View Single Post
      10-28-2007, 07:49 PM   #128
gbb357
Captain
 
Drives: IS300
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: New York

Posts: 707
iTrader: (0)

What!

Okay, let's not start another war. The only reason i'm doing still doing this is because you and i have been pretty civilized about it, relatively. You responded with this, and you said that it is right on the money, it's highlighted. I responded yes it is, but only with the 40k figures and it is. BUt i said it is not with the "new" figures.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Swamp2
OK since you asked, I will humor you. There is no reason not to share the capabilities or validation of a software tool I like and call accurate.

Using the exact figures in your post and making only the following minor changes to the default CarTest parameters: weight - to match the measured curb weight (software includes options and defaults for driver weight and gas weight and they did not match the number you posted for this particular car), shift times - default is .5 s a more realistic figure for a good driver in a MT is .3 s. Conclusions:

-0-60: right on the money or within 3/10th however you like to call it
-0-100: within 7/10th or 1/10th
-1/4mi: within 1/10th to 4/10ths on ET
-1/4mi: trap within 1.5 - 3.5 mph

I think this is very typical of what one car get with CarTest. Do you notice how much closer this is comparing simulation to one actual test than the case we argued about for pages. I suspect that some tests do show better numbers and others worse for the E46 M3. My conclusion from this exercise is that both the reported figures for the car, the inputs to CarTest, the actual test itself and the simulation outputs are "consistent". There is no glaring/obvious problem with any of the pieces of the puzzle.
And then i responded with this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by gbb357
^^ Thanks Swamp. I do see the figures to be dead on with the second results(40,000miles). But if you look at the first figures(new), it is the same difference that your getting with the IS-F results. Around 0.4 secs. Since your calculation with the program is giving you around 4.7 or 4.8 with the ISF, it is possible that it could be off by 0.3 to 0.4. In other words, 4.2 might not be as imposssible as you may think, but 4.4 is probably more realistic and logical. Not to say that this proves anything. But it does show some kind of consistency.
Swamp, they are dead on with the 40k figures. Look at your figures and look at the 40k figures.

40k:
0-60= 4.8
0-100= 12.0
1/4mile= 13.4

Look at your figures:


But they are way off with the "new" figures.
"New figures"
0-60= 4.5
0-100= 11.2
1/4mile= 13.1


Anyway, like you said, we've beaten this topic way too much already. You're done and i'm done. Your bottom line is, the figure that you got originally for the IS-F of, and i'm just using this one as an example, 0-60 of 5.1, for you is realistic. Okay! Even though the IS350 have been recorded with the same results and even better ones. Enjoy your "Cartest", i'll stick with the more conventional reliable real world test and results. Please, somebody lock this thread.
gbb357 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote