Lightning Lap
09-09-2016, 03:13 PM
#63
Racer
Good point on the 488 times, you never can be too sure with Ferrari. But to be fair, I drove one on track and it really does have a stupid amount of thrust and great handling to match. Not surprising to see it take 4th fastest time ever.
That Grand Sport time though...oof. Only one tenth slower than a RS means if you sneeze that Grand Sport is gonna be up your ***. Has the least horsepower of the top 20 Lightning Lap times ever.
09-09-2016, 04:14 PM
#65
Lightning Lap is a joke, and they use multiple drivers with greatly varying levels of experience.
The GT350 is not slower than the Z28, the NSX is not slower than the 458, and all of their times are off the true capability of each car. I wouldn't take any of their lap times as an indication of the cars performance.
The GT350 is not slower than the Z28, the NSX is not slower than the 458, and all of their times are off the true capability of each car. I wouldn't take any of their lap times as an indication of the cars performance.
09-09-2016, 04:17 PM
#66
Rennlist Member
NSX time isn't impressive, but isn't bad. A bit faster than the GT3 and Turbo S but can't hang with the 570S. What is bad is the R8's time. I'm sure it didn't have the sticky tires on it, but it's a good 8 seconds slower than its corporate sibling and way off all the other current cars in that class.
Good point on the 488 times, you never can be too sure with Ferrari. But to be fair, I drove one on track and it really does have a stupid amount of thrust and great handling to match. Not surprising to see it take 4th fastest time ever.
That Grand Sport time though...oof. Only one tenth slower than a RS means if you sneeze that Grand Sport is gonna be up your ***. Has the least horsepower of the top 20 Lightning Lap times ever.
Good point on the 488 times, you never can be too sure with Ferrari. But to be fair, I drove one on track and it really does have a stupid amount of thrust and great handling to match. Not surprising to see it take 4th fastest time ever.
That Grand Sport time though...oof. Only one tenth slower than a RS means if you sneeze that Grand Sport is gonna be up your ***. Has the least horsepower of the top 20 Lightning Lap times ever.
That said, I tend to turn off all driver aides and use my own skills, so maybe using the computer magic might make it faster and safer.
09-09-2016, 04:22 PM
#67
Racer
Lightning Lap is a joke, and they use multiple drivers with greatly varying levels of experience.
The GT350 is not slower than the Z28, the NSX is not slower than the 458, and all of their times are off the true capability of each car. I wouldn't take any of their lap times as an indication of the cars performance.
The GT350 is not slower than the Z28, the NSX is not slower than the 458, and all of their times are off the true capability of each car. I wouldn't take any of their lap times as an indication of the cars performance.
As a general guide for racetrack pace there really isn't anything better to go by. I wouldn't quibble over a second or so but it does tell you who runs with whom.
I'm selling a 2014 Stingray Z51 to likely move into a 991 GT3 soon and as someone who has some wheel time behind the C7 platform (albeit not the Grand Sport), the reported times on those are usually on perfectly fresh tires and brakes with someone who has a lot of experience in the vehicle. They're quick cars for very cheap all things considered, but the C7 is a twitchy platform and is not at all enjoyable to drive near the limit due to the fact that it likes to take a walk on the rear and doesn't tend to be as easily recoverable as some other cars are.
That said, I tend to turn off all driver aides and use my own skills, so maybe using the computer magic might make it faster and safer.
That said, I tend to turn off all driver aides and use my own skills, so maybe using the computer magic might make it faster and safer.
09-09-2016, 04:31 PM
#68
2016 LL chart.... highlighted is this latest event
09-09-2016, 09:59 PM
#69
Race Car
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: With A Manual Transmission
Posts: 4,728
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
VIR times are all over the map. Pre 2013 repave times are 2-3 seconds slower and based on most accounts the newest repave is even faster than the last one. IMSA was significantly faster than the same race last year, including the cup class.
Its almost pointless at this point for a historical comparison. That being said. The NSX looks slow and the grand sport....wow.
Its almost pointless at this point for a historical comparison. That being said. The NSX looks slow and the grand sport....wow.
09-09-2016, 10:26 PM
#70
VIR times are all over the map. Pre 2013 repave times are 2-3 seconds slower and based on most accounts the newest repave is even faster than the last one. IMSA was significantly faster than the same race last year, including the cup class.
Its almost pointless at this point for a historical comparison. That being said. The NSX looks slow and the grand sport....wow.
Its almost pointless at this point for a historical comparison. That being said. The NSX looks slow and the grand sport....wow.
09-10-2016, 08:22 AM
#71
For example, I'd expect the ACR to be a lot faster in your or Randy's hands as your race experience with high DF cars will allow you exploit it to the fullest where as mag editors and advanced track day drivers will likely never feel comfortable pushing it to that level.
As race car drivers, you're also able to jump in any car and drive it to the within .5 of it's maximum. However the other crowd will always be limited by their comfort level and confidence. Thus one editor might be 1-2 seconds faster/slow than another in the NSX because how well they gel with the car.
The motor trend version of this test is a lot more in line with a text book bake off where you have a vetted racer on his favorite track pushing the cars to the limit on the same day.
Having said all that, comparing LL laps over the years are not worth much. For the same year, I'd say there some truth to it if you keep perspective in mind.
09-10-2016, 10:27 AM
#72
I understand your argument but will counter it with:
Where do you draw the line? A pro should get pretty much everything out of the car to demonstrate it's capability. I understand using mere mortals for "real-world" attainable results but there are far too many variables.
Should the results be skewed if the 911 was tested by a guy who grew up in 911s and (while slow or a mere mortal) went relatively faster in the 911 than most others would? Or should the 911 be penalized and clocked as slower than a Camaro because it had the worst driver in LL and a Camaro had the best of the amateurs driving it?
Should a PDK car be demonstrated as 6 seconds faster than a manual 911 in the hands of one amateur when a different amateur was 3 seconds faster while an experienced pro shows its within 2 seconds?
Where do you draw the line for all of these variables?
On another note, even using a pro driver, lap times can vary by over 2 seconds when using brand new tires in the early morning vs worn tires in the heat of the afternoon. So even pro tests could easily skew the results unless each car had new rubber and was tested under the same weather conditions (or back to back) which probably never happens.
Where do you draw the line? A pro should get pretty much everything out of the car to demonstrate it's capability. I understand using mere mortals for "real-world" attainable results but there are far too many variables.
Should the results be skewed if the 911 was tested by a guy who grew up in 911s and (while slow or a mere mortal) went relatively faster in the 911 than most others would? Or should the 911 be penalized and clocked as slower than a Camaro because it had the worst driver in LL and a Camaro had the best of the amateurs driving it?
Should a PDK car be demonstrated as 6 seconds faster than a manual 911 in the hands of one amateur when a different amateur was 3 seconds faster while an experienced pro shows its within 2 seconds?
Where do you draw the line for all of these variables?
On another note, even using a pro driver, lap times can vary by over 2 seconds when using brand new tires in the early morning vs worn tires in the heat of the afternoon. So even pro tests could easily skew the results unless each car had new rubber and was tested under the same weather conditions (or back to back) which probably never happens.
09-10-2016, 11:58 AM
#73
Completely agree with Stuntman. if not a Pro diving then we have no baseline. We are looking for lap times therefor if someone cannot extract 99% of the theoretical performance from different cars repeatedly, then they are just clocking their personal best which is not what we are looking. also we have all experienced the track coming to us or going away, times can change even for a Pro even on the same day (75 in the morning 93 in the afternoon).
09-10-2016, 12:17 PM
#74
I understand your argument but will counter it with:
Where do you draw the line? A pro should get pretty much everything out of the car to demonstrate it's capability. I understand using mere mortals for "real-world" attainable results but there are far too many variables.
Should the results be skewed if the 911 was tested by a guy who grew up in 911s and (while slow or a mere mortal) went relatively faster in the 911 than most others would? Or should the 911 be penalized and clocked as slower than a Camaro because it had the worst driver in LL and a Camaro had the best of the amateurs driving it?
Should a PDK car be demonstrated as 6 seconds faster than a manual 911 in the hands of one amateur when a different amateur was 3 seconds faster while an experienced pro shows its within 2 seconds?
Where do you draw the line for all of these variables?
On another note, even using a pro driver, lap times can vary by over 2 seconds when using brand new tires in the early morning vs worn tires in the heat of the afternoon. So even pro tests could easily skew the results unless each car had new rubber and was tested under the same weather conditions (or back to back) which probably never happens.
Where do you draw the line? A pro should get pretty much everything out of the car to demonstrate it's capability. I understand using mere mortals for "real-world" attainable results but there are far too many variables.
Should the results be skewed if the 911 was tested by a guy who grew up in 911s and (while slow or a mere mortal) went relatively faster in the 911 than most others would? Or should the 911 be penalized and clocked as slower than a Camaro because it had the worst driver in LL and a Camaro had the best of the amateurs driving it?
Should a PDK car be demonstrated as 6 seconds faster than a manual 911 in the hands of one amateur when a different amateur was 3 seconds faster while an experienced pro shows its within 2 seconds?
Where do you draw the line for all of these variables?
On another note, even using a pro driver, lap times can vary by over 2 seconds when using brand new tires in the early morning vs worn tires in the heat of the afternoon. So even pro tests could easily skew the results unless each car had new rubber and was tested under the same weather conditions (or back to back) which probably never happens.
Here are some details on how it's structured: http://blog.caranddriver.com/lightni...neer-jim-mero/
To be within a couple of seconds on Mero is pretty respectable. Even their ACR time is only 4 seconds off from Winkler's lap record which we can assume is done is perfect conditions with the cars suspension finely tuned. That's on top of the ACR being a special case that will require a Pro driver to get the max out of. So yeah, I think they do ok all things considered.
Not sure if you're familiar but in sportbike land, you'll have some magazines do testing with a control tire on all the bikes, set their suspensions to optimal and then have a pro do the times. While that would be great to do on a car, it's not as easy. All top end sport bikes have fully adjustable suspension that is easy to adjust at the track. Tires and rims are pretty standard sized so getting a control tire is not a real challenge. Even then you'll have a delta between pro riders based on their riding style and comfort level.
All tests have their variables which will lead variance. As long those are detailed upfront and any anomalies are called out in the article (like the Z06 issues with multiple magazines) then I'm ok with it.
If you have a proposed test plan that doesn't exist today, would love to hear it. You do drive a lot of cars afterall!
09-10-2016, 01:24 PM
#75
They really aren't that defined, nor do they specify which cars ran in the morning vs. which ones in the hot afternoon and on what days by which drivers.
I'll quote myself from the GT350 thread which explains my issues with LL:
Using a control tire is another interesting point, but what does it tell us?
I use to think that would be a great way to reduce a variable to compare cars but nowadays car mfgs work with tire mfgs to create car-specific bespoke tires which are dialed in for the car's weight, handling characteristics, aggressiveness (not all PSS tires are created equal -actually far from it), etc... If you use a control tire, it may greatly skew the results when the chassis setup of one car really needs a certain characteristic of stability, sidewall stiffeness, or outright grip.
2-4 seconds is A LOT, especially when competing cars are within that variance of eachother.
I agree that mfg records are done under ideal conditions with a stack of new tires and a pro driver very in tune with that specific car. Throwing a bunch of amateurs in various cars leads to a hodgepodge of results that I don't think is great for drawing conclusions from.
I'm not sure what the answer is. If you have each brand bring a pro driver and new tires in a professional shootout, but that is logistically difficult, expensive, and raises the stakes and potential for mfgs to create cheater cars not representative of their showroom products. Maybe if you do that but have the magazines source and provide an unbiased car, but that would be difficult when the mfg often supplies the car to the magazine to begin with and still wouldn't prevent engineers from uploading special tunes with more boost and power to improve their performance.
Using a handful of unbiased pros and giving them new tires might be a better answer, but it'll be hectic to go through 20 cars in the same weather conditions early in the morning. Maybe over the course of 3 days the pros can clock their times and allow the journalists drive and comment in the afternoon.
I think the main points are using new tires, a pro driver, and running early in the morning. So whatever it takes to accomplish that whether a mfg wants to provide their own pro or the magazine brings one.
I'll quote myself from the GT350 thread which explains my issues with LL:
The biggest issue (and fundamental flaw) with Lightning Lap is that they use multiple drivers of greatly varying levels of experience to test different cars and comparing the results.
Would you agree with the conclusion that a V6 Camaro is faster than your GT3 because a comparison was performed with a pro in the Camaro and an inexperienced driver in the GT3? That's pretty much what LL does and why their results should be thrown in the trash.
Basically a handful of Car & Driver journalists go to the track and who gets to drive what is based off of seniority and experience. They really only have 1 decent driver and he gets to drive the best cars, but when each person is responsible for 5-6 cars, you get a split of driver talent between competitive cars which can result in cars of equal pace being seconds apart when in reality they may be within tenths (or even the faster car being misrepresented as slower because it doesn't work with that journalist's driving style). Anyone who avidly tracks their car can see some pretty big flaws in the structure of their test:
The Secrets Of Car And Driver's Lightning Lap Revealed - /DRIVEN - YouTube
On top of that, VIR has been repaved twice in the past few years and widened once, so no fault to C&D, but it's just bad timing that the track they chose changed so much, and really makes for historic times less relevant.
Anyone who tracks their cars knows that over a course of a day, lap times can vary by second(s) from early in the morning to the heat of the day. Doing a comparison over multiple days introduces a ton of variables unless you are trying to do all of your lap times in the ideal morning temperatures -which C&D likely doesn't.
I don't mind reading the subjective reviews of a given car by journalists, but to me, when I look at objective performance measurements, I think as many things as possible should be held constant and want to know which car is objectively faster. I don't want to see a drag racer doing 0-60 & 1/4 mile times in a Z06 being compared to someone who can barely drive stick in a Viper any more than I want to look at lap times of two different amateur drivers. I find MotorTrend's use of a pro (Randy) to compare cars as far more credible.
0.02
Would you agree with the conclusion that a V6 Camaro is faster than your GT3 because a comparison was performed with a pro in the Camaro and an inexperienced driver in the GT3? That's pretty much what LL does and why their results should be thrown in the trash.
Basically a handful of Car & Driver journalists go to the track and who gets to drive what is based off of seniority and experience. They really only have 1 decent driver and he gets to drive the best cars, but when each person is responsible for 5-6 cars, you get a split of driver talent between competitive cars which can result in cars of equal pace being seconds apart when in reality they may be within tenths (or even the faster car being misrepresented as slower because it doesn't work with that journalist's driving style). Anyone who avidly tracks their car can see some pretty big flaws in the structure of their test:
The Secrets Of Car And Driver's Lightning Lap Revealed - /DRIVEN - YouTube
On top of that, VIR has been repaved twice in the past few years and widened once, so no fault to C&D, but it's just bad timing that the track they chose changed so much, and really makes for historic times less relevant.
Anyone who tracks their cars knows that over a course of a day, lap times can vary by second(s) from early in the morning to the heat of the day. Doing a comparison over multiple days introduces a ton of variables unless you are trying to do all of your lap times in the ideal morning temperatures -which C&D likely doesn't.
I don't mind reading the subjective reviews of a given car by journalists, but to me, when I look at objective performance measurements, I think as many things as possible should be held constant and want to know which car is objectively faster. I don't want to see a drag racer doing 0-60 & 1/4 mile times in a Z06 being compared to someone who can barely drive stick in a Viper any more than I want to look at lap times of two different amateur drivers. I find MotorTrend's use of a pro (Randy) to compare cars as far more credible.
0.02
I use to think that would be a great way to reduce a variable to compare cars but nowadays car mfgs work with tire mfgs to create car-specific bespoke tires which are dialed in for the car's weight, handling characteristics, aggressiveness (not all PSS tires are created equal -actually far from it), etc... If you use a control tire, it may greatly skew the results when the chassis setup of one car really needs a certain characteristic of stability, sidewall stiffeness, or outright grip.
2-4 seconds is A LOT, especially when competing cars are within that variance of eachother.
I agree that mfg records are done under ideal conditions with a stack of new tires and a pro driver very in tune with that specific car. Throwing a bunch of amateurs in various cars leads to a hodgepodge of results that I don't think is great for drawing conclusions from.
I'm not sure what the answer is. If you have each brand bring a pro driver and new tires in a professional shootout, but that is logistically difficult, expensive, and raises the stakes and potential for mfgs to create cheater cars not representative of their showroom products. Maybe if you do that but have the magazines source and provide an unbiased car, but that would be difficult when the mfg often supplies the car to the magazine to begin with and still wouldn't prevent engineers from uploading special tunes with more boost and power to improve their performance.
Using a handful of unbiased pros and giving them new tires might be a better answer, but it'll be hectic to go through 20 cars in the same weather conditions early in the morning. Maybe over the course of 3 days the pros can clock their times and allow the journalists drive and comment in the afternoon.
I think the main points are using new tires, a pro driver, and running early in the morning. So whatever it takes to accomplish that whether a mfg wants to provide their own pro or the magazine brings one.