The rumour has it! M3 V8 Nordschleife in 8.03 min

[ruff]

Garrett,
Excellent post.

[ruff]

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.

So if you don't believe SportAuto's times, who do you believe?

[Garrett]

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.

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.


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.

Lucid,

Ywa, SportAuto uses the same driver for all their tests, they also wait for the right humidity and weather condition to test. If you didn't know this, then perhaps you should read up on why they got so pissed at other people "claims" and just started doing it themselves.

If you sell your BMW M3 with any otheer tyre than PS2's, then it is not stock. BMW have specifically speced these tyres for this car and tuned the chasis for them. Now, thats not saying you cannot put another tyre on the car and it probably would'nt make all that of a difference, but adding CUP tyres (racing tyres) just to get better ring time is a no-no!

Thats why there will be an ASTERIK (*).


Your saying, "whats the big deal?".
I'll tell you why, because when comparing a Porsche, Cadilac, Mercedes or BMW's Nurburgring times they are comparing stock cars of each. Adding CUP tyres would give the same advantage of adding a mini supercharger and compairing your car to stock cars....

You cannot just arbitrarilly dismiss a the fact that CUP tyres give a car an advantage. It would be like a luxury magazine testing the smoothness of a Mercedes and out fitting it with 16" rimes and super soft tyrers... even though the whole car is stock except the tyres, it's not a proper test of the cars ability.

There is no argeument here, if someone test the car with CUP tyres there will be an asterik, thus it wasn't stock, thus it isn't official!






-Garrett

[lucid]

Originally Posted by ruff

So if you don't believe SportAuto's times, who do you believe?

How exactly did you arrive at the conclusion that I "do not believe in SportAuto's times"? The issue is not believing or not believing. SporAuto is not out there to deceive people. I believe that they have done a test and took a measurement. The issue is simply about the variance associated with that measurement.

[Garrett]

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.

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.



.

Dude... BMW can't claim an official time. That is what we are trying to tell you. Only Autosport can! They have done such a fabulous job with profession driver and a crew that over the years Autosport has become the industry standard.

And yes, they test almost every car on the planet and yes, knowledgable people hold their breath when a new car comes out until SportAuto get a hold of it so we can see it's actual performance.

It's a big thing..... how you don't know or can't understand this is beyond me.

HERE: This might help ...

There are several of the same cars in different configs, etc. But you can clearly see stock cars.






-Garrett

[Garrett]

Originally Posted by lucid

How exactly did you arrive at the conclusion that I "do not believe in SportAuto's times"? The issue is not believing or not believing. SporAuto is not out there to deceive people. I believe that they have done a test and took a measurement. The issue is simply about the variance associated with that measurement.

They just don't test the car once, perhaps you need to look up SportAuto's testing methods.

[lucid]

Originally Posted by Garrett

You cannot just arbitrarilly dismiss a the fact that CUP tyres give a car an advantage.

There is no argeument here, if someone test the car with CUP tyres there will be an asterik, thus it wasn't stck, thus it isn't official!

Garrett, we're not going anywhere with this because you keep on reading things into what I've written that are not there. I never dismissed the fact that running with a different set of tires can influence the lap time. You still are not getting what I am saying. I am not saying you should be agreeing with what I am saying, but based on your responses, I can only infer that you either are not reading what I wrote, or are not getting it.

There is nothing "official" about a lap time reported by a magazine. When, and if, BMW releases its number, I'll consider that official. If you want to know why, read up on the exchange I had with Bruce on this thread. Anyway, better to let this go now...

[lucid]

Originally Posted by Garrett

They just don't test the car once, perhaps you need to look up SportAuto's testing methods.

By "a" measurement, I was referring to the published number. Of course they must make multiple runs.

[ruff]

Originally Posted by lucid

How exactly did you arrive at the conclusion that I "do not believe in SportAuto's times"? .

By reading your posts. Lucid, I am not trying to cause problems here but your argument seems....well, weak on this one.

Originally Posted by lucid

There is nothing "official" about a lap time reported by a magazine. When, and if, BMW releases its number, I'll consider that official. ...

So are you saying you would rather trust BMW marketing?

[Garrett]

Originally Posted by lucid

Garrett, we're not going anywhere with this because you keep on reading things into what I've written that are not there. I never dismissed the fact that running with a different set of tires can influence the lap time. You still are not getting what I am saying. I am not saying you should be agreeing with what I am saying, but based on your responses, I can only infer that you either are not reading what I wrote, or are not getting it.

There is nothing "official" about a lap time reported by a magazine. When, and if, BMW releases its number, I'll consider that official. If you want to know why, read up on the exchange I had with Bruce on this thread. Anyway, better to let this go now...

But....


BMW won't release an "Official" Ring time until SportAuto does it!

How is that not understood..? BMW knows what the M3 will do, but will wait for the defacto-governing body of the ring to do the test so there is an official time. Then BMW can use that time in all it's literature and ads.

Every manufacturer bows their heads and hopes all their engineering and testing is rung hard in the hands of SportAuto. Why do you think Gerhard Richter , said "wait till the time is released"...?

I don't think you realize what a big deal lap times are for those in europe. On the eve of testing, people camp out just to be there for it, etc.




-Garrett

[lucid]

Originally Posted by ruff

By reading your posts.

So, where in my posts exactly ruff did I say I do not beleive in the published AutoSport time? Re-read post#92.

Originally Posted by ruff

So are you saying you would rather trust BMW marketing?

Right, so BMW marketing will just make up a false number and put a respectable company's reputation on the line?

[lucid]

Originally Posted by Garrett

But....


BMW won't release an "Official" Ring time until SportAuto does it!

How is that not understood..? BMW knows what the M3 will do, but will wait for the defacto-governing body of the ring to do the test so there is an official time. Then BMW can use that time in all it's literature and ads.

Every manufacturer bows their heads and hopes all their engineering and testing is rung hard in the hands of SportAuto. Why do you think Gerhard Richter , said "wait till the time is released"...?

I don't think you realize what a big deal lap times are for those in europe. On the eve of testing, people camp out just to be there for it, etc.

So, you claim that the published SportAuto Supertest times are the best that can be achieved for any car that goes through the test, and that SportAuto optimizes for external variables, and that there can be no variance associated with that "best" time?

Not so. Below is information from the official Koenigsegg site about the Koenigsegg SportAuto Supertest that took place in Oct'05. Read the article and you'll see how conditions were way below ideal, but the test was performed anyway and a Supertest lap time was recorded. So that was the "official" time for the Koenigsegg at that time then, the best it could do? If SuportAuto is such a standard setting authority, why did it conduct the test under less than ideal conditions and record a time?

http://www.koenigsegg.com/news/artic...age=&type=news

By the way, the 7:34 lap time achieved at that test in Oct'05 is on that list of Ring times you referenced earlier in post #93. So, why should I think that the rest of the SportAuto numbers on that list are optimal numbers that can't be improved upon under better weather conditions and with a better driver than Horst von Saurma? (And, how can you claim that Horst von Saurma is better than a driver BMW can pull in from an active racing team who is at his/her peak and has better skills and reflexes and so on?)

BMW might or might not use the SportAuto number in its literature for reasons that I am not aware of. However, that doesn't mean that they can't post a better number than that if they really wanted to.

[JEllis]

I dont agree with the analogy that putting on Cup tires is in some way like adding a small supercharger.

Tires to me are a separate animal.

For example, if the E92 M3 was tested on run-flats then we would all be saying that the use of "sub par" tires does nothing to bring out the potential of the chasis. Of the M engineering. However, we say that Cup tires somehow improve on the chasis dynamics of the car. This is inaccurate.

Just as sub par tires would detract from the performance potential of the car, Cup tires only bring out that same performance potential. Potential that already existed within the engineering itself.

Besides, if Merc is going to bring their AMG on Cups then I see no reason that BMW shouldnt. At least for comparison.

If actual stock for stock ring times are being compared then, Yes, bring the best tires that BMW actually offers on the car. In this case, that would be the Sport + tires for the M3. And the Magazine can say, stock for stock, blank car is the clear winner.

But if the comparison is between the BMW product and the Merc product then you might as well put the best tires on each. I say this because the magazine probably cares more about the abilities of the M engineering compared to AMG engineering then they do about the abilities of the tires.

In short, putting Cup tires on both cars gives both chasis's a level playing field.

It answers the question; With the best tires possible, which chasis will outperform the other?

Jason

[GregW / Oregon]

Originally Posted by JEllis

I dont agree with the analogy that putting on Cup tires is in some way like adding a small supercharger.

Tires to me are a separate animal.

For example, if the E92 M3 was tested on run-flats then we would all be saying that the use of "sub par" tires does nothing to bring out the potential of the chasis. Of the M engineering. However, we say that Cup tires somehow improve on the chasis dynamics of the car. This is inaccurate.

Just as sub par tires would detract from the performance potential of the car, Cup tires only bring out that same performance potential. Potential that already existed within the engineering itself.

Besides, if Merc is going to bring their AMG on Cups then I see no reason that BMW shouldnt. At least for comparison.

If actual stock for stock ring times are being compared then, Yes, bring the best tires that BMW actually offers on the car. In this case, that would be the Sport + tires for the M3. And the Magazine can say, stock for stock, blank car is the clear winner.

But if the comparison is between the BMW product and the Merc product then you might as well put the best tires on each. I say this because the magazine probably cares more about the abilities of the M engineering compared to AMG engineering then they do about the abilities of the tires.

In short, putting Cup tires on both cars gives both chasis's a level playing field.

It answers the question; With the best tires possible, which chasis will outperform the other?

Jason

This is a sticky wicket. Tires are easily changed on any car. So, switching tires is not quite the same as modifying some basic part of a car. Comparisons should obviously be based on equal footwear. Some cars will see minimal benefit, but high-performance cars will see significant benefit.

[Just_me]

Originally Posted by lucid

Right, so BMW marketing will just make up a false number and put a respectable company's reputation on the line?

Its all about marketing and selling. I do not trust factory times. We know nothing about the car. Is it preproduction car, what tires did they use, is the car completly stock. I do not trust them. They never tell us anything about the laptime, they just give us a time. Its all about bragging

My point is. Factory times can never be used if you want to compare the time with other cars. There is nothing more crucial than using the one and same driver. All drivers has different skills and same driver is dead important for comparing with other cars.


And I must ask, is Autosport the same carmag as Sportauto?

[lucid]

Originally Posted by GregW / Oregon

This is a sticky wicket. Tires are easily changed on any car. So, switching tires is not quite the same as modifying some basic part of a car. Comparisons should obviously be based on equal footwear. Some cars will see minimal benefit, but high-performance cars will see significant benefit.

Agreed that if one is to arrive at a meaningful performance comparison between different cars, they should have the same tires. There is nothing inherently fair about factory tires in such a comparison as tires are meant to be replaced often to begin with.

If one really wants to know the outcome based on factory tires, that's also fine, although I personally do not find that meaningful.

[ruff]

Originally Posted by lucid

So, where in my posts exactly ruff did I say I do not beleive in the published AutoSport time?

Right, so BMW marketing will just make up a false number and put a respectable company's reputation on the line?

Ok lets just trust the auto manufactures, they would never put their honorable reputations on the line with a false number. That means based on manufactures times that the C63 is faster 0-60 than the M3, period. No need to question it, both manufactures published their numbers. No need for SportAuto to do 0-60 times with both cars sporting similar tires, with the same driver under the same conditions, why waste the time. We already know the M3's 0-60 times because BMW has already published it.

[southlight]

Originally Posted by ruff

Ok lets just trust the auto manufactures, they would never put their honorable reputations on the line with a false number. That means based on manufactures times that the C63 is faster 0-60 than the M3, period. No need to question it, both manufactures published their numbers. No need for SportAuto to do 0-60 times with both cars with the same tires with the same driver under the same conditions, why waste the time. We already know the M3's 0-60 times because BMW has already published it.

You can't be serious about that! Ooh, you aren't...


Best regards, south

[lucid]

Originally Posted by ruff

Ok lets just trust the auto manufactures, they would never put their honorable reputations on the line with a false number. That means based on manufactures times that the C63 is faster 0-60 than the M3, period. No need to question it, both manufactures published their numbers. No need for SportAuto to do 0-60 times with both cars sporting similar tires, with the same driver under the same conditions, why waste the time. We already know the M3's 0-60 times because BMW has already published it.

You really have a way of dramatizing things. I'm simply saying that, in the case of Ring times, if BMW publishes a number, I'd trust that to be the best case scenario for whatever tires they chose to use in the test (I provided solid evidence and rationale for why I wouldn't necessarily take SportAuto's time to be the best time unless BMW confirms that it can't get any better). Are you refuting the evidence I provided which demonstrates that SportAuto times can be significantly less than optimal?

What does any of this have to do with SportAuto doing an apples to apples comparison between two cars with the same tires and driver? That would be great. Also, if SportAuto were to ever somehow publish a number that was faster than the BMW number--I think is extremely unlikely or even impossible if BMW really wanted to post "the" best time--that would be great, too, and I would believe that!

With regards to 0-60 times, if a manufacturer choses to be conservative and, for whatever reason, releases a number that can be beaten, what is the problem? How would they be cheating us by doing that? We would have a problem if a manufacturer released a number that was unrealistically fast. To the best of my knowledge, BMW has not done such a thing. But since you seem to be on some kind of neverending mission to express resentment toward BMW (get over it or move on by the way because you seem to be eventually saying the same thing over and over again on each single thread you post), it doesn't surprise me that you are mistrustful of anything BMW might end up publishing.

[ruff]

Originally Posted by ruff

IMO, Sportauto numbers are the most legitimate Ring times. They go out of their way to be as objective as possible with lap times. If the time proves to be correct, what a great number for the M3, even with Cup tires. To match or best the R8 and C2S on the Ring is nothing short of sensational. It goes to show how BMW has shifted from the horsepower wars to the Ring wars. BMW's extensive testing on the Ring has sure paid off. Interesting, yet predictible to see the R8 and C2S carve up the track better than the M3 at Hockenheim (a shorter and tighter track) and to see the BMW's fire breathing 4 litre scorch the longer straigtaways at the Ring.

Originally Posted by lucid

But since you seem to be on some kind of neverending mission to express resentment toward BMW (get over it or move on by the way because you seem to be eventually saying the same thing over and over again on each single thread you post), it doesn't surprise me that you are mistrustful of anything BMW might end up publishing.

Ya, looks like my first post on this thread was my half hearted attempt to tear down your beloved BMW. When you resort to this, looks like you are desperate and have ran out of legitimate arguments. Sorry about my failed attempt to be objective on this forum. I need to keep reminding myself this is a BMW forum.

[lucid]

Originally Posted by ruff

Ya, looks like my first post on this thread was my half hearted attempt to tear down your beloved BMW. When you resort to this, looks like you are desperate and have ran out of legitimate arguments. Sorry about my failed attempt to be objective on this forum. I need to keep reminding myself this is a BMW forum.

I have been sympathetic to some of your positions and your style in general, which is sometimes really difficult to understand--at least for me. But your dissappointment in BMW just doesn't end man. I am not the only one who has expressed this sentiment. I have even sided it with you when people railed on you. But I think I am running out of patience, that's all...

I think the arguments I presented on this thread are sound. I even presented solid evidence to back them up. I did make a false assumption at the beginning about the driver varience, and I admitted to doing so when South provided relevant info. Other than that, you have accused me of being subjective somehow (not believing in SportAuto time and such), and every time I asked you to back your judgment up, you went sideways and accused me of something else. This time I am a BMW lover? Fine.

[ruff]

Originally Posted by lucid

I have been sympathetic to some of your positions and your style in general, which is sometimes really difficult to understand--at least for me. But your dissappointment in BMW just doesn't end man. I am not the only one who has expressed this sentiment. I have even sided it with you when people railed on you. But I think I am running out of patience, that's all...

I think the arguments I presented on this thread are sound. I even presented solid evidence to back them up. I did make a false assumption at the beginning about the driver varience, and I admitted to doing so when South provided relevant info. Other than that, you have accused me of being subjective somehow (not believing in SportAuto time and such), and every time I asked you to back your judgment up, you went sideways and accused me of something else. This time I am a BMW lover? Fine.

No need to tell me abouty my disapointment in BMW and the M3. My posts speak for themselves and so do yours. You act like this is some kind of religion and I need sympathy for my positions and that maybe I should be embarrassed for not singing BMW praises. Surprise, surprise, as my first post on this thread indicates, I am also able to praise the M3 for it's fantastic motor and excellent Ring time. That by the way is what you call a BMW enthusiast trying to be objective about BMW in comparison to it's competition. Am I one of the few on this forum that is objective enough or in other words has enough credibility to praise BMW for some things and rip them for others? Read my posts, I also criticize and praise every other manufacture based on the subject matter at hand. So no, I am not blind by any badge and I have no loyalties to a marque. Maybe I am too pratical. When I read a Porcshe forum, those Porsche-philes who rip on Porsche are the ones I am tuning into. Becuase I now know that Porsche-phile has credibility and Porsche has a problem in that area. I learn very little about Porsche from Porsche fanboys. Same goes on this site. There is obvious a preponderance of pro BMW talk here. I am just trying to even the playing field a bit, thats all. Love BMW's but they aren't perfect as no car is. All cars have strengths and weakness and this is what I try to point out. There are plenty here to argue BMW's many good points, but fewer that at least try and objectively point out the negatives.

Now in response to you. I have no issue with you and never have. Your posts are always informative and interesting. I have learned a lot from your posts. Looking back, I probably should have not jumped in on you and Garrett's debate. I guess I am quite biased towards SportAuto's work and got a little defensive.