More performance figures

[M&M]

Originally Posted by swamp2

Hey M&M, what software is that for the GPS performance measurement?

Racelogic Vbox as used by Car & Driver, Evo, Autocar, SPort auto, basically most of the magazines in the world, as well as most of the manufacturers & the military etc. Here's a list of RAcelogic Vbox customers:

http://www.racelogic.co.uk/?show=VBOX-Misc-Customers

Existing VBOX Customers
Manufacturers
Alfa Romeo
American Suzuki
AMG
Aston Martin
Audi
BMW
Daimler Chrysler
Daimler Chrysler US
Daimler Chrysler Korea
Daimler Chrysler AG Germany
Ferrari
Ford
Ford Lommel Proving Ground
Ford Racing
GM
GM Daewoo Auto & Technology
Harley Davidson
Hero Honda Ltd
Hero Motors
Holden
Honda
Honda Italia
Honda R&D Americas
HONDA R&D Co Ltd
HONDA RACING CORP.
HSV
Hyundai
Iveco
Jaguar
Kia Motors Co
Lamborghini
Land Rover
LML Motorcycles
Lotus
Mazda
Mazda NAO
Mercedes
Mercedes-AMG GmbH
Naza Bike
Nissan
Nissan Kogyo Co Ltd
Nissan Motor Company Ltd
Nissan Technical Centre
Patria Vehicles Oyj
Peugeot
Porsche
Proton
PSA Peugeot Citroen
Renault
Renault F1 team
Renault Samsung Motors Ltd
Saab
Scania
Smart
Suzuki
Tata
Toyota
Toyota Motor Europe
Toyota Racing Development, Inc.
Toyota Technical Center, USA Inc.
Toyota Techno-Service Co. Ltd
Triumph Motorcycles
TVS Motorcycles(India)
Volkswagen of SA (Pty) Ltd
Volvo
Volvo Penta
Volvo Penta of the Americas
Yamaha
Yamaha Motor Espana
Tyre Companies
Bridgestone Corp
Bridgestone Firestone
Bridgestone/Firestone America Holdings, LLC
Continental
Continental Tyres
Dunlop
Goodyear
GOODYEAR LUX
GOODYEAR MIREVAL
Goodyear Technical Center
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.
GOODYEAR-DUNLOP
HANKOOK TYRES
Kumho European Technical Centre
KUMHO INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD
Michelin
MICHELIN AMERICAS R & D
Michelin France
Michelin Research Asia Co. Ltd
Nexen
Nokian
Pirelli
YOKOHAMA
Magazine/Media
0-300 Magazine
American Media
Autodriver Magazine
Autocar (Czech)
Autocar (Greece)
Autocar (India)
Autocar (NZ)
Autocar (UK)
Autocar China (Haymarket)
Autoexpress
Automobile
BAJAJA AUTO LTD
BANZAI MAGAZINE
BBC Top Gear TV
Bike Magazine
Car and Car Conversions
Car and Driver
Dennis Publishing
Driven(Thailand)
Duke Video
EVO
Edisport Editoriale S.p.A
Fast Bikes
Fast Ford
GTR Magazine
ITV Pulling Power
Magazine Autoreview
Max Power
Motor Magazine (Norway)
Motorcycle News
MPH Magazine
New Zealand Autocar
Option Magazine (Japan)
Option Press (Greece)
Overdrive (India)
Performance Bikes
Performance BMW
Popular Science
Rock Media
TATA INFOMEDIA LTD
Tekniikan Maailma-Magazine (Finland)
Tuulilasi magazine (Finland)
Top Gear, Thailand
TWO WHEELS MAGAZINE
VI MENN MAGAZINE
What Car
Miscellaneous
Accident Research
Accident Science
ADVICS North America
Aerospace Engineering Test Establishment/SMSE
AETE
AGENCY FOR DEFENSE DEVELOPMENT
Akadimpex Co. Ltd
Alcon Components
AMIT
AP Hydraulics
Auto Motor Sport
Autovisie
AVANTE Concepts
BorgWarner Automotive
Bosch
BP
Burke E Porter Machinery Co
Bverticals Inc
Carr Engineering, Inc
Chip Ganassi Racing
COINDU, S.L.
Continental Teves US
Continental Teves Germany
Dekra Klettwitz
Department of National Defence
DSB Laboratorities
DTC Dynamic Test Centre
Engineering Insight, LLC
ERTF
FAIVELEY
Freightliner LLC
General Dynamics Land Systems
GENERAL TESTING LABS
Graham Goode
Gti Elecro Thijs nv
Haldex
HAWTAL WHITING
Hayes Brake LLC
Helsinki University of Technology
Hendrickson International
HOME OFFICE (Police Scientific Development)
IDF
Idiada
Interfleet Technology
Interfleet Technology Ltd
International Truck and Engine Corp
Jackson Dawson
Jatco
Jatco (Nissan Group)
JK Industries Ltd
Katech
Katholieke Universiteit Leuven
Kdacauto Co.
KLEBER
Knorr bremse
Komatsu UK Ltd
Korea Beral Co
Land Mobility Technologies
LME Liebherr
m+p international
MANDO
Martin Baker (Ejection seats)
Master Brake Systems
Millbrook
MILLBROOK PROVING GROUND
Ministere des Travaux Publics
MIRA
Mototech S.A
MRF Ltd
National Technical University of Athens
Nautica Comparato SRL
North America Inc
Oxonica PLC
Palmersport
Perodua
PI RESEARCH
Pierce Manufacturing
PMG Technologies
Privet
PT Gajah Tunggal Tbk
QinetiQ
Racedays Superbike Academy
RDW Lelystad
Robert Bosch Corp.
Robert Bosch GmbH Stuttgart
Robert BOSCH S.p.A
Rocket Racing
Rod Millen special vehicles
Roush Industries
Royal Enfield
SANGSHIN BRAKE CO
Savern Hitech, Norge
Silverstone Racing Circuit
Sisu Diesel Inc
South West Trains
Ssang Yong Motor Company
Sumitomo Rubber Industries
Sundaram-Clayton Ltd
Swaraj Mazda Ltd
Tallin College
Target Chip Ganassi Racing
TARRC
Test World - Finland
Texas Test Fleet
Toyoda-Koki Automotive
Transport Canada
Trento University
TRW
TST
TUEV Automotive
TURKU POLYTECHNIC
TUV
Ugolini Design S.p.A
UK
United Defense
University of Pretoria
University of Thessaly
US Army
Vadnais
Vickers defense
Visteon
W S Atkins Rail
W. Karmann GmbH
WABCO
Wandfluh Automotive AG
Westinghouse Brakes
Windjet Speed Record Project
WorksZebra (Test)
Yan Yont Publisher's Office Co.

[Garrett]

Originally Posted by M&M

Racelogic Vbox as used by Car & Driver, Evo, Autocar, SPort auto, basically most of the magazines in the world, as well as most of the manufacturers & the military etc. Here's a list of RAcelogic Vbox customers:

http://www.racelogic.co.uk/?show=VBOX-Misc-Customers

.

Vbox mini ftw....!

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by Garrett

I'm not sure what your trying to say... when you ask "whos ahead at 100...?" 100mph?

Yes.

Originally Posted by Garrett

Are you saying even though he reach 100mph before you, you were actually out ahead of him at that point...? Because you where comming on stronger at the end..? But of curiosity, how was this data obtained.

Precisely the opposite. I reached 100 mph well before he did, but he was ahead of me when I did. How was the data obtained? As completely described, at the drag strip, in a side-by-side run.

Originally Posted by Garrett

You scenario is no different than if a Corvette raced a UPS truck that had a 13 second head start. It's obvious the UPS truck will be out ahead of the Corvette for the first 20 seconds or so, but even though your comming on strong and even after the 26second mark he is stil out ahead you reached 100mph before him...?

That's a similar scenario, although in mine, both cars actually began accelerating at approximately the same time. If memory serves, our reaction times were .020 (mine) vs .022 (his). Close enough.

Originally Posted by Garrett

Thats why Swamp was saying that time to a distance, is a constant. Time to a certain speed indicates nothing.

I don't think Swamp was saying that at all.

-Garrett[/QUOTE]

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by swamp2

A simple yes/no answer will not suffice.

You are missing the forest but seeing the trees. All I said is that time to speed and time to distance are not unrelated as you claimed.

But of course they *are* very nearly unrelated, as you go on to say in your note.

Originally Posted by swamp2

Once you know a complete curve of position, velocity or acceleration vs. time (along with some initial conditions) you know EVERYTHING, time to distance, speed at distance, speed at time, etc., etc., EVERYTHING.

Gee, ya think? I hereby award you the No-Shit-Sherlock medal with oak leaf cluster.

Let's look at the situation here. Savage.ulm asks a question in regard to the M3 vs the M5, wherein the M5 reaches 124 mph 1.6 seconds quicker than the M3, and reaches the kilometer mark .6 seconds before the M3. From this he infers that the M3 is quicker up top, and has made up ground against the M5, to the tune of one second.

So, in the context of one car against another, each with differing acceleration curves, I point out that time to speed and time to distance are very nearly unrelated, which of course is absolutely correct.

Originally Posted by swamp2

Sure if you just know one point in time along a curve that is not linear you can't make very many informed predictions about the other points on the curve nor clearly the ENTIRE CURVE.

Gee, ya think? That's exactly what I said. Savage.ulm was taking one data set (the difference between the two cars in terms of how quickly they reached a certain speed), and trying to relate that to another data set (the difference between the two cars in terms of how quickly they reached a certain distance from the start, at what would quite obviously be another speed), and was obviously trying to relate those two observations. Obviously, you can't do that, so I told him so, and the how and why.

You then say that's nonsense, and then say how, once you know the full curve, speed and distance are inextricably linked. Of course, you were the only one who was talking about knowing a full curve - then and now.

Originally Posted by swamp2

Furthermore your second question is ill posed. You need to state if "before" means before in time or before in distance.

The question was "...racing from a dead stop with an even start, any car that reaches a certain speed before the other car *must* be ahead at that point?" Therefore, since the "before" obviously referred to reaching a given speed (and was therefore defined), then being ahead means being in front of the other car. Duh.

Originally Posted by swamp2

The answer to your first question (which is well posed) is obviously no, the "must" statement does not hold. A simple thought experiment works here. What if a Veyron took off crawling (literally almost 0 acceleration) while a Honda Civic took off at full acceleration. When the Civic reached say 60 mph the Veyron finally floored it. The Veryon would achieve 60 mph in a much shorter distance and would be going significantly faster than the Civic at almost all distances along the track, still the Civic would be physically ahead of the Veyon for some time at and after 60 mph. This example is extreme, but points to the importance of the shape of the acceleration curve. It's simple some cars accelerate relatively better at lower speeds and some better at higher speeds.

Good example. Not better than my real-life example, but fine.

So of course we agree, notwithstanding your original disagreement. And by the way, my belief is that your original disagreement was deliberately obtuse, because you're just not that stupid. You can protest if you like and say that you really are that stupid, but I'm not buying it.

So my question is, why? Why bother with deliberately obtuse disagreement?

Bruce

[QUOTE=bruce.augenstein@comcast.;1265331]But of course they *are* very nearly unrelated, as you go on to say in your note.



Gee, ya think? I hereby award you the No-Shit-Sherlock medal with oak leaf cluster.

Let's look at the situation here. Savage.ulm asks a question in regard to the M3 vs the M5, wherein the M5 reaches 124 mph 1.6 seconds quicker than the M3, and reaches the kilometer mark .6 seconds before the M3. From this he infers that the M3 is quicker up top, and has made up ground against the M5, to the tune of one second.


Ops...sorry...to you and Swamp. I didn't want to open a fight. I was only a little confused and that's all. :-)
we need to be quite and relaxed,I think...So come on..a little bier togheter and that's all...ok?

[absoluteis350]

Just updating the data.

0-200 km/hr acceleration (124mph):

• 997TT: 12.8s
• E60 M5: 13.5-14.1s
• 997 GT3: 13.8s
• 390 Challenge Stradale: 15.5s
• E92 M3: 15.8s
• RS4 B7 (euro): 15.8s
• 997S: 16.0s
• 996 GT3: 16.1s
• E46 M3 CSL: 16.1s
• 360 Modena: 16.1s
• R8: 16.2s
• 997: 17.7s
• Cayman S: 19.0s
• 335i: 20.7s

100 km/h - 0 braking distance:

• E92 M3: 34m
• RS4: 35m
• 997: 36m
• Cayman S: 36m

0-1000m time:

• 997Turbo: 21.3s
• Ferrari F40: 21.8s
• 911 GT2: 22.3s
• 911 GT3: 22.9s
• CLK 63 AMG: 22.9s
• E60 M5: 22.7s
• E92 M3: 23.3s
• RS4: 23.4s
• E46 M3 CSL: 23.5s
• E46 M3: 24.2s
• BMW Z3 M: 24.4s

[Epacy]

Originally Posted by absoluteis350

Just updating the data.

You have two entries for the RS4 in 100-0. Where is this new information coming from?

[absoluteis350]

Sorry.. fixed..
Braking figures from EVO, accel figures from AUTOMOBIL, but google will find you similar results anywhere the car was actually tested (I think the old numbers reflected the original spec figures released by Audi)

I honestly don't know if there are significant performance differences between the euro and US versions, as there are sizeable weight differences..

[lucid]

Thanks for updating the RS4 figures, but there is no need to color them. This is a M3 forum--that's the only figure that needs to brought into attention otherwise we'd be coloring everything.

0-200 km/hr acceleration (124mph):

• 997TT: 12.8s
• E60 M5: 13.5-14.1s
• 997 GT3: 13.8s
• 390 Challenge Stradale: 15.5s
• E92 M3: 15.8s
• RS4 B7 (euro): 15.8s
• 997S: 16.0s
• 996 GT3: 16.1s
• E46 M3 CSL: 16.1s
• 360 Modena: 16.1s
• R8: 16.2s
• 997: 17.7s
• Cayman S: 19.0s
• 335i: 20.7s

100 km/h - 0 braking distance:

• E92 M3: 34m
• RS4: 35m
• 997: 36m
• Cayman S: 36m

0-1000m time:

• 997Turbo: 21.3s
• Ferrari F40: 21.8s
• 911 GT2: 22.3s
• 911 GT3: 22.9s
• CLK 63 AMG: 22.9s
• E60 M5: 22.7s
• E92 M3: 23.3s
• RS4: 23.4s
• E46 M3 CSL: 23.5s
• E46 M3: 24.2s
• BMW Z3 M: 24.4s

[Epacy]

Originally Posted by absoluteis350

Sorry.. fixed..
Braking figures from EVO, accel figures from AUTOMOBIL, but google will find you similar results anywhere the car was actually tested (I think the old numbers reflected the original spec figures released by Audi)

Was the list originally put together with various combinations of information from all over the web?

I believe the M3 numbers were from officially released times.

[lucid]

Originally Posted by Epacy

Was the list originally put together with various combinations of information from all over the web?

I believe the M3 numbers were from officially released times.

Yes, the list is a compilation from various sources, one of which is BMW, but it is not clear what came from where at this point.

[Epacy]

Originally Posted by lucid

Yes, the list is a compilation from various sources, one of which is BMW, but it is not clear what came from where at this point.

Cool. New M3 numbers.

0-200 km/hr acceleration (124mph):
3.4 sec

100 km/h - 0 braking distance:
15m

0-1000m time:
12 sec

[phoenixbmwlife]

Originally Posted by Epacy

Cool. New M3 numbers.

0-200 km/hr acceleration (124mph):
3.4 sec

Huh? Did I miss something?

[lucid]

Originally Posted by Epacy

Cool. New M3 numbers.

0-200 km/hr acceleration (124mph):
3.4 sec

100 km/h - 0 braking distance:
15m

0-1000m time:
12 sec

I assume you are referring to the test member Leg has illustrated--graphically--on the following thread:

http://www.m3post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=72797

[Epacy]

Originally Posted by lucid

I assume you are referring to the test member Leg has illustrated--graphically--on the following thread:

http://www.m3post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=72797

Yes. Those are official times from the free-fall category.

[lucid]

Originally Posted by Epacy

Yes. Those are official times from the free-fall category.

In that case, I doubt the accuracy of those numbers as, cranking the numbers without pen/paper, 0-200 time should be around 5.5s unless the exhaust of the new M3 creates significant "thrust" at 8500 rpms!

[Garrett]

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

But of course they *are* very nearly unrelated, as you go on to say in your note.



Gee, ya think? I hereby award you the No-Shit-Sherlock medal with oak leaf cluster.

Let's look at the situation here. Savage.ulm asks a question in regard to the M3 vs the M5, wherein the M5 reaches 124 mph 1.6 seconds quicker than the M3, and reaches the kilometer mark .6 seconds before the M3. From this he infers that the M3 is quicker up top, and has made up ground against the M5, to the tune of one second.

So, in the context of one car against another, each with differing acceleration curves, I point out that time to speed and time to distance are very nearly unrelated, which of course is absolutely correct.



Gee, ya think? That's exactly what I said. Savage.ulm was taking one data set (the difference between the two cars in terms of how quickly they reached a certain speed), and trying to relate that to another data set (the difference between the two cars in terms of how quickly they reached a certain distance from the start, at what would quite obviously be another speed), and was obviously trying to relate those two observations. Obviously, you can't do that, so I told him so, and the how and why.

You then say that's nonsense, and then say how, once you know the full curve, speed and distance are inextricably linked. Of course, you were the only one who was talking about knowing a full curve - then and now.



The question was "...racing from a dead stop with an even start, any car that reaches a certain speed before the other car *must* be ahead at that point?" Therefore, since the "before" obviously referred to reaching a given speed (and was therefore defined), then being ahead means being in front of the other car. Duh.



Good example. Not better than my real-life example, but fine.

So of course we agree, notwithstanding your original disagreement. And by the way, my belief is that your original disagreement was deliberately obtuse, because you're just not that stupid. You can protest if you like and say that you really are that stupid, but I'm not buying it.

So my question is, why? Why bother with deliberately obtuse disagreement?

Bruce

Bruce,

You have a way of stating the most obvious, then either taking a devil's advocet approuch or leaving the thought unfinished. Then when we dissagree you hope the fence. Your quoted statment above says absolutly nothing. It's all gibberish and never really definitive! You agree to nothing and say even less.

You say the time slips it's Obvious who the winner is, then say: "BRAAAP!! Wrong! Thank you for playing! " But it is obvious that you had a higher terminal velocity. So how are we wrong ?

So, in the context of one car against another, each with differing acceleration curves, I point out that time to speed and time to distance are very nearly unrelated, which of course is absolutely correct.

Yes, but if you know 2 data points you can see where their "speed" is being developed. Just as in YOUR example, it obvious that the AWD Cyclone was faster in the start (jumped out ahead) and your car was reining him in the whole time. Again, why were we wrong?

Nothing wrong with "infering" using 2 data points. Just like knowing forst to 100mph and over-all speed at the 1/4 mile. You can see trap speeds and know who was charging at the end!

But picking an exact MPH and saying nothing more would not indicate anything without also knowing the finishing times and MPH.

BRAAAP!! Wrong! Thank you for playing!








-Garrett

[Garrett]

Originally Posted by Epacy

Was the list originally put together with various combinations of information from all over the web?

I believe the M3 numbers were from officially released times.

Just a compilation of posted stats from reviews. I suppose we could do official EVO times or even R&T. But this is just a benchmark to see where the E92 M3 is heading.

It's good for it's purpose. Until we get a full review against other combatants on the same corse, same day... this will have to do.

Will also add Nurb times when that number is realased.




0-200 km/hr acceleration (124mph):

• 997TT: 12.8s
• E60 M5: 13.5-14.1s
• 997 GT3: 13.8s
• 390 Challenge Stradale: 15.5s
• E92 M3: 15.8s
• RS4 B7 (euro): 15.8s
• 997S: 16.0s
• 996 GT3: 16.1s
• E46 M3 CSL: 16.1s
• 360 Modena: 16.1s
• R8: 16.2s
• 997: 17.7s
• Cayman S: 19.0s
• 335i: 20.7s

100 km/h - 0 braking distance:

• E92 M3: 34m
• RS4: 35m
• 997: 36m
• Cayman S: 36m

0-1000m time:

• 997Turbo: 21.3s
• Ferrari F40: 21.8s
• 911 GT2: 22.3s
• 911 GT3: 22.9s
• CLK 63 AMG: 22.9s
• E60 M5: 22.7s
• E92 M3: 23.3s
• RS4: 23.4s
• E46 M3 CSL: 23.5s
• E46 M3: 24.2s
• BMW Z3 M: 24.4s

-Garrett

[dechoong]

Originally Posted by southlight

Now we also have the 0-200 km/h time. According to the brochure the M3 needs 15.8s to reach 200 kph.

Best regards, south

A 381HP Carrera S with Powerkit does it in 14.9s. Wonder where the additional 39HP of the M3 went

[Sick Speed]

Originally Posted by swamp2

I posted a link sometime ago to a mag cover article about the new M3 claiming/titled "Ferarri Fast". Folks here seemed to like the article but I got a lot of flak over at the "other" board saying "no way", "imprecise statement", "dream on", "it isn't a Ferarri", etc. Now the new M3 is beating the LEGENDARY Ferarri F360 0-1000m and we are still bitching. Unreal, wake up folks. Time to be very happy. Also it is "marginally" faster than the 335i, ugh...

Gotta finally jump on the 335i wannabe M3 owners. There are 2 types of M3people.

Those who are M3 owners...and those that are M3 drivers.

The wannabes and their rhetoric about how disappointed they are in the new M3...its not worth x amount more for the M3...how they would mod their wannabe 335i to M3 power (HA! HA!) how it is "marginally" faster than the 335i...all I can say is "Grasshopper...snatch the stone from my hand..." (old Kung Fu reference - the Master speaking to young dumb and still learning Kane...)

The M3 WALKS that ass. W-A-L-K-S THAT ASS.

My whip modded still has significantly less than the new M3 and just the other day while on a beautiful ride down I-75 I came across a Grasshopper.

He screamed up to my bumper...and Master had to commence with the lesson.

I cannot WAIT for the new M3 to arrive. Worth every penny...worth every HP...because I am DRIVER...I am MASTER...GRASSHOPPERS...snatch the stone...

[RussianM3_dude]

That is a very idiotic statement. I am an ex E46 owner and I am dissapointed a little in the new ///M. If you were a REAL driver, you would never buy a heavy GT car in the first place, but a Lotus or at least a Porsche. A 335 is obviously not as good as the new ///M however it is much cheaper, especially in Europe. So for the price, the new M is definetly a little lacking, especially considering that in Europe it comes NAKED and well equipped is 997S money.

[absoluteis350]

Originally Posted by Sick Speed

...because I am DRIVER...I am MASTER...GRASSHOPPERS...snatch the stone...

You are idiot (sic), is what you are.

Sorry, but that was a weak post with no point. Much like this one, but this one isnt as annoying