BMW M3 Forum (E90 E92)

BMW Garage BMW Meets Register Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read


Go Back   M3Post - BMW M3 Forum > M3 (E90 / E92 / E93) > General M3 Forum (E90 + E92 + E93)
 
Racewerkz Engineering
Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
      06-19-2007, 10:00 AM   #23
2m3
Private First Class
 
Drives: 1995 M3, 1988 M3
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: HIllside VIllage, ca 90032

Posts: 135
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by d3l0n View Post
I have always thought of this.. how come cars (Bmw's especially) kcik other cars ass with having less power than competitors... and this is the only reason i caould thing as to why! Great find man.. i wish i could get that entire article and see a list of all other top sports cars and their losses to the wheel
The short gearing on BMW 3 series also contributes to its performance
2m3 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      06-19-2007, 10:02 AM   #24
2m3
Private First Class
 
Drives: 1995 M3, 1988 M3
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: HIllside VIllage, ca 90032

Posts: 135
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by bimmerwithholes View Post
understeer bla blah.....it'll make up for it
50-50 overrated...

corner without brake? drift? lol......rite rite

bmw = fun...just don't exaggerate...
Which race track you have been to?
Using which car?
A BMW with AMG 6.3 engine???
2m3 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      06-19-2007, 11:53 AM   #25
2m3
Private First Class
 
Drives: 1995 M3, 1988 M3
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: HIllside VIllage, ca 90032

Posts: 135
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by bimmerwithholes View Post
none...
i have bmw with holes

yes BMW with AMG63 engine
Ok, my friendly suggestion, you can learn a lot from all the members on this forum who are nice, civillized, mature, and most important is they know how to discuss in a mature inteligent way.

You will learn a lot from all of them, otherwise you only spill this forum with your childish posts
2m3 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      06-19-2007, 01:18 PM   #26
lucid
Major General
 
lucid's Avatar
 
Drives: E30 M3; Expedition
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: USA

Posts: 8,034
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2m3 View Post
Ok, my friendly suggestion, you can learn a lot from all the members on this forum who are nice, civillized, mature, and most important is they know how to discuss in a mature inteligent way.

You will learn a lot from all of them, otherwise you only spill this forum with your childish posts
+1 (based on previous exchange on other thread)
lucid is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      06-19-2007, 02:20 PM   #27
lucid
Major General
 
lucid's Avatar
 
Drives: E30 M3; Expedition
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: USA

Posts: 8,034
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by bimmerwithholes View Post
please stop....
you already proved yourself (based on the official BMW M3 time thread)
that was hilarious.....no one can beat that
actually, your ignorance came through rather clearly: you don't even know the difference between tire temp and track temp, and yet claim to know something about posting times at a track. anyway, you aren't getting the message here, and that's too bad...
lucid is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      06-19-2007, 09:37 PM   #28
Hotan Braskey
Private First Class
 
Hotan Braskey's Avatar
 
Drives: 1M on Order- VO please
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Maryland, USA

Posts: 184
iTrader: (0)

Yeah, 7% loss is VERY low and is quite suspicious. Also, the RS4 community has been aware for a while now that the new model isn't putting out what it should at the dyno (even taking into account that it is AWD).
__________________
If all the animals below the equator were capable of flattery, then Thanksgiving and Halloween would fall on the same day.
Hotan Braskey is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      06-20-2007, 12:08 AM   #29
lucid
Major General
 
lucid's Avatar
 
Drives: E30 M3; Expedition
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: USA

Posts: 8,034
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by bimmerwithholes View Post
you wanna check that thread again??
not really. when i said track temp affects performance, you naively said, they warm up the tires before taking down the official time (and i hadn't brought about tire temp at all). track temp and tire temp are related but independent variables (there are two friction surfaces involved in the grip equation), and they both affect performance. that's just one example. you don't know when to stop speculating, and end up spilling over this forum like the other poster said earlier. enough bandwidth wasted on this...

Last edited by lucid; 06-20-2007 at 12:56 AM.
lucid is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      06-20-2007, 02:10 AM   #30
lucid
Major General
 
lucid's Avatar
 
Drives: E30 M3; Expedition
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: USA

Posts: 8,034
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by bimmerwithholes View Post
hey maybe you should become a BMW analyst....
they need you to improve their time for sure

that's a stretch...you should just e-mail BMW and tell them that
they haven't think throughly and should take all these variables you are talking about into consideration


when did I say anything about they warm up the tire before they run the track
man you need to learn how to read
Your response to my point about track temp affecting performance:

"1. tires needs to be hot..."

Your words not mine. Post #37 on that thread. Again, I had never said anything about tires at that point; I was only talking about track temp.

You still don't get it. I did not necessarily question if the so-called BMW time was the best they could get (although that is also under question: read the other posts on that thread). I am questioning the point of comparing that time with 40 other times on that list, and arriving at conclusions. The only two things on that list are the make of the car and time. Nothing else. How does that allow you to say anything meaningful about how the posted times relate to each other? How do you know what the weather conditions were, what part of the track was used exactly (read the rest of that post for discussion on that), who the driver was (again, read the rest of that post for discussion on that), etc., for all the other runs? And in the absence of that information, how can you argue that a 10-15 second difference between any of those two times is significant? Let me guess: a) you were there in person for all those runs; b) you own the track; c) you were the one in front of the wheel posting the times; d) you don't know what you're talking about, but keep on talking anyway, which you are entitled to do I guess. I'd say d...It's interesting how you respond to reason by laughing out loud in front of your computer by yourself by the way.
lucid is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      06-20-2007, 08:57 AM   #31
lucid
Major General
 
lucid's Avatar
 
Drives: E30 M3; Expedition
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: USA

Posts: 8,034
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by bimmerwithholes View Post
lol
1. tires needs to be hot = they warm up the tire before they run??
you were talking about track temp saying higher temp will slow donw the car or something.
I pointed out tire need to be hot.
2. so you are not questioning these variables huh...why did you point out these variables at first place if you don't have problem with them. You even post more questions after I respond.

Let me quote your first post

basically all you are wondering about are the uncontrolled variables

yah please make me laugh some more
I didn't say anything about higher track temps slowing down the car at all. You made that up now. I just said track temp affects lap times--nothing more. I bet you don't see a difference in between those two statements either. Then, you started talking about tire temps, and started mixing those two variables up.

I don't think you understand what an "uncontrolled variable" is. Whenever you do a technical comparison of any kind, you need to make sure the variables that affect the outcome are well documented for the different test cases, and if possible, be kept the same so that the outcomes are directly comparable. Is that so hard to understand? And the thread was all about comparing the so called offical M3 time with the lap times of 40 other cars, which weren't even official (obtained by car mags). I don't know how else this can be made clear. Also, read the rest of that thread; there are other posts pretty much saying the same thing. I wish laughing helped your comprehension abilities, but it clearly doesn't...Go on though; laugh some more.
lucid is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      06-20-2007, 11:16 AM   #32
lucid
Major General
 
lucid's Avatar
 
Drives: E30 M3; Expedition
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: USA

Posts: 8,034
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by bimmerwithholes View Post
1. "1. You will get different results if the track temp is 8C vs 35C. That's the difference between nice Fall weather and nice summer weather. Just because it's not raining or something doesn't mean the weather effects can be ignored."

Now I am jumping ahead that car will be slower with 35C take tire grip out the equaiton.
If you want me to explain every little detail I wrote to you....it's pretty sad. It's common sense that car produces higher dyno during cold weather.
It seems like you didn't think about tire grip....So I commented on tire.

Nevertheless all this should already been controlled by BMW....as they are trying to produce the best time.

2. Your logic make sense in chemistry lab. But in real life, you can't expect everything to be controlled. You are saying If it's not controlled then it's incomparable, because they all run in different day by different driver, so forth
With your logic you can't compare anything....So we gathered senseless data for nothing.

However, if we really want to compare something, we can compare with the best time a team produces. you don't blame anything on weather, driver watever....Because it should already been considered by BMW.....

Only thing we should consider should be: Is it stock VS stock?

PS
1. BMW ran a extra course was just a speculation, nobody knows.
2. I'd love to see you post the same comment when M3 run a 7:50 .....lol
1. It is unclear what BMW was trying to do out there, and if they were even trying to optimize for external variables. So the 8:12 time is probably meaningless to begin with. They were probably just testing and setting up some benchmarks. The lap time can't be official until they have a production car in their hands, which, to the best of my knowledge, they don't at this time.

2. Yes, in real life, you can't control everything, and that's why you document what the external variables were at the time of testing so people can make inferences as to how influential those variables might or might not have been. That allows one to make comparisons to an extent.

3. If the times posted for the other cars were obtained by the manufacturer and not some car mag, I would buy the reasoning that "we can compare with the best time a team produces." A car mag will most likely not go the full distance to do whatever it can to get the fastest time for a car, but the manufacturer will.

4. I don't see how the M3 possibly running 7:50 has anything to do with discussion. I hope that it does so I end up purchasing a higher performing machine.

The above is probably the first sensible post you've produced on this forum. I suggest you keep it up, and tone the language down.
lucid is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      06-20-2007, 01:33 PM   #33
lucid
Major General
 
lucid's Avatar
 
Drives: E30 M3; Expedition
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: USA

Posts: 8,034
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by bimmerwithholes View Post
2. haha usually you won't see all those variables....Are you able to find all these variables? You can assume it's the optimal condition because BMW is trying to optimize their result....You don't seem to get that....

3. let me get this straight...car magazine will not try to produce the fastest time, but manufacture will. So you believe SportAuto's time should be slower than the manufacture official time....that means if SportAuto drive the new M3 it won't even reach 8:12
I donno what you trying to say here...but applying "A car mag will most likely not go the full distance to do whatever it can to get the fastest time for a car, but the manufacturer will." make comparison valid....Since we are comparing not optimize time to optimized time and the optimized one is disappointing.

4. you are saying 10-15 sec of difference won't matter....So given that condition M3 might run a 7:50...why not short another 5 sec since it doesn't matter anyway....
Even if it ran a 7:58...I bet you won't say "10-15sec won't matter" haha

5. Same to you
2. It's not that hard to record track temp, driver name, what part of track used, wind strength, fuel load, tires and non-stock parts, etc.

3. I don't know what SportAuto woud get if they drove the M3 BMW was testing since I do not know what BMW was trying to achieve out there at this time (therefore it is not clear if the 8:12 is indeed the optimized official time). When BMW comes out and says we've posted the following fastest time with a production M3, yes, I'd say it is extremely unlikely any car mag can beat that time.

4. I'm not saying 10-15 seconds wouldn't matter. If the data on all cars were somewhat comparable, then that simply would mean that one was faster than the other by 10-15 seconds, which is probably a good deal. However, I am saying that if the data aren't comparable--if there is too much uncertainty in the actual performance measurement--then the difference could simply be attributed to the variance in the uncontrolled variables. I am talking signal to noise ratio.

5. I'll laugh along since we are finally saying the same thing...

P.S. ILC32 just posted on the lap time thread that BMW Canada took down the 8:12 number, which reminds me that we are way off topic here...
lucid is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      06-21-2007, 12:00 AM   #34
swamp2
Lieutenant General
 
swamp2's Avatar
 
Drives: E92 M3
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Diego, CA USA

Posts: 10,201
iTrader: (1)

Subsidiaries

Quote:
Originally Posted by bimmerwithholes View Post
i c they took off the time.....So apparently BMW Canada had a wrong information, and in this case your speculation is right

If next time BMW post a time on their website would we go through the same argument again
Well I was not really participating but there should not be any argurments as long as everyone now realizes that each country's subsidiary is not BMW M GmbH. Each subsidiary is supposed to get information from BMW, then massage a bit to their own liking and market requirements. Seems pretty clear that BMW M GmbH won't tolerate subsidiaries unofficial information nor rumors. Good for them!
swamp2 is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      06-21-2007, 01:18 AM   #35
moss
Private First Class
 
Drives: Audi RS4
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: England

Posts: 119
iTrader: (0)

The problem with the M3 is that it may be very efficient at putting 414bhp out through it's rear tyres on a hot sticky track, but throw in some rain and some greasy roads and most of it's 414bhp will be used to spin it's rear tyres. I remember my E46 was just plain crappo in the wet. I think in countries such as the UK, which receives mixed weather, the advantages of 4WD make the cars like RS4 untouchable. Maybe I should just move to Nevada or somewhere :@)
moss is offline   United Kingdom
0
Reply With Quote
      06-21-2007, 03:30 AM   #36
mudd786
Private
 
Drives: M3 E36
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lancashire, UK

Posts: 52
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by moss View Post
The problem with the M3 is that it may be very efficient at putting 414bhp out through it's rear tyres on a hot sticky track, but throw in some rain and some greasy roads and most of it's 414bhp will be used to spin it's rear tyres. I remember my E46 was just plain crappo in the wet. I think in countries such as the UK, which receives mixed weather, the advantages of 4WD make the cars like RS4 untouchable. Maybe I should just move to Nevada or somewhere :@)

+1 :rocks:

you can only rarly floor the thing as it twitches all over the place in the wet, in the dry it super glued to the road

wonder what roughly an extra 100hp will do
mudd786 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      06-21-2007, 03:41 AM   #37
lucid
Major General
 
lucid's Avatar
 
Drives: E30 M3; Expedition
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: USA

Posts: 8,034
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by moss View Post
The problem with the M3 is that it may be very efficient at putting 414bhp out through it's rear tyres on a hot sticky track, but throw in some rain and some greasy roads and most of it's 414bhp will be used to spin it's rear tyres. I remember my E46 was just plain crappo in the wet. I think in countries such as the UK, which receives mixed weather, the advantages of 4WD make the cars like RS4 untouchable. Maybe I should just move to Nevada or somewhere :@)
Pretty common issue with the esclating hp race these days. I just read an article on how the inexperienced drivers are totaling their $200k+ supercars; almost all of the accidents were attributed to driver error (drivers not being able to control the torque exiting a curve, or even on a straight line). I haven't been to a racing school, but sure am planning on it--not that I am about to buy a supercar or anything...

Last edited by lucid; 06-21-2007 at 08:07 AM.
lucid is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
Post Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:58 PM.




m3post
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
1Addicts.com, BIMMERPOST.com, E90Post.com, F30Post.com, M3Post.com, ZPost.com, 5Post.com, 6Post.com, 7Post.com, XBimmers.com logo and trademark are properties of BIMMERPOST