RE: Radical Smashes Nordschleife Record

[10 Pence Short]

What a sad little argument this has turned out to be.

What can't speak can't lie; the Radical can be registered and insured to drive on the road legally, ergo, however impractical, it's a road car.

Just because it's against the spirit of the 'rules' or places proper ground-up road cars at a disadvantage isn't the point. Where do you draw the line?

If other manufacturers want to hold the record, they need to have the balls to build a track racer that can be made road legal in the same way as the Radical and go from there. If they're not prepared to do that, they're not doing enough to hold the record.

[steve z]

Just watched the lap with telemetary. Oh my god this thing is so fast its unbelievable. For those of you that know the 'ring here are some speed references:-

Flugplatz Crest - 148mph
Flugplatz Corner - 135mph
Crest before Schwedenkreuz - 168mph
Schwedenkreuz - 143mph
Foxhole Compression - 161mph
Pflanzgarten 1st Jump - 140mph

Unbelievable speeds.

[mchammer89]

Now I really want to see this video!

[steve z]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IiNdKtZM1VM

[julian64]

10 Pence Short said:

What a sad little argument this has turned out to be.

What can't speak can't lie; the Radical can be registered and insured to drive on the road legally, ergo, however impractical, it's a road car.

Just because it's against the spirit of the 'rules' or places proper ground-up road cars at a disadvantage isn't the point. Where do you draw the line?

If other manufacturers want to hold the record, they need to have the balls to build a track racer that can be made road legal in the same way as the Radical and go from there. If they're not prepared to do that, they're not doing enough to hold the record.

I wonder what the absolute minimum you would have to do to an F1 car to make it road legal in this country. Would be nice to see what the real benchmark would be, wouldn't it?

Or would that be a pointless exercise in numbers without meaning?

[zakelwe]

10 Pence Short said:

What a sad little argument this has turned out to be.

What can't speak can't lie; the Radical can be registered and insured to drive on the road legally, ergo, however impractical, it's a road car.

Just because it's against the spirit of the 'rules' or places proper ground-up road cars at a disadvantage isn't the point. Where do you draw the line?

If other manufacturers want to hold the record, they need to have the balls to build a track racer that can be made road legal in the same way as the Radical and go from there. If they're not prepared to do that, they're not doing enough to hold the record.

Very good summary. Indeed, a record for the Radical at this place is a lot more relevant than the time posted by the GT-R or 997 GT2, though given the hoo-haa over the GT-R time you wouldn't know it.

The major manufacturers over egg the Nurburgring pudding in this respect whereas it is actually more relevant for the Radicals of this world.

Regards
Andy

Edited by zakelwe on Tuesday 1st September 14:05

[flemke]

zakelwe said:

10 Pence Short said:

What a sad little argument this has turned out to be.

What can't speak can't lie; the Radical can be registered and insured to drive on the road legally, ergo, however impractical, it's a road car.

Just because it's against the spirit of the 'rules' or places proper ground-up road cars at a disadvantage isn't the point. Where do you draw the line?

If other manufacturers want to hold the record, they need to have the balls to build a track racer that can be made road legal in the same way as the Radical and go from there. If they're not prepared to do that, they're not doing enough to hold the record.

Very good summary. Indeed, a record for the Radical at this place is a lot more relevant than the time posted by the GT-R or 997 GT2, though given the hoo-haa over the GT-R time you wouldn't know it.

The major manufacturers over egg the Nurburgring pudding in this respect whereas it is actually more relevant for the Radicals of this world.

Regards
Andy

With respect to both 10p and yourself, the sophistic verbal gymnastics which he (and many others) have contrived and you are endorsing are ludicrous.
It makes as much sense to consider the Radical to be eligible for the "production road car" record as it does to consider the Radical to be eligible for the racing car record. It's pretty bloody obvious that the Radical has at least as much in common with a racing car as it does with a road car.

If Radical wants to hold the real record, "they need to have the balls to make a track racer" that betters the 956's 6:11, and then put it on 1983 vintage slicks and see how it does.
Until then, it's all just bull5hit, and I am amazed that intelligent guys such as the two of you fail to grasp that.

[Joe911]

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...

[steve z]

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???

[Chris Eyre]

julian64 said:

10 Pence Short said:

Just because it's against the spirit of the 'rules' or places proper ground-up road cars at a disadvantage isn't the point. Where do you draw the line?

If other manufacturers want to hold the record, they need to have the balls to build a track racer that can be made road legal in the same way as the Radical and go from there.

I wonder what the absolute minimum you would have to do to an F1 car to make it road legal in this country. Would be nice to see what the real benchmark would be, wouldn't it?

Amen to that, and entirely doable with a willing tyre manufacturer on board. Now that would be ballsy.

But no other full-on race car manufacturer, F1 or otherwise, has decided it's worth touching. Strange.

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?

[Twincharged]

flemke said:

zakelwe said:

10 Pence Short said:

What a sad little argument this has turned out to be.

What can't speak can't lie; the Radical can be registered and insured to drive on the road legally, ergo, however impractical, it's a road car.

Just because it's against the spirit of the 'rules' or places proper ground-up road cars at a disadvantage isn't the point. Where do you draw the line?

If other manufacturers want to hold the record, they need to have the balls to build a track racer that can be made road legal in the same way as the Radical and go from there. If they're not prepared to do that, they're not doing enough to hold the record.

Very good summary. Indeed, a record for the Radical at this place is a lot more relevant than the time posted by the GT-R or 997 GT2, though given the hoo-haa over the GT-R time you wouldn't know it.

The major manufacturers over egg the Nurburgring pudding in this respect whereas it is actually more relevant for the Radicals of this world.

Regards
Andy

With respect to both 10p and yourself, the sophistic verbal gymnastics which he (and many others) have contrived and you are endorsing are ludicrous.
It makes as much sense to consider the Radical to be eligible for the "production road car" record as it does to consider the Radical to be eligible for the racing car record. It's pretty bloody obvious that the Radical has at least as much in common with a racing car as it does with a road car.

If Radical wants to hold the real record, "they need to have the balls to make a track racer" that betters the 956's 6:11, and then put it on 1983 vintage slicks and see how it does.
Until then, it's all just bull5hit, and I am amazed that intelligent guys such as the two of you fail to grasp that.

While I agree with your overall point, I don't understand the need to put the car onto 1983 vintage slicks. Tyres are just part of the progress that has been made since the 956 ran, so in spirit of trying to give "a fair playing field" for both, that would no doubt mean modifying other parts of the new car so they match what technology was available at the time. It's fair simply because the 956 used the best of what was available at the time, as the cars that had gone before it had and therefore so should the new car. I'm sure there was a record for a car without any downforce, but our understanding is better now and that's what helps us to progress.

Also, using the 1983 slicks would effectively introduce them as a control tyre, which opens a whole new can of worms. Should the other cars with different tyres at the time be allowed to use them, and those that have gone before?

Of course if a new car did break the record, you may wonder "what if both cars were on the same tyres- would the difference mean the 956 would still hold the record?". You could of course argue that the tyres aren't an integral part of the design, and they're merely like a runner changing their trainers. While Usain Bolt wasn't forced to use the same shoes as Jesse Owens, I could perhaps agree with your curiosity. However, it would be a case of giving the 956 a set of new slicks and sending it out on track again, rather than the other way around. If you did anything else, the new car would not achieve the maximum it was capable of, creating a further "what if" scenario, but for the current record!

Finally, the "956 on new slicks" scenario isn't strictly necessary anyway. Every record sits in the context of its time, using the technology available then. If the 956 beat the young pretender using its new slicks, that would be fine (as the fastest car is the fastest car) but if it failed that would be a great injustice to the car, as its 26 year old technology has been compared to that of a new car. Losing to the modern car would only take attention away from its impressive achievement which held in the context of its time cannot be beaten.

[Gedon]

Back to the original spirit of the thread. Well done Radical!

It is a production car, it is fully road legal, it was the fastest.

To bugger about with semantics is akin to the 66 Monte and the BMC gang losing top place due to the wrong headlight bulbs.

An F1 car is not a road car, it is a race car with mudguards/indicators. This, whether you like it or not, is a very low production road car that someone with lots of money could spec and buy.

When I go to a tailors, does it make my suit any less of a suit than one you bought in Matalan? No.

Well done Radical!

[Lefty Guns]

flemke said:

If Radical wants to hold the real record, "they need to have the balls to make a track racer" that betters the 956's 6:11, and then put it on 1983 vintage slicks and see how it does.

With respect, why do you think the "real record", as you so put it, requires 1983 vintage slicks? So that it's comparable to the 956 time? Any new track racer isn't going to be comparable to a 26-year old car, whatever tyres it's running.

[Gedon]

Lefty Guns said:

flemke said:

If Radical wants to hold the real record, "they need to have the balls to make a track racer" that betters the 956's 6:11, and then put it on 1983 vintage slicks and see how it does.

With respect, why do you think the "real record", as you so put it, requires 1983 vintage slicks? So that it's comparable to the 956 time? Any new track racer isn't going to be comparable to a 26-year old car, whatever tyres it's running.

Could I have specced that car from the factory?

[flemke]

Twincharged said:

flemke said:

It makes as much sense to consider the Radical to be eligible for the "production road car" record as it does to consider the Radical to be eligible for the racing car record. It's pretty bloody obvious that the Radical has at least as much in common with a racing car as it does with a road car.

If Radical wants to hold the real record, "they need to have the balls to make a track racer" that betters the 956's 6:11, and then put it on 1983 vintage slicks and see how it does.
Until then, it's all just bull5hit, and I am amazed that intelligent guys such as the two of you fail to grasp that.

While I agree with your overall point, I don't understand the need to put the car onto 1983 vintage slicks. Tyres are just part of the progress that has been made since the 956 ran, so in spirit of trying to give "a fair playing field" for both, that would no doubt mean modifying other parts of the new car so they match what technology was available at the time. It's fair simply because the 956 used the best of what was available at the time, as the cars that had gone before it had and therefore so should the new car. I'm sure there was a record for a car without any downforce, but our understanding is better now and that's what helps us to progress.

Also, using the 1983 slicks would effectively introduce them as a control tyre, which opens a whole new can of worms. Should the other cars with different tyres at the time be allowed to use them, and those that have gone before?

Lefty Guns said:

flemke said:

If Radical wants to hold the real record, "they need to have the balls to make a track racer" that betters the 956's 6:11, and then put it on 1983 vintage slicks and see how it does.

With respect, why do you think the "real record", as you so put it, requires 1983 vintage slicks? So that it's comparable to the 956 time? Any new track racer isn't going to be comparable to a 26-year old car, whatever tyres it's running.

I was being slightly mischievous with my suggestion for the tyres, as not only was that specific thing never going to happen for prohibitive practical reasons, but it's not the way this stuff is done anyhow.
My point was, however, that Radical are asking us to judge the car - that is, what they themselves have accomplished - by its lap time. Yet what is likely to have been the single biggest contributor to the car's pace, the tyres, had nothing to do with Radical.
When a motor racing track record is set (or a benchmark invoked), usually it is relative to what happened the year before, or sometimes the lap before. There is never a 26-year gap.

Twincharged said:

Of course if a new car did break the record, you may wonder "what if both cars were on the same tyres- would the difference mean the 956 would still hold the record?". You could of course argue that the tyres aren't an integral part of the design, and they're merely like a runner changing their trainers. While Usain Bolt wasn't forced to use the same shoes as Jesse Owens, I could perhaps agree with your curiosity. However, it would be a case of giving the 956 a set of new slicks and sending it out on track again, rather than the other way around. If you did anything else, the new car would not achieve the maximum it was capable of, creating a further "what if" scenario, but for the current record!

I wouldn't say the shoes per se, but rather Bolt's (and others') overall training programme, better diets, modern insight into technique, all that stuff.
We think that we're judging the runner, as in, "the person", and it is to him only that go the accolades, but records of all sorts that are set under different conditions tend to be meaningless as a way of differentiating competitors.
A few years ago the UCI (cycling equivalent to FIA) tried to equalise the contest for the world hour record by creating what they called the "Athlete's Record", the requirements for which tightly limited technical advances in cycling aerodynamics. Going for this record, the great British cyclist Chris Boardman was able, barely, to better the hour distance of the indisputably greatest cyclist, Eddy Merckx. The only problem was that the limitation on technology was limited only to the bicycle itself, and did not extend to the equally important advances that had been made in training in the 30+ years between the two attempts (nor indeed to the scientific advances that Merckx would have enjoyed relative to his own predecessors).

[flemke]

Gedon said:

Lefty Guns said:

flemke said:

If Radical wants to hold the real record, "they need to have the balls to make a track racer" that betters the 956's 6:11, and then put it on 1983 vintage slicks and see how it does.

With respect, why do you think the "real record", as you so put it, requires 1983 vintage slicks? So that it's comparable to the 956 time? Any new track racer isn't going to be comparable to a 26-year old car, whatever tyres it's running.

Could I have specced that car from the factory?

Sure.
They made more than 100 956/962s (the difference between the models being a wheelbase change required by IMSA for driver safety), and almost all of them were customer cars.
If you're saying that Bellof's car had been set up for that circuit, as any racing car will be, then perhaps one couldn't have ticked the "Bellof Nordschleife set-up" on the order form, for competitive reasons, but I don't think that's what we're talking about here, is it?

[Lefty Guns]

An interesting point. I'm really no expert (not even an armchair expert) but do you know roughly what the PWR's are of the two cars?

And how much has suspension and brake technology improved in the same 26 year period? Quite a bit I would expect.

[zakelwe]

This comparison with the racing 962 is a red herring because that was not a road car, Flemke incorrectly compares it because he wants to indicate the Radical is a racing car, not a road car. In fact it is both and what Flemke thinks on the matter is his opinion and not a fact.

If he want's to make a direct comparison then instead of silly talk about 1980's tyres he should be comparing the Radical to the Dauer 962.

Regards
Andy

[flemke]

Lefty Guns said:

An interesting point. I'm really no expert (not even an armchair expert) but do you know roughly what the PWR's are of the two cars?

And how much has suspension and brake technology improved in the same 26 year period? Quite a bit I would expect.

We could estimate P-W. At the mo I'm too lazy to do that.
Brake tech has moved forward in the absolute, but both cars were running iron discs, so I'm not sure that the improvement in this case would have been dramatic, although there would have been some. I think you're implying that braking systems are normally imported from outside manufacturers, as tyres are, and therefore it would not be to either carmaker's particular credit that the braking systems performed as they did. That would be partially true, although the carmaker still has to devise cooling, and decide the trade-off between braking capacity and weight and suspension performance.
As for suspension tech, that would be mainly down to the carmaker, although it is true that nowadays there is very good software available to make suspension design somewhat of an off-the-shelf component.

[flemke]

zakelwe said:

This comparison with the racing 962 is a red herring because that was not a road car, Flemke incorrectly compares it because he wants to indicate the Radical is a racing car, not a road car. In fact it is both and what Flemke thinks on the matter is his opinion and not a fact.

If he want's to make a direct comparison then instead of silly talk about 1980's tyres he should be comparing the Radical to the Dauer 962.

Regards
Andy

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.

As Gordon Lightfoot once said, "...and you just don't get it."

Btw, what was the Dauer 962's Nordschleife lap time?