|
|
06-19-2007, 10:00 AM | #23 | |
Private First Class
11
Rep 146
Posts |
Quote:
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
06-19-2007, 10:02 AM | #24 |
Private First Class
11
Rep 146
Posts |
|
Appreciate
0
|
06-19-2007, 11:53 AM | #25 |
Private First Class
11
Rep 146
Posts |
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 |
Appreciate
0
|
06-19-2007, 01:18 PM | #26 | |
Major General
376
Rep 8,033
Posts |
Quote:
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
06-19-2007, 02:20 PM | #27 |
Major General
376
Rep 8,033
Posts |
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...
|
Appreciate
0
|
06-19-2007, 09:37 PM | #28 |
Private First Class
2
Rep 184
Posts |
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.
|
Appreciate
0
|
06-20-2007, 12:08 AM | #29 |
Major General
376
Rep 8,033
Posts |
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.. |
Appreciate
0
|
06-20-2007, 02:10 AM | #30 | |
Major General
376
Rep 8,033
Posts |
Quote:
"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. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
06-20-2007, 08:57 AM | #31 | |
Major General
376
Rep 8,033
Posts |
Quote:
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. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
06-20-2007, 11:16 AM | #32 | |
Major General
376
Rep 8,033
Posts |
Quote:
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. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
06-20-2007, 01:33 PM | #33 | |
Major General
376
Rep 8,033
Posts |
Quote:
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... |
|
Appreciate
0
|
06-21-2007, 12:00 AM | #34 |
Lieutenant General
611
Rep 10,407
Posts |
Subsidiaries
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!
|
Appreciate
0
|
06-21-2007, 01:18 AM | #35 |
Private First Class
16
Rep 119
Posts |
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 :@)
|
Appreciate
0
|
06-21-2007, 03:30 AM | #36 | |
Private
2
Rep 52
Posts |
Quote:
+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 |
|
Appreciate
0
|
06-21-2007, 03:41 AM | #37 | |
Major General
376
Rep 8,033
Posts |
Quote:
Last edited by lucid; 06-21-2007 at 08:07 AM.. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
Post Reply |
Bookmarks |
|
|