Better than Corvette C6 Z06?

[Matra et Alpine]

Uh, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt but in case you missed it (as it seems you have), I was talking about the Autocar test results at Rockingham, done under identical conditions (unlike in your NRing example where opposite ends of the 'Ring can have drastic changes even at the same exact time):
...

eg ... with a "little experience" it would be obvious that a modern track like Rockingham places very little "uncertainty" to the vehicle dynamics. There are no undulations in corners, no indentations, no height, no off-camber. So NO real test of the suspension compliance in the real world where all of htose exist. ie very little that tests SUSPENSION
Those tests are the equivalent of slaom tests etc. Yes, gives a NUMBER but the vairation that the impact of the REAL outside world roads measn it can by easily reversed in terms of results.
THAT is called "experience" that no amount of close-minded, mag-masturbation can provide

[Guibo]

Well if you're going to MIS-suggest my actions then at least get SOME of it right
The REAL problem is when selective quotation is used SOmethign you do well to work in balance -- especially all that "prose"=guff in teh earlier post
eg the oft-ignored Top Gear comments etc etc.

Oh yeah, He who has "wasted enough time" in this thread, hasn't. And who has "no stigma with anything YOU may say about me anymore !!!", apparently does. Damn, guy. Your lack of self control is exceeded only by your lack of throttle control.

Oh, yes. TopGear. Wonderful how you turned a discussion about in-gear, straight-line acceleration to one involving 10/10ths driving around bumpy corners, throttle control in the wet, etc. Brilliant!

[Cyco]

Guido, you where the poster who took the convo from about cars that could better the Corvette Z06 to talking about that masses of torque is a wonderful thing.

I then brang the AMV8 to the thread to show 3 cars of similar design (AMV8, C6 and SRT-10) that on a testing course (the N'ring) that you brought up as a possible yardstick did not require torque to be imperitive to set fast times. Now apparently that the conditions were very similar is not good enough and so you are scrapping your 1st basis for comaprison and looking for another.

Can you PLEASE stop changing tack every other post so some of us can work out what you are on about?

[Guibo]

Guido, you where the poster who took the convo from about cars that could better the Corvette Z06 to talking about that masses of torque is a wonderful thing.

Again, you need to revisit the thread: Matra pointed out how torque is such a nightmare in the wet. I countered that he did NOT prove his case. Basically, he said torque was BAD. I said: it depends (on who's driving), and even a careless driver in a torqueless wonder can get it wrong in the wet. Are you of the position that torque is the determining factor in how that car gets around wet corner, or does it really depend (as I've been saying)?
And tell me seriously that the results of that TopGear "test" wouldn't be different with either a V8 Vantage, Z06, or Enzo in place of the FQ400. Then go ahead and tell me what you think of the Lancer Register test of the FQ340 and FQ400.

I then brang the AMV8 to the thread to show 3 cars of similar design (AMV8, C6 and SRT-10) that on a testing course (the N'ring) that you brought up as a possible yardstick did not require torque to be imperitive to set fast times.

Whoa, who said torque was imperative for fast times? Because I said torque is not necessarily automatically a disadvantage, that means I'm saying torque is imperative to fast times? Is that what you're saying?
Before you continue, I'd like for you to capture a screen shot of me saying torque is imperative for fast times (as it relates to going around corners), and then post it up here. Can you do that? Thanks, looking forward to it.

[Matra et Alpine]

Oh yeah, He who has "wasted enough time" in this thread, hasn't. And who has "no stigma with anything YOU may say about me anymore !!!", apparently does. Damn, guy. Your lack of self control is exceeded only by your lack of throttle control.

Oh, yes. TopGear. Wonderful how you turned a discussion about in-gear, straight-line acceleration to one involving 10/10ths driving around bumpy corners, throttle control in the wet, etc. Brilliant!

Look dumpling YOU quoted me again.
THe DISadvantage of the lack of the ignore option is that each of us have to remember who the annoying twerps are each time we come here. As we have busy adn technical lives with many challenges and decision we have little time for remembering the gnats and mosquitoes of the world.
SO get over it.

PS THe post I replied to YOU were giving LAP TIMES !!! So how you imagined it was oinly acceleration I ( and I suspect every other reader ) can't even imagein>
( Well actually I can, but it woudl be considered a personal insult to type it and THEN you'd only bleat on abotu that too )
SO, READ YOUR OWN POSTS and comprehend them before replying in future

[Matra et Alpine]

Again, you need to revisit the thread: Matra pointed out how torque is such a nightmare in the wet. I countered that he did NOT prove his case. Basically, he said torque was BAD. I said: it depends .

Those who live by the sword, die by the sword,

FInd me that quote.

*I* pointed out to you that lost of torque needed much more delicate control. SO sory, in English comprehension , that measn *I* said "it depends"

You are so up yoru own arse you haven't a clue what you said at all.

ANd dont' misquote me again, please. You jsut show yourslef up to be small-minded and incapable of reading.

[Cyco]

Matra pointed out how torque is such a nightmare in the wet.

I believe he pointed out it COULD be a problem in the wet, not that it was absolute.

Then go ahead and tell me what you think of the Lancer Register test of the FQ340 and FQ400.

I have no idea what the Lancer Register test is, and why it is now in this thread and what its relevence to it is.

Whoa, who said torque was imperative for fast times? Because I said torque is not necessarily automatically a disadvantage, that means I'm saying torque is imperative to fast times? Is that what you're saying?
Before you continue, I'd like for you to capture a screen shot of me saying torque is imperative for fast times (as it relates to going around corners), and then post it up here. Can you do that? Thanks, looking forward to it.

I prefer the Quote function as a screen shot gives less information, but I can include post numbers if you like?

Just give me some time to compile this.

[Guibo]

FInd me that quote.

*I* pointed out to you that lost of torque needed much more delicate control. SO sory, in English comprehension , that measn *I* said "it depends"

Actually, what you said was:
"And in some conditions MORE available power ( torque really) makes you slower.
Watch out on track times too as we've gone over this many times in other threads here. Some tracks you can't have a big car with lots of torque as it loses out to those that are lighter and with less torque by maintaining through corner speeds.
Well the problem with TORQUEY engines is it's difficult NOT to have the choice. Trying to drive a long stroker out of a corner in the wet is a bloody nightmare !! It's get REAL hard feathering the throttle that much. A few mms of movment and it spins out on you. It's then when a less torque is actually better and why race engines are many times detuned for some circuits."

You seemed pretty hard up to show that torque is a disadvantage, and has almost nothing to do with the driver, other than to say he really doesn't have much of a choice. It certainly doesn't sound like you're saying "it depends", as you push so hard for one point of view but not the other (that torque can be doled out controllably with a reasonably delicate foot).

[Guibo]

I believe he pointed out it COULD be a problem in the wet, not that it was absolute.
I have no idea what the Lancer Register test is, and why it is now in this thread and what its relevence to it is.

"And in some conditions, MORE available power (torque really) makes you slower."
Right, if you're a caveman or otherwise careless. Except, he didn't stress that point.

The Lancer Registry comment was posted in my first reply to the NRing lap times:
http://www.lancerregister.com/art_fq400report.php

What is the relevance? Ask Matra about what's so relevant about TopGear's "test" as it relates to this thread. Not much really, but I'll entertain it.

I didn't say outright torque makes the difference. I said that even some cars can beat the Z06 (through being lighter, or better geared for the passing maneuvers most are likely to encounter on an everyday basis). It's the accessibility of the torque that's the point, and it's real-world manifestation, ie, the actual acceleration matters more than the simple torque figure.
That being said, do you agree that the torque is one major factor that would have enabled the V8 Vantage to fare much better than the FQ400 in that TG episode? That's a simple yes or no question.

[Matra et Alpine]

Guibo, you die by your own words and logic
See where *I SAID* "in some condition" ???

not hard really was it

You are so intent in arguing a forgotten and pointless case that you've AGAIN talkjed yourself into a full circle !!!!

Really you DO KNOW that you're looking sillier the longer you keep up this pretence

[Guibo]

Guibo, you die by your own words and logic
See where *I SAID* "in some condition" ???

not hard really was it

You are so intent in arguing a forgotten and pointless case that you've AGAIN talkjed yourself into a full circle !!!!

Really you DO KNOW that you're looking sillier the longer you keep up this pretence

Yeah, I know you said in some condition. But what condition is that? The condition where a careless or inexperienced driver is at the wheel? Yes, I admit: in some condition, a drunk would send a torque monster in the weeds, and is likely to do the same in a torqueless car. But I thought we were considering decent drivers with decent throttle control, wherein torque is most definitely not the deciding factor in an off.
Like I said: "Right, if you're a caveman or otherwise careless. Except, he [YOU] didn't stress that point."
You did, however, stress the point about torque being a bloody nightmare, and that basically the driver has no choice: it's either all the torque, or none of it, irrespective of the fact that any half-decent throttle pedal will allow a skilled driver to negotiate a corner without necessarily going off.

[Matra et Alpine]

Yeah, I know you said in some condition. But what condition is that? The condition where a careless or inexperienced driver is at the wheel? Yes, I admit: in some condition, a drunk would send a torque monster in the weeds, and is likely to do the same in a torqueless car. But I thought we were considering decent drivers with decent throttle control, wherein torque is most definitely not the deciding factor in an off.

We were and the point I was making that it affects performance.
You lack the experience to realise it yet but EVERY time you see a driver in a professional race spin off in a corner then it's down to throttle control. Reading about it makes it sound easy, keeping a car on the limit of grip isn't.
( It' the difference between reading about it in Playboy and actually getting a woman to orgasm ( or man if tha't s your preference )

Like I said: "Right, if you're a caveman or otherwise careless. Except, he [YOU] didn't stress that point."

Because it's unnecessary and WRONG>
As already described.
STOP reading the mags and go get some track time. Any track will offer a 1 day "experience" and you'll learn and be able to comment with knowledge.
At the comment you're ignorant of FACTS because you don't' understand it.
It's like trying to explain differentiation to someone who's read an arithmetic book

You did, however, stress the point about torque being a bloody nightmare, and that basically the driver has no choice: it's either all the torque, or none of it, irrespective of the fact that any half-decent throttle pedal will allow a skilled driver to negotiate a corner without necessarily going off.

BS, I NEVER said that.
You because you dont' understand torque and driving MADE THAT LEAP and I've tried to explain it to you the error in that assumption.
Go back and read where I was explaining about small pedal movement.
The TRUTH was given to you, but you are so wrapped up in your own fantasies you've missed that also

[Guibo]

We were and the point I was making that it affects performance.

Always to the negative.

You lack the experience to realise it yet but EVERY time you see a driver in a professional race spin off in a corner then it's down to throttle control.

That's a load of crap. I've seen drivers go off due to finally realizing they've had an oh-shit-too-fast moment, then getting on the binders poorly, or poor steering AND braking modulation. It's not all about throttle control. Enough with your lame blanket statements.

Reading about it makes it sound easy, keeping a car on the limit of grip isn't.

And who the hell said it was easy? It takes more skill than typical, just as successfully handling at the limit in almost any car takes more skill than typical.
No response as to why the Ford GT and Corvette (with their masses of torque) outran the Evo, Noble, and the V8 Vantage in the wet? The Nismo 350Z was only .7 second slower than the Corvette in the dry. Yet in the wet, it was 7.8 seconds slower. Are you seriously trying to tell me the 350Z has more torque than the C6?

STOP reading the mags and go get some track time. Any track will offer a 1 day "experience" and you'll learn and be able to comment with knowledge.

I don't get all of my info from mags. Some of it is from owners in high hp, high torque vehicles. Curiously, these vehicles don't have on/off switches for throttle control...

BS, I NEVER said that.

The hell you didn't.
"And in some conditions MORE available power ( torque really) makes you slower.
Well the problem with TORQUEY engines is it's difficult NOT to have the choice. Trying to drive a long stroker out of a corner in the wet is a bloody nightmare !! It's get REAL hard feathering the throttle that much. A few mms of movment and it spins out on you. It's then when a less torque is actually better and why race engines are many times detuned for some circuits."

Any car is capable of maintaining steady state-cornering, neither applying increasing torque nor decreasing it. So if you're already on the limit of adhesion, and it's wet, but you decide to exercise that few mm of throttle travel before the car can really take it, then does that say more about the driver, or does that say more about the car? Originally, you say it's down to the torque that makes the difference, then now, several pages later, you say (as I've said all along) that it depends. Well, which is it?

[Guibo]

eg ... with a "little experience" it would be obvious that a modern track like Rockingham places very little "uncertainty" to the vehicle dynamics. There are no undulations in corners, no indentations, no height, no off-camber. So NO real test of the suspension compliance in the real world where all of htose exist. ie very little that tests SUSPENSION

If you're going to lend credence to that NRing example (and before you get all pissy and defensive, I'm not saying that you're necessarily doing that), then consider the speeds the V8 Vantage (on P Zero Corsas) and C6 managed at some of the known bumpy corners of the 'Ring:

Kesselchen
V8 Vantage - 215 kmh
C6 - 214

Hatzenbach section
V8 Vantage - 145 kmh
C6 - 142 kmh

Galgenkopf
V8 Vantage - 136
C6 - 130

Now, you've already agreed that part of the Corvette's skittishness over bumps is due to the runflats. Considering the Vantage is on R-compounds, wouldn't you say the very close cornering numbers indicate major differences in tires, rather than "poor(er) chassis dynamics"?

[Matra et Alpine]

Always to the negative.

not always.
Learn English comprehension.

That's a load of crap. I've seen drivers go off due to finally realizing they've had an oh-shit-too-fast moment, then getting on the binders poorly, or poor steering AND braking modulation. It's not all about throttle control. Enough with your lame blanket statements.

Actually teh ONLY lame part was your comprehension of the English.
I did NOT say all the others counted too.
All the bits YOU describe is "bad driving" what I was describing was the contrl in "good driving".
You clearly dont' know the difference

And who the hell said it was easy? It takes more skill than typical, just as successfully handling at the limit in almost any car takes more skill than typical.

So and NOW you are makign statements AGREEIGN with what I said.
You have allowed yourself to become VERY confused about what a car actually does under a drivers control and what I pointed out

No response as to why the Ford GT and Corvette (with their masses of torque) outran the Evo, Noble, and the V8 Vantage in the wet?

Correct as it was in amongst so much BS I missed it.
Track for one.
( As an interesting aside the "Stig" once was lambasted by muscle-lovers for supposedly not knowing how to drive a corvette. WOudl those arguments be valid here ? )
Without seeing corner speed it may well be that they entered corner better due to their balance.
More likely ( as I've expereienced this one ) is that EVERYBODY is as slow as shit roudn the corners but once on to the straight the torquier car delivered it faster and made up much more time. ( This is how the Saleen won at Knockhill ! )
There coudl be dozens of reasons ..... and good handling in wet is a large possibilty !!! ( seperate from power delivery )
Some cars handle better in the dry than the wet ( my A610 for one and mates GT40 rep too - go do searches you'll find numerous vids and pics I've posted on UCP of both )

The Nismo 350Z was only .7 second slower than the Corvette in the dry. Yet in the wet, it was 7.8 seconds slower. Are you seriously trying to tell me the 350Z has more torque than the C6?

no becaue ther eare potentlially DOZENS of reasons.
You confuse focussing on one aspect and tryign to getate or jsutify everyhing according to that.
ALL I pointed out to you is that a torquioer car requries better throttle control adn at teh limit the car that delivers the speed WITHOUT the need for finer control beyond physical possibiltiy is the oen that achives faster lap time regularly.

I don't get all of my info from mags. Some of it is from owners in high hp, high torque vehicles. Curiously, these vehicles don't have on/off switches for throttle control...

You are twisting statements.
Proof you haven't; a clue about it as otherwise you wouldnt' go there !

The hell you didn't.
"And in some conditions MORE available power ( torque really) makes you slower.
Well the problem with TORQUEY engines is it's difficult NOT to have the choice. Trying to drive a long stroker out of a corner in the wet is a bloody nightmare !! It's get REAL hard feathering the throttle that much. A few mms of movment and it spins out on you. It's then when a less torque is actually better and why race engines are many times detuned for some circuits."

Any car is capable of maintaining steady state-cornering, neither applying increasing torque nor decreasing it.

PROOF you dont' know anything about driving a car fast.
Did you READ the bit abotu "few mms" ? YOu ever been driven on a track round an undulating corner and the car pitching . Getting VERY fine throttle control is difficult -- and in a forest stage is near impossible !!!!

So if you're already on the limit of adhesion, and it's wet, but you decide to exercise that few mm of throttle travel before the car can really take it, then does that say more about the driver, or does that say more about the car?

Foolish statement.
HOW do you "know" you're at the limit of adhesion ?
You "feel" it. And make mninor inputs to keep it right there, so each time a littel loss is detected in front wash out or rear step then you counteract with steering and throttle input. Rahter than tryugin to obfuscate with all the OTHER reasons drivers spin off IF you'd read and understood the point about losing it from throttle steer control then you'd have graspe dit.
BUT I've tried dozens fo times to explain it to you.
You're LYING about talking to peoplr about driving fast on track or it woudlnt' even have needed saying.

Originally, you say it's down to the torque that makes the difference, then now, several pages later, you say (as I've said all along) that it depends. Well, which is it?

GO learn English.
I've explained to you many times.
At NO TIME DID I SAY "ONLY" thing as clearly steering input, tyre pressures, spring rates, damper settings, surface conditions and a million toerh things have an input. ALL I EVER SAID was that with LOTS of torque then control of IT becomes a major factor.
Here I wasted more time on the numpties by searchign it out for you.
My local track with friends GT40 rep. Rover V8 putting out about 380hp. In the wet. DIRECT experience http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/forum...gt40+knockhill
If you bother you'll find what my A610 is about. You'll see what I'm talkgin abotu when I talk about experience.
You have read, I've tried to help improve your understanding by givign first hand experiences and you dont' even bother reading the information and comprehending it because you WANT it to say somethign else so you nca mentally masturbate over it.
Other folsk on UCP are lloking for my time on MUCH more inportant issues.