX-5 & 91 318i. Rep Power: 144	If the Stig could be bothered to launch a 4wd car properly... it would be 4 seconds faster. I get irritated as hell when they say a 4wd/awd car is disadvantaged on the drag strip because they have to save the clutch. Apparently they've never met an American or Aussie drag racer. __________________

November 17th, 2007, 4:41 AM	#6
nannocrob Banned Joined: Jul 25th, 2007 Last Online: February 21st, 2008 Location: Pahrump, Nevada Posts: 192 Car: Hummer H2H Hybrid AKA "The Redundant" Rep Power: 0	If the car didn't crash and kill the Stig, than it would have been four seconds faster than the Zonda.

November 18th, 2007, 1:13 AM	#13
vyllu Joined: Nov 19th, 2006 Last Online: Yesterday Location: Cambridge, England Age: 21 Posts: 239 Rep Power: 19	The wet/dry difference came from the Black Stig's lap times in the Liana.

November 18th, 2007, 5:08 AM	#14
Walsh_e Joined: Jun 26th, 2005 Last Online: Yesterday Location: Wirral, British Empire Age: 24 Posts: 314 Rep Power: 22	The 4 second rule in the SIARPC segment seems moderatly accurate, when the segment first started the average time was 1:50, most of the better drivers got 1:54 in the wet so it would seem close enough, when Mark Webber went around in the rain he had a 1:47, seeing as most of the F1 boys are around 1:44 it would again seem slightly less for them (3 seconds). I'm not to sure if it would count with the new car thou, it should (in theory) have a better chassis, tyres etc, so the difference should be less between wet and dry. As always thou it depends on driver skill, plus as we saw in the last season drivers having the air conditioning on (Coogan) might also have some effect on the cars performance. __________________ TPR Any fool can build a bridge that won't fall down! It takes a man of real skill to design one that "just" won't fall down - Colin Chapman

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Do every 5 seconds ;)	Xeon SX	Technology	15	August 11th, 2006 5:03 PM
What car is this? (From the movie 7 Seconds)	Mischief007	General Automotive	22	January 3rd, 2006 2:29 PM
0-60 in 2.7 seconds thats all that needs to be said	iboss429	General Automotive	21	July 31st, 2005 6:09 AM
0-100 MPH in no seconds...just 1.	Cruzz563	General Automotive	22	November 23rd, 2004 2:19 PM

Welcome to the FinalGear.com Forums!