The rumour has it! M3 V8 Nordschleife in 8.03 min

[southlight]

Originally Posted by savage.ulm1

can someone be so kind to tell me the differences between the semi R tires used by the rs4 (8.09 sec at the Ring) and the Michelin sport pilot that come standard with the M3?

The PS2 tires that come standard with the M3 are sport tires which are still fully drivable on wet roads. Semi R tires are even more performance orientated, which amongst others is achieved by reduced tire tread pattern. It's more slick like. This results in worse bad weather drivability because its tread pattern is not able displace much water, so aquaplaning is occuring faster than it would on the PS2. This said there's also to mention that the modern semi R tires do have a more disitnctive tread pattern than earlier versions (for example the one M3 CSL had), so it's not as bad in wet conditions as these early Cup tires were, but it's still way worse than PS2...

Originally Posted by savage.ulm1

are the semi R used by Audi similar to the Michelin sport pilot "CUP" (that eventually were used to obtain the 8.03 we are speaking in these days and we still don't know exactly) or better?

Yes, RS4 ran on P Zero Corsa which are on the same level as Michelin Cup tires, some say the Pirelli are even faster/better.

Originally Posted by savage.ulm1

Can someone confirm that really the Audi's time was made NOT with the standard tires but with these high performances tires (semi R)?

Yes.

Originally Posted by savage.ulm1

Why the other Ring time is quoted at 7,58 for the RS4? did they use carbon ceramic brakes also?could they really help at RING?

That's a time an Audi race driver allegedly achieved. Nobody knows the specification (power, weight, options) this particular car had. Not a number that can be compared to any other...

Originally Posted by savage.ulm1

too many questions I know:-))
thanks

No, you're kidding...

Best regards, south

[speedstar]

this time of 7.58 was on a rs4 limo, of corse with the semis,
but and here comes the difference the driver was stipler from the dtm.
the car was stoked with the super plus sportfahrwerk, wight around 1680 kg. Minimum equipement. (no navi but Radio, no other extras.

it is all about an excelent driver, i wish i could drive like thos people

[southlight]

Originally Posted by speedstar

this time of 7.58 was on a rs4 limo, of corse with the semis,
but and here comes the difference the driver was stipler from the dtm.
the car was stoked with the super plus sportfahrwerk, wight around 1680 kg. Minimum equipement. (no navi but Radio, no other extras.

it is all about an excelent driver, i wish i could drive like thos people

Thanks for the information about the specification of this RS4.

Best regards, south

[speedstar]

Originally Posted by southlight

R8 ran on Pirelli P Zero Corsa. So the answer is yes, 8:04 on UHP tires.
Referring the bet: Why did you lose some confidence here, shouldn't the DCT be able to save 3 seconds? (I think that's possible)

Best regards, south

according to the official sportauto online. page the r8 was not on semis. two stars behind the car name means semi..

http://www.sportauto-online.de/aktue...2725_14653.hbs

Will recheck the mag

[southlight]

Originally Posted by speedstar

according to the official sportauto online. page the r8 was not on semis. two stars behind the car name means semi..

http://www.sportauto-online.de/aktuell_U_sport/tuning_-_zubehoer/hxcms_article_%20%20502725_14653.hbs

Will recheck the mag

Just checked that issue, R8 had P Zero Corsa. It's a mistake on the website.
EDIT: Here's the proof: On bottom left it reads P Zero Corsa:
http://img15.imagevenue.com/img.php?..._122_692lo.JPG
[source: germancarzone.com ]

Best regards, south

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by southlight

Just checked that issue, R8 had P Zero Corsa. It's a mistake on the website.
EDIT: Here's the proof: On bottom left it reads P Zero Corsa:
http://img15.imagevenue.com/img.php?..._122_692lo.JPG
[source: germancarzone.com ]

Best regards, south

Great rescue south, having this measley (perhaps insignificant) win over the R8 with mostly equivalent tires is a "feather in the cap" of the M3 that I do not want to loose! Thanks!

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by lucid

Yeah, right, you are telling me that tests of different cars in different weather conditions (wind, temp, pressure, etc.) and especially with different drivers is an apples to apples comparison!? (Don't tell me they control for the driver effect by hiring pros or something). Get real. See Bruce's post on this forum about the effect of such variables on a simple 0-60 test. Then people pick on tires and start splitting hairs as if they are the only variable here. The only way you will get a somewhat apples to apples comparison is if you test the cars back to back with the same driver although weather conditions can still vary and one car might suit the driver's style better than the other.

You and I agree to disagree on this. There is nothing you can do to make an exact comparison, as you say, and even if you do the same-day, same-driver thing, there are the potential differences you mentioned, plus there will always be car to car variation, even to the extent that the environment may affect one car slightly differently than another "exact" car.

All that said, my belief is that posted "best" times for the Nurburgring are fundamentally pretty representative of the car's capability, down to perhaps a couple of seconds per lap - or at least in that vicinity.

I believe that to be so for the following reasons:

1) The manufacturers are striving for best times (amongst other things), so it's very reasonable to assume that they will make sure the car or cars they've brought to the site will be in perfect tune, and everything that may affect power, handling and braking will be well attended to.

2) As I understand it, manufacturers typically reserve the 'Ring for days or even weeks in a given year, for basic testing, but also to make sure they run a gamut of conditions. They come armed with enough data in regard to general and 'Ring-specific information so that when they leave, they know they've gotten a representative sample of the car's best performance - or not. If not, they'll be back. It remains to be seen, but when BMW let it out that they were doing 8:10s or so, they may have been a little disappointed (as I was), so definitely more to come. They won't stop until they're satisfied they've got a representative time, whatever that may be.

Originally Posted by lucid

Did you read what I wrote. Did I say anywhere in there that modifying the engine would not make the car non-stock? Read again why I set the tires apart from the engine: one is expected to last the lifetime of the car, the other is expected to be a variable during the lifetime of the car, and replaced within the first year for a high performance car like the M3.

I fundamentally disagree about tires. If the car comes with Michelin Pilot Sport Cups from the factory (either as standard or as an option), then it's perfectly fine to test that way, but if not, then they shouldn't be used to establish a standard for that car. First of all, they make a really big difference (on the order of a second per minute of lap time), and second of all, many (most) manufacturers of high performance cars stipulate an exact tire design that is specific to their car, and the tire manufacturers are happy to go along to get the business. The E36 and E46 M3s had model-specific Michelins on them, and so will the new ones, whatever the tire manufacturer. Swapping to "standard" PS2s on a given model *will* have an effect on lap times and handling characteristics, as will a switch to another brand of "equal" tires.

Allowing anything but either standard or optional rubber means you get hopelessly mired down in trying to equate yet another variable, in this case one that does not lend itself to accurate "adjustment".

Originally Posted by lucid

You don't need factory tires to be able to extrapolate from data if that's what you really want to do. All you need is to document whatever tires were used in the test, which is what I said in my initial post, and go from there.

I can't imagine what "go from there" actually relates to in real terms. Simple tire changes to even "equal" tires of another make can and will have significant effects on lap times - and unless those particular tires have been exhaustively tested on that car, there's no possible way to calculate anything back to a standard.

I understand where you're coming from, since your belief is that there is a broad latitude of plus or minus in the published times, but of course that is where we fundamentally disagree. I think the published times are likely to be representative to within a couple of seconds per lap, and you think it's way more. So be it.

Bruce

[lucid]

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

2) As I understand it, manufacturers typically reserve the 'Ring for days or even weeks in a given year, for basic testing, but also to make sure they run a gamut of conditions. They come armed with enough data in regard to general and 'Ring-specific information so that when they leave, they know they've gotten a representative sample of the car's best performance - or not. If not, they'll be back. It remains to be seen, but when BMW let it out that they were doing 8:10s or so, they may have been a little disappointed (as I was), so definitely more to come. They won't stop until they're satisfied they've got a representative time, whatever that may be.

I would actually agree with this if we were talking about BMW trying to achieve an "official" time for its own car. As you are saying, BMW has put in thousands of laps with the M3, so they will know its limits and how uncontrolled variables affect lap time better than anyone else, and will optimize their run accordingly, and keep on coming back until they think any better can't be done.

However, the discussion is about a car mag testing different cars at different times. I doubt that any one magazine will have the knowledge base, funds, or the motivation to keep on optimizing under several different conditions for any given car.

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

I fundamentally disagree about tires. If the car comes with Michelin Pilot Sport Cups from the factory (either as standard or as an option), then it's perfectly fine to test that way, but if not, then they shouldn't be used to establish a standard for that car. First of all, they make a really big difference (on the order of a second per minute of lap time), and second of all, many (most) manufacturers of high performance cars stipulate an exact tire design that is specific to their car, and the tire manufacturers are happy to go along to get the business. The E36 and E46 M3s had model-specific Michelins on them, and so will the new ones, whatever the tire manufacturer. Swapping to "standard" PS2s on a given model *will* have an effect on lap times and handling characteristics, as will a switch to another brand of "equal" tires.

Allowing anything but either standard or optional rubber means you get hopelessly mired down in trying to equate yet another variable, in this case one that does not lend itself to accurate "adjustment".

As you know, I realize different tires will make a difference. So, the point is what is "fair" and "representative". I still don't see how replacing an item that is meant to be replaced in short intervals with aftermarket alternatives within a certain range all of sudden makes the car's performance "non-representative". There is ambiguity associated with this variable however one tries to justify it. So, now CUPs are a part of some low volume package--most likely not sold in the US--and all of sudden we go, "OK"?

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

I can't imagine what "go from there" actually relates to in real terms.

What I mean by that is that these magazine times are for us to "talk about", and do not really have the high degree of accuracy associated with them that people often read into them, and should be treated as low-resolution measurements in discussions. When BMW reports a time, I see more of a point in comparing that with official times reported by other competitors.

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

I understand where you're coming from, since your belief is that there is a broad latitude of plus or minus in the published times, but of course that is where we fundamentally disagree. I think the published times are likely to be representative to within a couple of seconds per lap, and you think it's way more. So be it.

Yep, that sums it up. I think the variation associated with the driver alone can easily be in the +-10 second range alone for a 8 minute track in a magazine test. You think differently, and that's cool.

[devo]

Originally Posted by Epacy

Devo, I just have to jump in here. Why do you attempt to prove your point by arguing like you are 100% sure the M3 had Cup tires? You spend alot of energy and you word your posts like the M3 had Cup tires and is therefore not that fast?
If you claim to be unbiased and all that jazz, then don't argue your point as if the M3 definately had Cup tires. We just don't know and to post otherwise is presumptuous.

Epacy, I have to respond in turn. I am responding to the initial post, based on the presumption that Cup tires were used. So, every post from there on has been under that assumption. If you read one of my first posts, you'll see that I would give BMW an extraordinary amount of -deserved- credit for that accomplishment (non-Cup). (I hope that the time was achieved without Cup tires).

In the end, it's not that I don't understand why many here would consider Cup tires ok, it's just that (imo) it's an unfair advantage. You have to admit, tires make this time, not the car.

To me, there is no definitive right or wrong in this case. My opinion just happens to be different.

What I also find disturbing is that any manufacturer can offer Cup tires as an option and therefore brag about the subsequent lap times. Cars like a GT3, CGT, CSL and the like are basically track cars first and street cars second. Whether or not they are used that way isn't the point.

Lastly, I would really like to know how many owners will opt for the Cup tires over PS2; even if offered in all countries. I know that I won't and would bet that the vast majority wouldn't either.

[lucid]

Originally Posted by southlight

Just this: Sportauto Supertest is indeed performed by one person. Only Horst von Saurma, chief editor of Sportauto, drives the cars for this test.

Best regards, south

Thanks for the info. Are you saying this guy has been doing every single test for the past, say 3-4 years?

[southlight]

Originally Posted by lucid

Thanks for the info. Are you saying this guy has been doing every single test for the past, say 3-4 years?

Yes, this guy has been doing every single Supertest for the past 10 years!

Best regards, south

[lucid]

Originally Posted by southlight

Yes, this guy has been doing every single Supertest for the past 10 years!

Best regards, south

Interesting. That does take the variance associated with the driver out of the equation for the most part then--at least when Superauto times are considered in relation to each other.

[Just_me]

Funny people mention the 7.57 min for RS4. Let me tell you how this rumour started. Erik, the guy behind RS6.com, was visiting N-ring and there he met the RS4 driver and then asked him what time he achieved. The time was never verified and isn't an official time by Audi.

The time is pointless to talk about, just like the rumour that M5 did N-ring in 7.52 min. Those two times has never been verified and neither Audi and BMW are using those as official times.

Internet is amazing, a word on rs6.com and its spreading like an fire in a dry wood.

Sportauto times are the only one I trust. Its the most honest and fair source out there. We have it on paper and we can also see what speed the car had and so on. Factory times doesnt mean much to me, its just carmakers trying to brag about their cars.

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by lucid

I would actually agree with this if we were talking about BMW trying to achieve an "official" time for its own car. As you are saying, BMW has put in thousands of laps with the M3, so they will know its limits and how uncontrolled variables affect lap time better than anyone else, and will optimize their run accordingly, and keep on coming back until they think any better can't be done.

Originally Posted by lucid

However, the discussion is about a car mag testing different cars at different times. I doubt that any one magazine will have the knowledge base, funds, or the motivation to keep on optimizing under several different conditions for any given car.

OOPS! I was indeed talking about the broader subject of "best" lap times, as opposed to a single magazine's times. My bad. I personally look for best times, and then look for other variables such as tires, whether the manufacturer supplied the results, etc.

Does anybody know if the magazine in question at least attempts to normalize their results?

Originally Posted by lucid

As you know, I realize different tires will make a difference. So, the point is what is "fair" and "representative". I still don't see how replacing an item that is meant to be replaced in short intervals with aftermarket alternatives within a certain range all of sudden makes the car's performance "non-representative". There is ambiguity associated with this variable however one tries to justify it. So, now CUPs are a part of some low volume package--most likely not sold in the US--and all of sudden we go, "OK"?

No, not OK, or least not in my book. If a car is available with and without such a tire (think Porsche Turbo), then in that case a second a minute is a pretty good estimation of the difference. In this case as an example, Walther Rohrl did a bunch of 7:49s until the switch, whereupon 7:40 became the new number, if memory serves.

The reason why stock tires should be the norm is that switching them makes for a hopelessly complicated comparision. As an example, my guess would be that the Z06 would benefit a good deal more from a switch to Cups than a Porsche Turbo, since the runflats on the Vette are an amazing weak spot on the car. Ever try one? They're a euphoric but scary ride.

Originally Posted by lucid

What I mean by that is that these magazine times are for us to "talk about", and do not really have the high degree of accuracy associated with them that people often read into them, and should be treated as low-resolution measurements in discussions. When BMW reports a time, I see more of a point in comparing that with official times reported by other competitors.

I would agree to the extent that those times are likely to be lower resolution than factory times, but still fairly close - assuming they kind of do it for a living, so to speak.

Originally Posted by lucid

Yep, that sums it up. I think the variation associated with the driver alone can easily be in the +-10 second range alone for a 8 minute track in a magazine test. You think differently, and that's cool.

I would actually agree, but are you saying that the magazine uses different drivers? Good grief!

Bruce

Edit: Ok, I just caught up on the string, and it seems that the magazine in question does indeed seem to be careful about their testing. In that case, I'm thinking maybe a half-second per minute as the accuracy, or a little less.

[lucid]

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

The reason why stock tires should be the norm is that switching them makes for a hopelessly complicated comparision. As an example, my guess would be that the Z06 would benefit a good deal more from a switch to Cups than a Porsche Turbo, since the runflats on the Vette are an amazing weak spot on the car. Ever try one? They're a euphoric but scary ride.

Sure, but then we could easily start discussing which factory tires are better and what kind of performance advantage/disadvantage that results in. So, there is no convergence to this discussion really, which is my point.

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

I would actually agree, but are you saying that the magazine uses different drivers? Good grief!

I was making a false assumption here. Based on South's info, appearently, the same guy has been doing the tests for the past 10 years!

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by lucid

Sure, but then we could easily start discussing which factory tires are better and what kind of performance advantage/disadvantage that results in. So, there is no convergence to this discussion really, which is my point...

Y'know, it's the 'net, so anything can be discussed, but I personally have never met a single soul who could discuss such a thing with credibility, and that includes a couple of tire engineers I've met with.

Taking into consideration that even a PS2 may not be a PS2 when it comes as factory equipment on a number of cars, but something a little different, then I can't imagine any kind of an intelligent discussion that yields anything you can hang your hat on - except perhaps a Falken Azenis 615 will stick better than a snow tire.

Bruce

[lucid]

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

I can't imagine any kind of an intelligent discussion that yields anything you can hang your hat on - except perhaps a Falken Azenis 615 will stick better than a snow tire.

With all due respect to all of us, most of what goes on here is not particularly intelligent to begin with. My take is that we all are mainly shooting crap to pass time until this car becomes available.

[savage.ulm1]

[QUOTE=southlight;1437886]The PS2 tires that come standard with the M3 are sport tires which are still fully drivable on wet roads. Semi R tires are even more performance orientated, which amongst others is achieved by reduced tire tread pattern. It's more slick like. .........

Many thanks...
you are better than Wikipedia:-)

ciao

[speedstar]

Originally Posted by Just_me

Funny people mention the 7.57 min for RS4. Let me tell you how this rumour started. Erik, the guy behind RS6.com, was visiting N-ring and there he met the RS4 driver and then asked him what time he achieved. The time was never verified and isn't an official time by Audi.

The time is pointless to talk about, just like the rumour that M5 did N-ring in 7.52 min. Those two times has never been verified and neither Audi and BMW are using those as official times.

Internet is amazing, a word on rs6.com and its spreading like an fire in a dry wood.

Sportauto times are the only one I trust. Its the most honest and fair source out there. We have it on paper and we can also see what speed the car had and so on. Factory times doesnt mean much to me, its just carmakers trying to brag about their cars.

sorry now idea who Eric is and now idea about rs6.com.
But yes 7:58 was driven by an amacing driver called frank stippler. 10 seconds different on a track of around 20 km long from a real pro driver to a autosport driver, sounds pretty ok.

Let the new m3 drive by some of those people and there will be the 7:55 or less easily.
We, and i assume most of use are amateur drivers, witch from time to time goes on the track, just cant amagine how thos pro drivers are ripping.

[heyimsexy]

Originally Posted by devo

In the end, it's not that I don't understand why many here would consider Cup tires ok, it's just that (imo) it's an unfair advantage. You have to admit, tires make this time, not the car.

To me, there is no definitive right or wrong in this case. My opinion just happens to be different.

What I also find disturbing is that any manufacturer can offer Cup tires as an option and therefore brag about the subsequent lap times. Cars like a GT3, CGT, CSL and the like are basically track cars first and street cars second. Whether or not they are used that way isn't the point.

Lastly, I would really like to know how many owners will opt for the Cup tires over PS2; even if offered in all countries. I know that I won't and would bet that the vast majority wouldn't either.

tires make the time eh? im gonna put race tires on a geo metro and haul ass.

there are plenty of components on a car that are easily changed that can aid performance, even things as simple as alignment angles. please dont give me the bullshit about how tires are cheating and they dont count.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by heyimsexy

tires make the time eh? im gonna put race tires on a geo metro and haul ass.

there are plenty of components on a car that are easily changed that can aid performance, even things as simple as alignment angles. please dont give me the bullshit about how tires are cheating and they dont count.

Tires are the simplest, cheapest, fastest (upgrade time) and most effective way to increase the track time of most sporty cars. Even on a totally non sports oriented car tires are probably the single best performance gain per dollar. Tires are absolutely "cheating" if they are not stock and or not documented. Further since most folks choose to quote the best time they can find and many times this time is obtained with non-stock, semi-race tires it absolutely becomes a clear case of apples vs. oranges. What value are such comparisons - none! When 10 seconds is a very large gap and tires can make about that difference folks need to simply be honest and know the differences.

[devo]

Originally Posted by heyimsexy

tires make the time eh? im gonna put race tires on a geo metro and haul ass.

there are plenty of components on a car that are easily changed that can aid performance, even things as simple as alignment angles. please dont give me the bullshit about how tires are cheating and they dont count.

I never implied that BMW was "cheating". Keep kidding yourself about the M3's time, however.