Quote:
Originally Posted by Deki
The Lamborghini was ran with other cars present on the track. My point is, it's a 13 mile long, 150+ turn track. The cars were driven on different days. All the cars were tested by different drivers. ZL1 and GT500s run there also run full cages, which adds a lot to the rigidity of the chassis. You absolutely can not compare lap times of cars that are within 3 seconds of each other on a track that long with those variables. The GT500 unofficially ran a 7:35 on that track as times by someone who recorded the car from one point on the track and timed it on video. If it in fact did that time officially, that would mean there is less than a 1.3% difference in the time between the GT500 and the ZL1. Do you think that is sufficient evidence that the GT500 would be faster than a ZL1 on most tracks, or do you think that the weather, driver, or other traffic conditions could more than affect the time more than 1.3%? Like I said, marketing tool. They can use that track to develop the suspension and chassis all they want, but anyone who cares about over all performance of a car will know that the 'Ring time means nothing.
|
So no 2 times on any given track are comparable (drag or autocross). Because unless they are the EXACT same conditions you can't compare them. Crap, that means that two guys lining up at a quarter mile track can't compare times since the lanes are different in conditioning. We need to call the NHRA and let them know this. BS. I agree with you that there is little difference in the times of the cars I used for examples. The point I was trying to make was that the technology in the ZL1 suspension makes it a contender against cars that, on paper, look to be superior.
The 'ring times mean nothing? What times matter then? I denounce quarter mile times. They don't matter because "anyone who cares about overall performance of a car knows" they mean nothing. Heck I denounce all track times!! Now we just have bench racing left. And we have come full circle back to this thread.