RE: Radical Smashes Nordschleife Record

[RobM77]

Regarding the Bellof time in the 956 and the SR8, I made some calculations based on lap times early on this thread; I think that's more meaningful than looking at PWRs because of the ground effect the 956 used to run. My own opinion was that in full racing trim the SR8 may come close to the 956's time, although having tested with Radicals since I made that post, I was surprised at their lack of pace through faster corners and I now doubt they could match the 6m11s with the SR8 (there's too many bends where downforce is an advantage at the ring), though I understand the SR8's aero package is more advanced than the SR3. I'd still be fascinated to see a full race spec SR8 going for a ring lap time; my bet would be in at around a 6m20?

No doubt Radical are trying to expand the road car side of their business, which is why they've concentrated on the road car lap record.

[zakelwe]

flemke said:

Dauer 962...a pure, purpose-built racing car that was later modified into a road-legal version, with a total production of, IINM, 13 units. Right. Makes a lot of sense to compare that with a GT3 or 430.

Units made should not come into it as you are aware.

It's not that I just don't get it Flemke it's that I have a different opinion to yours. I take all cars that can be legally driven on the road to be acceptable for putting up a time "for entertainment purposes" on this track and be compared against each other, hence Radical and Dauer in, FXX out. You want to apply your own criteria to that on top. Which is fine, but that brings subjectivity into the question.

Like I said before, this is not some sort of Olympic sport, it is in the main a marketing gimmick, and it's actually a more relevant marketing gimmick to Radical than most!

Regards
Andy

[Chris Eyre]

Chris Eyre said:

steve z said:

Joe911 said:

If the Radical is the "official" record - and assuming we all agree that Sport Auto are the arbiters ... then how come they are not covering it?

http://www.sportauto-online.de/nordschleife-978759...

Sport Auto we're in attendance, so maybe they're waiting until they publish the article???

Three weeks later, we're still waiting...

http://www.sportauto-online.de/nordschleife-978759...

Why is that?

^^ Bump. Anyone?

Radical have now popped the video up on youtube for our benefit, quoting once again:

"successfully smashed the Nürburgring Nordschleife Production Car Lap Record by eight seconds, with racing driver and 'Ring expert Michael Vergers at the wheel. The new SR8 LM's time of 6m48s beat a record that has stood since 2005, also set by Radical in a previous-generation SR8. The record attempt was witnessed and confirmed by both the UK's evo and Germany's Sport Auto motoring magazines."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acSGbO0MGGI

Sport Auto haven't said a word.

[flemke]

zakelwe said:

flemke said:

Dauer 962...a pure, purpose-built racing car that was later modified into a road-legal version, with a total production of, IINM, 13 units. Right. Makes a lot of sense to compare that with a GT3 or 430.

Units made should not come into it as you are aware.

It's not that I just don't get it Flemke it's that I have a different opinion to yours. I take all cars that can be legally driven on the road to be acceptable for putting up a time "for entertainment purposes" on this track and be compared against each other, hence Radical and Dauer in, FXX out. You want to apply your own criteria to that on top. Which is fine, but that brings subjectivity into the question.

Like I said before, this is not some sort of Olympic sport, it is in the main a marketing gimmick, and it's actually a more relevant marketing gimmick to Radical than most!

Yes, it certainly is a marketing gimmick:

gimmick - a trick or device...
(Oxford English Reference Dictionary)

Radical are claiming the "road-legal production car" record. That claim is, literally, true, It is also a line of misleading bull5hit worthy of an FIA President.
"Road-legal" is not "road car". As illustrated earlier in this thread, it is possible, because it has been done, to make a sofa (as in, a piece of padded furniture) road legal. Someone could claim that his road-legal sofa was the most comfortable vehicle in the world. Just because it might not be possible to gainsay that claim would not make it a fact that had any value.
"Production" - what does that mean, apart from "having been produced"? IINM, every car ever made - well, that's the point: every car has been made, produced. I trust that you would agree that the sense in which "production" is being used by both Radical and Sport Auto is not simply "the act of making", but rather relates to volume and repeatability. I don't know what the threshold of qualifying for their version of "production" should be, but I'm sure that it should be more than 1, or 2. Should it be more than 13? That's why I raised the point after you had invoked the Dauer 962. Is the Dauer 962 a "production car" in a way that would allow a sensible comparison between it and an M3? Do we know how many road-registered SR8LMs leave the Radical factory each year?

The original point of these particular lap-time comparisons was that Sport Auto was in the business of evaluating road cars that were relevant to a road-driving-orientated audience. There are other German periodicals directed at motor sport. Porsches, Ferraris, BMWs, Audis - their road cars are designed primarily for road driving. Measuring road car lap-times was a way of assessing how well cars that were not designed primarily for circuit driving nonetheless would do on a circuit.
It is hardly surprising that a car that was designed primarily for circuit driving would be faster around a circuit than would be a car that was not designed primarily for circuit driving.

Yes, I've offered an opinion. You imply that, simply because an assertion is an opinion, that does not make the assertion right. Quite so. Equally so, simply because an assertion is an opinion, that does not make the assertion wrong.

As you say yourself, Radical have not publicised the lap-time merely "for entertainment purposes". If that were their purpose, they would post only the time without the hype, and we would be impressed (as it is a great lap-time, which required a fine car and a fine driver).
In that case, what they would not do is to keep throwing in the marketing gimmick: "road-legal production car record". It is that technically-correct but misleading claim that is offensive. It just more insincere bull5hit, in a world that has too much of it already. That tag line is somewhere between sophistry and intellectual dishonesty. I disdain sophistry, and despise intellectual dishonesty. Hence I wish that Radical would promote themselves with more substance and restraint.
Then again, how likely is a company to promote itself with substance and restraint when every one of its 6 models has slapped across its bonnet a logo that is 3 feet high?

[heebeegeetee]

flemke said:

Porsches, Ferraris, BMWs, Audis - their road cars are designed primarily for road driving.

That is a good point.

I'm not sure what to make of Radical's efforts at the 'Ring, other than for pure marketing purposes. (Which is fair enough in itself).

Surely, Radical make production track cars. These would make lousy road cars. By tuning the track car for the road, they compromise it's track performance.

What's the point? Surely you end up with the worst of both world's?

[Chris Eyre]

I posted this comment on the Radical youtube video:

Chris Eyre said:

Radical have taken a 'production race car', and made a de-minimis quantity road legal. That does not make them 'road legal production cars'.

Please curtail insulting your audience with such a notion. Sport Auto have NOT confirmed success, even though they may have confirmed a record attempt. Why is that? An attempt does not gift success.

The laptime of 6m 48s is hence meaningless - an accomplishment with no context. . Use slicks, and go chasing a known record, that of 6m 11s.

Strangely enough, it got deleted

So now we have:

a) insulting the intelligence of an audience
b) censorship

Edited by Chris Eyre on Saturday 26th September 22:53

[Chris Eyre]

zakelwe said:

Units made should not come into it as you are aware.

Could you elaborate on what constitutes a road legal production car please?

Two boxes to tick:

1) Road legal (preferably on the same terms as TUV, but clearly no one in the UK will subscribe to that)
2) Production, and the implied volume of X-amount this necessitates.

Take a clipboard and see how you get on. Eagerly waiting to hear your findings.

[tybalt]

flemke said:

As you say yourself, Radical have not publicised the lap-time merely "for entertainment purposes". If that were their purpose, they would post only the time without the hype, and we would be impressed (as it is a great lap-time, which required a fine car and a fine driver).
In that case, what they would not do is to keep throwing in the marketing gimmick: "road-legal production car record". It is that technically-correct but misleading claim that is offensive. It just more insincere bull5hit, in a world that has too much of it already. That tag line is somewhere between sophistry and intellectual dishonesty. I disdain sophistry, and despise intellectual dishonesty. Hence I wish that Radical would promote themselves with more substance and restraint.
Then again, how likely is a company to promote itself with substance and restraint when every one of its 6 models has slapped across its bonnet a logo that is 3 feet high?

Anyone who's heard of Radical knows exactly what kind of car they are. I can't understand why anyone can get worked up about this. It's not likely to mislead someone about the type of car that they are selling. I think people are intelligent enough to put this in context. Who do you think they are misleading, and why do you care? Are you saying that they are crap race cars, and that they therefore have to resort to comparing with road cars? If so, what are the alternatives? Why does someone buy one of these anyway?

Edited to say - I've looked at Radical's website now. Why would someone buy one then? To compete in a one Marque race series? And your objection is that they hype the car by "production car" records at the NS? Seems like fairly shrewd marketing, but I sort of see your point. Mind you, if they are doing a decent job at it, I can't help but think good luck to them.

Edited by tybalt on Saturday 26th September 23:40

[heebeegeetee]

tybalt said:

Anyone who's heard of Radical knows exactly what kind of car they are. I can't understand why anyone can get worked up about this. It's not likely to mislead someone about the type of car that they are selling. I think people are intelligent enough to put this in context. Who do you think they are misleading, and why do you care? Are you saying that they are crap race cars, and that they therefore have to resort to comparing with road cars? If so, what are the alternatives? Why does someone buy one of these anyway?

But why are they doing it? What's the point? Surely anyone can get a trick car round the 'ring quickly enough if they set out to do so. But there has to be a point to it, surely?

[tybalt]

heebeegeetee said:

tybalt said:

Anyone who's heard of Radical knows exactly what kind of car they are. I can't understand why anyone can get worked up about this. It's not likely to mislead someone about the type of car that they are selling. I think people are intelligent enough to put this in context. Who do you think they are misleading, and why do you care? Are you saying that they are crap race cars, and that they therefore have to resort to comparing with road cars? If so, what are the alternatives? Why does someone buy one of these anyway?

But why are they doing it? What's the point? Surely anyone can get a trick car round the 'ring quickly enough if they set out to do so. But there has to be a point to it, surely?

I edited the above with some suggestions after I looked at their website.

My wild guess is that they are trying to sell more cars. They get publicity by doing this. Why not? It's not like the option is not available to anyone (in the UK at least).

[Chris Eyre]

tybalt said:

Why not? It's not like the option is not available to anyone (in the UK at least).

"Why not?" Why not try to sell more cars using an accomplishment with no context, and hence with no underlying value?

Do you not feel slightly insulted by a company attempting to bully an audience into believing that a benchmark has been exceeded, on one of the world's toughest racetracks, when plainly the goalposts have been simply moved outwards?

It simply devalues a benchmark which historically had real credence in the minds of the true production sportcar market.

Radical (and others - they're not alone, but they're the worst offender), have simply made the Nurburgring production lap record nothing more than a worthless squabble, with Evo saying "yes" and "Sport Auto" saying "no".

[tybalt]

Chris Eyre said:

tybalt said:

Why not? It's not like the option is not available to anyone (in the UK at least).

"Why not?" Why not try to sell more cars using an accomplishment with no context, and hence with no underlying value?

Do you not feel slightly insulted by a company attempting to bully an audience into believing that a benchmark has been exceeded, on one of the world's toughest racetracks, when plainly the goalposts have been simply moved outwards?

It simply devalues a benchmark which historically had real credence in the minds of the true production sportcar market.

Radical (and others - they're not alone, but they're the worst offender), have simply made the Nurburgring production lap record nothing more than a worthless squabble, with Evo saying "yes" and "Sport Auto" saying "no".

I think there is a distinction here between the idea of a benchmark and a record. IMO the benchmark has not been devalued. It's still of interest that the cheaper Nissan can beat the 911 Turbo (assuming that they aren't all playing cheating tricks too). It's not terribly interesting who holds the "record" and has not been for some time. That's why I can't understand why anyone can get worked up about it. I thought Radical were far from the only company setting 'records' for the NS. Whether you call it a record or not, the time still stands as a benchmark (for IVAd race cars if nothing else).

Plenty of cars are sold on 0-60 times and power output. Are these not examples of accomplishments with no context? As the consumer, you always have to go looking for the context. The seller always puts a spin on things. Business as usual.

Edited by tybalt on Sunday 27th September 00:20

[Chris Eyre]

Applying the same logic, who's in on IVAing an F1 car, to put the nonsense out of reach of those who think it's a target even worth chasing?

It's entirely acceptable within the bounds of the 'rules' (or lack of) that the current record attempts are working to.

- and plainly an awful lot faster, before it even turns a wheel.

[tybalt]

Chris Eyre said:

Applying the same logic, who's in on IVAing an F1 car, to put the nonsense out of reach of those who think it's a target even worth chasing?

It's entirely acceptable within the bounds of the 'rules' (or lack of) that the current record attempts are working to.

- and plainly an awful lot faster, before it even turns a wheel.

If you are trying to set a decent record, why not build something from the ground up to do it better than an F1 car. I'm thinking powered ground effect, turbo charged, etc etc. F1 cars really are hobbled by a whole lot of rules.

Edited to add - I think for there to be any point, you'd have to offer a car for sale that was capable of achieving the time. Otherwise people will have another mental category for NS times:

Race car
SVAd race car (prototype)
SVAd race car (available to buy)
Heavily modified road car
Stock road car

Edited by tybalt on Sunday 27th September 00:34

[Chris Eyre]

What I'm really saying is, given that an F1 car would easily be wheeled out (and justified), what, if anything, has really been achieved in any of this?

[tybalt]

Chris Eyre said:

What I'm really saying is, given that an F1 car would easily be wheeled out (and justified), what, if anything, has really been achieved in any of this?

They've got the fastest time round the NS for a car that you can go and buy, rather than build yourself. I think?

That's an achievement isn't it? Might be pointless in your opinion, but some people must like the idea, otherwise they wouldn't bother.

Hang on a minute - I've got a better idea than using an F1 car. Use a Pilbeam hill climb car or something similar (MP97). You can argue that that's available to buy that way, further blurring the distinctions and making the "record" even more meaningless than it already is.

Edited by tybalt on Sunday 27th September 00:58

[robsti]

Slightly off topic sorry,but what is the fastest bog standard production car with road legal tyres round the ring?

[Chris Eyre]

tybalt said:

Chris Eyre said:

What I'm really saying is, given that an F1 car would easily be wheeled out (and justified), what, if anything, has really been achieved in any of this?

They've got the fastest time round the NS for a car that you can go and buy, rather than build yourself. I think?

That's an achievement isn't it? Might be pointless in your opinion, but some people must like the idea, otherwise they wouldn't bother.

I take it you're content that a car whose gearbox requires inspection after every event fits within the meaning of "a car you can go and buy?" (and use, as a consumer, by implication).

Do you identify any stumbling blocks lurking, suggesting all is not well with the mentality behind the road legal production claim?

Frankly, there's plenty more other racecars that could be put in the queue for that mantle on those terms: the F1 car (I missed a couple of BMWs earlier this month) and any serious race car you care to think of.

Whether the owners/manufacturers can be bothered to step up is the only barometer for anyone to look at.

If they can, they'll destroy the Radical. Fact.

If they can't, it mustn't be worth doing, either not being a goal with any perceived value, or through not coinciding with a marketing agenda.

Time will prove either to be totally correct.

[tybalt]

Chris Eyre said:

I take it you're content that a car whose gearbox requires inspection after every event fits within the meaning of "a car you can go and buy?" (and use, as a consumer, by implication).

Do you identify any stumbling blocks lurking, suggesting all is not well with the mentality behind the road legal production claim?

Frankly, there's plenty more other racecars that could be put in the queue for that mantle on those terms: the F1 car (I missed a couple of BMWs earlier this month) and any serious race car you care to think of.

Whether the owners/manufacturers can be bothered to step up is the only barometer for anyone to look at.

If they can, they'll destroy the Radical. Fact.

If they can't, it mustn't be worth doing, either not being a goal with any perceived value, or through not coinciding with a marketing agenda.

Time will prove either to be totally correct.

I agree - it's a question of whether anyone else with the expertise and marketing agenda can be bothered to step up. If your business is selling racecars, why bother with it? I'm still not quite clear why it's worth Radical bothering myself. What criteria do people use when they decide to buy a race car? I think that Radical have managed to carve out a niche with a one make series, and that is (partially) fuelled by their publicity stunts. I wouldn't have thought that those kind of stunts would have much currency for people planning to compete in an open race series.

Edited by tybalt on Sunday 27th September 01:19

[Chris Eyre]

tybalt said:

I'm still not quite clear why it's worth Radical bothering myself. What criteria do people use when they decide to buy a race car? I think that Radical have managed to carve out a niche with a one make series, and that is (partially) fuelled by their publicity stunts. I wouldn't have thought that those kind of stunts would have much currency for people planning to compete in an open race series.

Solely marketing reasons, absolutely no question.

The SR8 bridges the race market and the trackday market, appealing to both, having a purpose in both, yet plainly was not created for significant levels of use on the road, due to the lifing of components, lengthy starting procedure and maintenance schedules.

This Nurburgring nonsense creates attention, has seen the press engaged (they've bitten on it), but requires the walking of a marketing tightope, which morally they ought to step away from. Those such as myself that can see literally straight through the facade are just angered and offended by it. If history is anything to go by, it'll appear in Autocar next, being driven up the A1 for 4 hours of the engine's 30 hours, in the name of publicity and road lgeality.

I posted some comments on the Radical youtube account earlier, along the lines of what's being discussed here, drawing specific attention to cutting through the marketing bull5hit:

"Although Sport Auto have confirmed the record attempt, they haven't confirmed the record attempt was successful Why is that? An attempt does not gift success."

- this was deleted by them. Within the space of hours.

So it's all about defending the 'record' claim, image, sales and the bottom line.