Quote:
Originally Posted by GT5Junkie
I'm not sure why you equate stating the truth as hate. And no, I'm not talking about the rev limiter guy, he didn't even run that fast. One of the mags reported a 12.6, and another a 12.9. I can't remember which ones, but they're all listed in the ZL1 subforum.
They said sub 12s as a corrected time. If you didn't hear it, you did indeed miss it.
It doesn't make sense to use the same correction factor for a turbocharged engine as a supercharged engine. Most turbocharged engines lose less power at altitude due to how the wastegate controls boost. This is NOT the same for supercharged engines, because the amount of boost is usally controlled only by pulley size, not by a wastegate. If you look at regular SAE altitude correction factors for horsepower (for NA engines) you will find that they apply very well for supercharged engines and VERY poorly for turbocharged engines. Treating a supercharged engine like an NA engine in terms of correction makes sense, and works in practice. Treating it like a turbo engine does not.
So I do not think it's guaranteed they used the correction factor that you think they did, and in fact if they're smart they did NOT use it, because it's silly to use the same one for super and turbo engines. Maybe someone can send them an email and ask them.
It's possible the car could run faster at sea level, but not very likely. It's far more likely it would actually run slower, for one simple reason: traction. The correction factors deduct time for the horsepower you lost, but they DO NOT add time for the traction issues you avoided by having less HP. If you wanted to get a really amazing corrected timeslip in a very high horsepower car you'd take the car to the highest elevation you could find. The lesser horsepower makes the car a lot easier to launch and then the horsepower is all "added back in" via the correction factor.
|
You seen the video. 12.1 was done VERY EASILY and without power shifting. Live with it. You see it happen right in front of you and still want to argue about it? Did that look hard to accomplish to you? Wow...
Not going to argue about the corrections etc...we dont know for sure...pointless.
And your traction argument doesnt really apply hear. He could pick up half a second by going to a nice prepped track with VHT at sea level instead of a random spot on a road course and launching at 4400ft.
Lets just see who wins when they test the 2012 GT500 vs 2012 ZL1. We are just speculatiing for the most part.