ZR1 Drops 4 Seconds....
- Thread starter dangonay
- Start date
torqueless
Well-Known Member
i see the lolzsprangz card has already been dealt.
To those of you saying this is meaningless, it is only because it is an American car and you are jealous. None of you have seen the ZR1 in person, but I have since my friend had one in his shop to be tuned and an exhaust upgrade. It is drop dead awesome in person and fast as shit. It stops so hard that it will rip JC's face off which would be a huge improvement. If it was one of your gay over priced German Nazi wagons you would be praising it endlessly so get over it. Also the GTR sucks....Has launch control will blow up, Nissan fucks you in the ass on the warranty...lol. Pathetic car. Yes I have a faster car and it is just a mustang that cost me 30k and is better looking to boot.
fbc
Retired Moderator
Ah yes, I do love the fanboys posting criticising others for allegedly acting like jealous fanboys...
Mate, I'm a huge fan of the ZR1 - I adore it (though I do wish it had more charger 'whine). But four seconds around the 'ring proves nothing and isn't worth getting excited about. A four second time gap around that circuit is utterly irrelevant when it comes to any proper evaluation of any car.
I'll say it again - the ZR1 is epic, a few seconds here or there around the 'ring doesn't change that. But hey, feel free to jump to some more conclusions.
TC
aka TomCat
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2005
- Messages
- 11,432
The only thing Ring times are good for is broad scale comparisons.
Not many racetracks keep such detailed records of lap times, so it's hard to say what a car can or cannot do around a track. But with the Nurburgring being such a marketing tool, lots of manufactures take some pride in what their sports models can do around it. I personally think it's a good thing.
As for the ZR-1, I like seeing these times, because it makes certain people's comments about the ZR-1's +1G on the skidpad less valid. It has a ton of grip AND it can go around corners amazingly well.
Not many racetracks keep such detailed records of lap times, so it's hard to say what a car can or cannot do around a track. But with the Nurburgring being such a marketing tool, lots of manufactures take some pride in what their sports models can do around it. I personally think it's a good thing.
As for the ZR-1, I like seeing these times, because it makes certain people's comments about the ZR-1's +1G on the skidpad less valid. It has a ton of grip AND it can go around corners amazingly well.
Disciple
Active Member
-Rep. You sound like one of those know it all wankers from streetfire who drives around in a shitbox bragging to people how you beat Bugatti Veyrons.
Cold Fussion
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2007
- Messages
- 4,444
- Car(s)
- 1988 Ford Laser Ghia
4 seconds is within the 1% error margin so it is meaningless.
What have you done to your mustang to make it faster then a GT-r? The fact that you call German cars "nazi" cars isn't helping your believability.
What have you done to your mustang to make it faster then a GT-r? The fact that you call German cars "nazi" cars isn't helping your believability.
Last edited:
whoa.. I have to admit, you're a professional troll and flamebaiter, even when compared to me. way to go :lol:
skr
Active Member
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 381
- Location
- Berlin, Germany
- Car(s)
- 1992 BMW 525iA, 1999 Ford Focus Estate Ghia 1.8
Did anybody notice that almost nobody talks about the 1/4mile times? These times are the really irrelevant values when it comes to judging the overall ability of a car. If that was GM's intention they did rather well by putting down those numbers. Nobody talks about the ZR-1 about the car that can go fast in a straight line.
stevanford1
Well-Known Member
Nocturnal
Well-Known Member
Why would we be jealous? None of us work for Nissan, nor own a GTR. I have seen a ZR1, and it was very 'meh'. Looks much better in the PR shots than it does in the metal. The GTR is the opposite, despite it's size it has a very under-stated presence about it.
I wouldn't buy either car, nor would I buy a Mustang. But then I have taste, as do some others in here. You can't buy that.
Haha, quoted for truth. I hate SF.:lol:
fbc
Retired Moderator
You were doing so well until that point - and then you stooped to his level...
Wizegui
Well-Known Member
'Ring times are like the new "Horse Power / Litre" yard stick (or whatever you want to call it). Absolutely ridiculous, but I suppose it sells...
DTMracer
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2007
- Messages
- 1,490
- Car(s)
- 1988 Mini Cooper, 1998 MB E55 AMG
Whats wrong with Mustangs? I really fancy a Shelby.
F8L SVT has a very good point, but by talking like a 12 year old people are discounting him.
I've followed 'ring times for over 25 years now. The 'ring has always been the benchmark to measure cars and people never questioned a 'ring time nor did they talk about "different drivers, different days, different weather" or make comments like "comparing 'ring times is pointless".
I can't help but notice the coincidence in seeing these types of remarks coming at a time when you have a good 'ol Chevy (or Nissan or Dodge) beating the best available from Porsche or Ferrari. Now all of a sudden 'ring times are meaningless. But just 10 years ago they were the standard used to compare the "true" capabilities of a car. And today they are "pointless"? Anyone wanna tell me what else has changed in recent years to cause this "shift" in preceptions on 'ring times?
I don't buy the "different conditions" argument people use one bit. Companies will test their cars over several days (or weeks) under all sorts of conditions. Everyone knows that even different sections of the track can have different conditions on the same day, which tends to level the playing field. When someone posts a time, do you think they ran one lap on a crappy day and said "gee, that's the best we can do"? No, they will publish the fastest time the car has ran over who knows how many laps and over how many days.
Sure the car may go even faster if the conditions were ideal (which probably will never occur at Nurburgring anyway), but a 'ring time will show you how fast a car has actually ran at one point in time.
To the people who think 4 seconds is nothing, why don't you look at the cars in this area and see what a huge gap 4 seconds is once you're down to the low 7 minute range? Take off another 4 seconds and suddenly you're in the Radical and Donkervoort territory. 4 Seconds is a huge difference once you're at this level of performance.
I supposed the next thing you'll tell me is that knocking 0.1 second off a world record 100M sprint is "no big deal" either.
I've followed 'ring times for over 25 years now. The 'ring has always been the benchmark to measure cars and people never questioned a 'ring time nor did they talk about "different drivers, different days, different weather" or make comments like "comparing 'ring times is pointless".
I can't help but notice the coincidence in seeing these types of remarks coming at a time when you have a good 'ol Chevy (or Nissan or Dodge) beating the best available from Porsche or Ferrari. Now all of a sudden 'ring times are meaningless. But just 10 years ago they were the standard used to compare the "true" capabilities of a car. And today they are "pointless"? Anyone wanna tell me what else has changed in recent years to cause this "shift" in preceptions on 'ring times?
I don't buy the "different conditions" argument people use one bit. Companies will test their cars over several days (or weeks) under all sorts of conditions. Everyone knows that even different sections of the track can have different conditions on the same day, which tends to level the playing field. When someone posts a time, do you think they ran one lap on a crappy day and said "gee, that's the best we can do"? No, they will publish the fastest time the car has ran over who knows how many laps and over how many days.
Sure the car may go even faster if the conditions were ideal (which probably will never occur at Nurburgring anyway), but a 'ring time will show you how fast a car has actually ran at one point in time.
To the people who think 4 seconds is nothing, why don't you look at the cars in this area and see what a huge gap 4 seconds is once you're down to the low 7 minute range? Take off another 4 seconds and suddenly you're in the Radical and Donkervoort territory. 4 Seconds is a huge difference once you're at this level of performance.
I supposed the next thing you'll tell me is that knocking 0.1 second off a world record 100M sprint is "no big deal" either.
thedguy
rides with Rebecca Black.. in the back
A larger crowd of people noticing them, 10 years ago the only people that paid attention to 'Ring times were those who probably had a chance in hell of going, or even knew of the track.
Hercules286
Well-Known Member
I sincerely doubt you've been following ring times for over 25 years now. I also doubt that the ring has always been the benchmark to measure cars, even more that people never questioned laptimes, nor did they discuss weather, or drivers. People might or might have not deemed ring laptimes a worthy comparison.
Anyway, if you've actually been following ring times for over 25 years now you should have plenty of literature and e-trail to prove it. Recollections and opinions don't matter.
If the above was too long and confused you, I'm challenging your self-declared credentials.
ja404
Well-Known Member
All this argument, but very little data. Let's consider the 24 Hours Nurburgring (all data can be found here: http://adac.24h-rennen.de/en/database/result-database.html)
Have a look at some of the data there. Looking at about 30 laps, average range in laptimes for one driver is 12 seconds (this is the first place team 2008).
If you want to get statistical, their laptimes will be within about 8 seconds of their average 95% of the time.
Additionally, this particular team can only hope to be within 4 seconds of their average time, 68% of the time.
Have a look at some of the data there. Looking at about 30 laps, average range in laptimes for one driver is 12 seconds (this is the first place team 2008).
If you want to get statistical, their laptimes will be within about 8 seconds of their average 95% of the time.
Additionally, this particular team can only hope to be within 4 seconds of their average time, 68% of the time.