Lightning Lap: M3 runs faster than Cayman S and 911 Carrera S

[e46e92love]

Originally Posted by TLud

For the record, you can most likely outdrive me in your CS, but I also own a Honda Civic and it will blow the doors off your Accord at VIR.

You know, so many people on these boards make fun of the "ricers" but if done well, those things are fun to drive, very raw, and a great bang for the buck performance. I know, what i say is blasphemy around here, but I know some very well done CIVICS that will shock the hell out of you when you drive 'em....

Cheers,
e46e92

[ruff]

Originally Posted by lucid

I am looking into C6 vettes now that I no longer have a back seat requirement. I test drove a 09 base model and the thing is a beast. Raw and exciting. And the lighter weight is refreshing. I wouldn't go with the stock suspension though. I was surprised at the dive/roll. The front end is not as connected as the M3, but that's no surprise. I think the way to go is to try to pick up a base equipment version with Z51 suspension, which also upgrades coolers and brakes (and changes the gear ratios). They don't offer that in the 2010 lineup as a package though, and hence the Grand Sport I guess. Definitely lots of bang for the buck. I like the way it looks, too. A bit concerned about the roof. The M3 might be safer in a roll-over in stock form, but I'd have to investigate...

Looks like you have done your research on the Vettes. Love the looks of the Grand Sport in the article. Keep us updated on your interest in a Vette. A 55 k sports car that may be priced 15 k less that its performance suggests.

By the way, excellent job moderating this forum.

[ruff]

Originally Posted by e46e92love

Funny coming from you, because i find your tone and wording in 90% of your posts to expose as one of the most condescending and pompous members on these boards.

Cheers,
e46e92

...and a troll to boot.

[TLud]

Originally Posted by e46e92love

You know, so many people on these boards make fun of the "ricers" but if done well, those things are fun to drive, very raw, and a great bang for the buck performance. I know, what i say is blasphemy around here, but I know some very well done CIVICS that will shock the hell out of you when you drive 'em....

Cheers,
e46e92

I was jesting, but no doubt. Even our completely stock, non-Si Civic is fairly fun to toss around.

[lucid]

Originally Posted by ruff

Looks like you have done your research on the Vettes. Love the looks of the Grand Sport in the article. Keep us updated on your interest in a Vette. A 55 k sports car that may be priced 15 k less that its performance suggests.

I suspect that in about 6 months, you can go home in a brand new base Grand Sport for ~$48k. If you wait until Dec'10, probably more like $44k.

[ruff]

Originally Posted by lucid

I suspect that in about 6 months, you can go home in a brand new base Grand Sport for ~$48k. If you wait until Dec'10, probably more like $44k.

No need for these overpriced German and Italian cars.

[M&M]

Originally Posted by footie

The only thing I will say is don't jump to quick to the opinion that it's weight that is always king in these situations.

Well then we will have to discount your "expert" opinion as you obviously have never been on a track. Weight is CRITICAL to everything. Stopping, accelerating, pulling G's.

At one of our local circuits there is a nasty off camber left hander turn 1 which leads onto a bit of a straight before a hairpin. Quite a high G corner. The lighter cars can take this flat and get good momentum in the run up to the hairpin. The heavier cars have to lift & some have to dab the brakes.

Like in a CSL you can take it flat but in a normal E46 M3 you have to lift. But that doesn't prove my argument conclusively. What does is that the one guy removed his back seats, front seats and fitted race seats. That was the only change he made. Nothing else. Well guess what? He was able to take turn 1 flat, and on the telemetry he was able to attain 12km/h more speed at the braking point for the hairpin. I can't recall what the reduction in lap time was, but I think it was almost 2 seconds out of a lap under 2 minutes.

That's just an isolated instance I can recall off the top of my head. It has so many other knock on effects. You can brake good few feet earlier if you have less mass. You pads & disks take less of a pounding having to drag down a lighter car. Your tyres take less strain with less mass around the corners.

I don't know how you can say weight is not the key, how can a Lotus 7 with 60hp smoke your beloved RS6 around the tracks then?

[footie]

Originally Posted by e46e92love

You know, so many people on these boards make fun of the "ricers" but if done well, those things are fun to drive, very raw, and a great bang for the buck performance. I know, what i say is blasphemy around here, but I know some very well done CIVICS that will shock the hell out of you when you drive 'em....

Cheers,
e46e92

Why do you keep coming on to this forum posting stuff like Rice cars are great, you sound like a TROLL. (j/k)

Listen, you may have a problem with me but I think it's all to do with certain members highlighting solely the posts where I criticise something that BMW have done or either highlighting where another brand has been better, this is called keeping things in perspective, but the reality is that I defend the brand doggedly but only if I feel someone is wrong with their comments.

BMW aren't threatened by other brands so you shouldn't either.

[footie]

M&M,

Again someone jumping to the wrong conclusion because of what I wrote without actually reading the words fully. I said it's not the only thing that's important and again declaring you my experience to be limited without even knowing who you are talking to.

I could list you ten plus things as important but why bother.

[lucid]

Originally Posted by ruff

No need for these overpriced German and Italian cars.

Well, I wouldn't push it that far.

The M certainly has its special place in my heart.

[M&M]

Originally Posted by footie

M&M,

Again someone jumping to the wrong conclusion because of what I wrote without actually reading the words fully. I said it's not the only thing that's important ...

This is what you said:

Originally Posted by footie

The only thing I will say is don't jump to quick to the opinion that it's weight that is always king in these situations.

Well weight is king in these situations (being going around a circuit). There are other factors, but weight is king.

Originally Posted by footie

again declaring you my experience to be limited without even knowing who you are talking to.

It doesn't matter who I'm talking to unless it's Sir Isaac Newton. Pure physics. P = MV. Momentum = mass x velocity.

Originally Posted by footie

I could list you ten plus things as important but why bother.

Yeah why bother, rather just focus on the 10 things to belittle whatever achievement BMW has done in this test.

[footie]

M&M,

OK the will address your examples just because I'm bored. While everything about you said about the effects of weight were true, but most of it related to the improvements when all other things were equal.

Braking: weight increases braking distance, well only if you don't increase the brakes size.

Lateral G: weight effects cornering speed, well only if the rubber isn't increased in width and the suspension parts changed to accomodate.

Etc, etc, etc. So what I am basically saying is that there is always a way around the effects of weight and as long as the weight is low to the ground (CoG) then weight is only one of a handful of things that can benefits lap times.

[home7271]

Hi All,

Just read the artical last night. Not sure if others noticed this, but they also did a 997 Turbo last year and it was the same time as a 997S this year and therefore slower than M3.

Can anyone explain this?

I wouldn't really read too much into the lap times to be honest.

Mike

[M&M]

Originally Posted by footie

M&M,

Braking: weight increases braking distance, well only if you don't increase the brakes size.

The law of diminshing returns apply. You have to carry bigger rotors & calipers to stop the car which adds even more weight. And anyway, Porsche's are reknown for their braking systems. I'm pretty sure the brake sizes are similar, if not better in the porkers.

Originally Posted by footie

M&M,

Lateral G: weight effects cornering speed, well only if the rubber isn't increased in width and the suspension parts changed to accomodate.

All the cars have similar size rubber these days. The rears are gonna' be at least 255 for all of them. And cornering & lateral G is not only about the size of the rubber. There is a lot more to it. You are taking a reactive approach by throwing hardware to alleviate the weight problem. Adding bigger brakes and wider tyres adds fuels to the fire and has negatives in other areas like aerodynamics, balance, weight distribution, etc. It's better to have a lighter car & not have to do all that.

But anyway, in this particular instance the Porsches have similar size brakes & similar size rubber so your points are moot.

[swamp2]

Getting to the party here late. Lots of good posts here thus far IMHO...

Originally Posted by ChasenM3

Why are they running DCT? Whats wrong with manual?!!!

Wait, wait another "what if" (as much as I generally dislike them...):

What if BMW gave the magazine a version of the car with the latest DCT software which definitively fixes the downshift issue while braking? No, that would be asking way too much of them.

Originally Posted by M&M

This is what you said:

Well weight is king in these situations (being going around a circuit). There are other factors, but weight is king.

It doesn't matter who I'm talking to unless it's Sir Isaac Newton. Pure physics. P = MV. Momentum = mass x velocity.

Don't get me started here... Power to weight is the single most important factor, track or strip (with the exception of very high speeds, then it is drag, area and hp only). You are using the wrong equation. The most basic equations to see this is not the momentum equation but Newtons Law, F=ma combined with P = Fv.

Now at the same time I am not saying that losing weight on your wheels or on any rotating parts is not more of a benefit than losing stationary weight. I am also not saying that losing weight at the rate given by the vehicles power to weight ratio is a less important factor than an equivalent power gain. In these ways weight plays a special role and it obviously impacts both speed and handling simultaneously.

Originally Posted by TLud

It's funny how when online posters find themselves losing a debate, they resort to challenging your knowledge or argument based on the car you currently own (or claim to). I know you've gotten that a few times here on m3post.

He gets it and so did Bruce with his Acura! I try to shut down this point of view as often as possible. Total BS. It is the same basic argument as the engineers point of view vs. the test drivers. Or an intellectual understanding of a field vs. an experiential one.

[GnokGnik]

Originally Posted by footie

Count to ten everyone, I deserve the same disapproval from you as Shift@Red does because I commented on this fact first. I don't think we are disagreeing with any one that the M3 isn't anything other than excetional, all we were highlighting was how impressive the Cayman was too all things considered.

As a better handling car the Cayman definitely is, some of this is undoubtably is engine placement and overall weight plus a whole lot of Porsche knowhow but all things consider M3 owner and Cayman owners should both feel as proud as punch, it's the owners of the Cayman's big brother that came should feel worst here.

P.S.
No doubting that vette is mighty impressive.

[e46e92love]

Originally Posted by ruff

...and a troll to boot.

I won't go that far, that title is for Footie, remember

I joke......

Cheers,
e46e92

[e46e92love]

Originally Posted by footie

Why do you keep coming on to this forum posting stuff like Rice cars are great, you sound like a TROLL. (j/k)



Listen, you may have a problem with me but I think it's all to do with certain members highlighting solely the posts where I criticise something that BMW have done or either highlighting where another brand has been better, this is called keeping things in perspective, but the reality is that I defend the brand doggedly but only if I feel someone is wrong with their comments.

BMW aren't threatened by other brands so you shouldn't either.

I'm not threatened, I'm the first guy to tell people take a BMW drive-train and suspension and put it together with the interior and some exterior styling of an Audi and you have the perfect sports sedan.

My opinion is not based on others, its based on what I have begun to observe more and more. I think I was blind to it for a while because to me you were one of the old vets, so I turned a blind eye to almost anything those guys do, but then I realized, dude, you just prefer kick the //M in the balls at every chance.....but I guess that is your prerogative, and every man, woman and child on these forum has the right to say whatever the heck they want.

Cheers,
e46e92

[footie]

Swamp,

I was only highlighting that weight reducing is most beneficial when nothing less is changed, just like the examples that were mention above by M&M. But you are quite like about unloaded weight, losing from there is more beneficial per kilo an anywhere else.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by footie

I was only highlighting that weight reducing is most beneficial when nothing less is changed, just like the examples that were mention above by M&M. But you are quite like about unloaded weight, losing from there is more beneficial per kilo an anywhere else.

Come on, is that English, really? I can't understand it even when trying hard and rereading it.

By the way I wasn't disagreeing with you per se but rather with M&M.

[footie]

Originally Posted by swamp2

Come on, is that English, really? I can't understand it even when trying hard and rereading it.

By the way I wasn't disagreeing with you per se but rather with M&M.

OK, example: two stock M3s, one completely stock and the other with items removed to reduce the weight by 100lbs. The lighter car will be quickest because of all the things mentioned by M&M, i.e. brakes, tyres and suspension work more efficiently. The to achieve the same results with the non lightened car you would have to add 15hp more, fit larger brakes with racing pads, tweaks suspension and fit more focused rubber. But clearly if the car that's tweaks also have the reduced weight then it will be quicker again.

Unloaded weight meaning unsprung weight, for every kilo losed to wheels/brakes/suspension will be the equivalent to 6~8 kilos else where.

P.S.
I reread it too and you were right, I knew what I meant. Basically I meant to say out of all things that can be changed to improve lap time, reducing weight is one of the most efficient though there are others equally as good.

[M&M]

Originally Posted by swamp2

Don't get me started here... Power to weight is the single most important factor, track or strip (with the exception of very high speeds, then it is drag, area and hp only).

I don't know if you are aware of this, but there are corners on a circuit. It's not an acceleration race. Yes I know all about F=MA but the momentum in the braking zone & in the corner are critical to your laptime. If you are heavier (and travelling faster) you will have more momentum when you step on the brakes. And more momentum into the turns, causing you to lose grip. You need to scrub off this momentum with a heavy car & that takes time & energy.

Anyone that has ever done circuit racing will tell you that maintaining speed through the turns is the key for setting a fast lap. On our local Formula 1 circuit we have class C Fiat Palio 1.6 cars lapping faster than M3's. And no, their power to weight ratio's are nothing like the M3's. But Kyalami is a high speed circuit and they can keep a lot of momentum through the Esses & sweeps due to their lower mass.