The Ring, lap records and our fixation with it !
Discussion
Looking at the Pagani thread and it doing 6 mins 40 and still being a way off the 6.11 done by Stefan Bellof back in pre history in a mental Porsche racer, why are we so fascinated, will it be broken and if so by what, driven by whom ?
How does an F1 car do round there, has it been tried ?
What are the key ingredients, could you design a car specifically for doing the ring and setting a sub six minute lap, actually reconfiguring itself on the fly for specific corners ?
Could it ever be done quicker by computer guidance, like those unmaned planes, on a clear track, mapped in all its detail and driven by sensors and cpu's ?
How does an F1 car do round there, has it been tried ?
What are the key ingredients, could you design a car specifically for doing the ring and setting a sub six minute lap, actually reconfiguring itself on the fly for specific corners ?
Could it ever be done quicker by computer guidance, like those unmaned planes, on a clear track, mapped in all its detail and driven by sensors and cpu's ?
The fixation comes with the idea that it's about as close to real roads as a (sort of) race track gets.
Yes, you could theoretically do all sorts of clever things with active suspension/aero and a GPS receiver, but I don't think anyone would justify the money.
As for an unmanned run. Computers may react quicker than humans but there are way too many unknowns for a computer controlled car to outperform one driven by a person at the moment. Give it a few years though and who knows...
Yes, you could theoretically do all sorts of clever things with active suspension/aero and a GPS receiver, but I don't think anyone would justify the money.
As for an unmanned run. Computers may react quicker than humans but there are way too many unknowns for a computer controlled car to outperform one driven by a person at the moment. Give it a few years though and who knows...
F1 car did lap it, BMW I think a couple of years back but with some serious suspension mods as its hardly racetrack smooth.
Its a benchmark for the manufacturers to compare their machinery against, most beat my best lap of over 13 minutes but they don't have tourist coaches and hire car corsas to overtake!
Its a benchmark for the manufacturers to compare their machinery against, most beat my best lap of over 13 minutes but they don't have tourist coaches and hire car corsas to overtake!
J4CKO said:
How does an F1 car do round there, has it been tried ?
BMW let Nick Heidfeld drive a modern F1 car round there a while ago, but they seriously limited the performance (he wasn't allowed to drive hard). It was basically a photo-shoot. Some people got very excited by adding up some of the speeds to "make up" a laptime of 5 mins something, but it wasn't realistic.As to how fast it really could be done - that's down to the rules. Personally I think it's sensible to make the rules "it has to be road legal", including the tyres.
If you were allowed to do "anything at all" as the rules, you'd have some smartarse (me) turning up in a gokart with side-skirts and active downforce.
C
J4CKO said:
What are the key ingredients, could you design a car specifically for doing the ring and setting a sub six minute lap, actually reconfiguring itself on the fly for specific corners ?
Could it ever be done quicker by computer guidance, like those unmaned planes, on a clear track, mapped in all its detail and driven by sensors and cpu's ?
Modern F1 car would get under 6 minutes. Could it ever be done quicker by computer guidance, like those unmaned planes, on a clear track, mapped in all its detail and driven by sensors and cpu's ?
The Stanford uni guys who won the darpa 'grand challenge' for unmanned cars built a car to race up Pikes Peak. I don't think we're far from a computer controlled car that can lap faster than a human.
In answer to the OP's question regarding F1 and Bellof's time, Heidfeld drove a modern F1 around the ring, but with an unsuitable setup and not for a flying lap. However, his engineers and people present who timed him over small sections reckon he would have done a low to mid 5. There's lots on the web about it if you look.
I think we're so fascinated by ring times because so many manufacturers test there. It's one of the longest race circuits in the world that's open for business almost every day of the year, and with all the ups and downs and slow and fast sections is a great place to test and develop a car. Mind you, I do wish manufacturers would test cars on UK B roads a bit more - maybe that's why Lotus make such good cars!
I think we're so fascinated by ring times because so many manufacturers test there. It's one of the longest race circuits in the world that's open for business almost every day of the year, and with all the ups and downs and slow and fast sections is a great place to test and develop a car. Mind you, I do wish manufacturers would test cars on UK B roads a bit more - maybe that's why Lotus make such good cars!
If you are going to judge a car purely on how fast it can cover a set distance, then to be fair the Nurbugring is probably close to the best benchmark you are going to get. It is similar to a road, it really isn't much like a race track and to work well their a car would have to be well sorted (IMHO).
Weather judging a car purely on how fast it covers ground is a good thing to do or not is another matter, but yeah, saying 'my car goes round the Nurbugring faster then yours' means far more to me then 'my car does 0-60 faster' or 'my car has better power to weight'.
Weather judging a car purely on how fast it covers ground is a good thing to do or not is another matter, but yeah, saying 'my car goes round the Nurbugring faster then yours' means far more to me then 'my car does 0-60 faster' or 'my car has better power to weight'.
Chris71 said:
The fixation comes with the idea that it's about as close to real roads as a (sort of) race track gets.
Which is a bit absurd really. It's closER to roads than many tracks, but it's hardly like normal roads or anywhere near. That said, this will always be the case (and it's better honing the suspension there rather than a normal track) but wherever cars are tested won't be right for all people in all countries.Add to the fact that handling is somewhat subjective, you'll never get something that pleases all. The problem with setting handling by track testing is that it often ends up with silly stiff suspension that certainly does not make a good handling car.
Also, just look at how many manufacturers make and set up their cars for most the world but when they come here they have to change the setup as many of our roads are different.
However, as for constantly quoting "times" at the Nurburgrung, most of it is silly willy waving and only really good for pub talk. Granted, better than quoting 0-60 times, but the Ring still favours cars with better high speed performance and handling (e.g. 70mph plus) which doesn't help those of us (99%) who drive 99% of the time at lower speeds. I want to know how quick, good a car is at speeds from 20-70 across back roads for example, Ring times tell me nothing in that regard.
Edited by Dracoro on Wednesday 28th July 13:06
Dracoro said:
Add to the fact that handling is somewhat subjective, you'll never get something that pleases all. The problem with setting handling by track testing is that it often ends up with silly stiff suspension that certainly does not make a good handling car.
However, as for constantly quoting "times" at the Nurburgrung, most of it is silly willy waving and only really good for pub talk. Granted, better than quoting 0-60 times, but the Ring still favours cars with better high speed performance and handling (e.g. 70mph plus) which doesn't help those of us (99%) who drive 99% of the time at lower speeds. I want to know how quick, good a car is at speeds from 20-70 across back roads for example, Ring times tell me nothing in that regard.
Agree emphatically with both points! However, as for constantly quoting "times" at the Nurburgrung, most of it is silly willy waving and only really good for pub talk. Granted, better than quoting 0-60 times, but the Ring still favours cars with better high speed performance and handling (e.g. 70mph plus) which doesn't help those of us (99%) who drive 99% of the time at lower speeds. I want to know how quick, good a car is at speeds from 20-70 across back roads for example, Ring times tell me nothing in that regard.
I've been saying for a few years that 'Nurburgring times' are actually harming the everyday drivability of 'everyday sportscars' - everything now has over-stiff suspension and over-wide tyres to chase those sub-8 times, but in doing so they rob the car of low-speed involvement AND make it less comfortable for the 50/60/70/80% of the time when you're NOT on a charge.
My NSX is the most comfortable and best-riding of our 3 cars, and the wife's Golf GTi is the worst. Yet if you look at what the 3 cars are intended for, that's completely arse-backwards... Ludicrous!
Dracoro said:
Chris71 said:
The fixation comes with the idea that it's about as close to real roads as a (sort of) race track gets.
Which is a bit absurd really. It's closER to roads than many tracks, but it's hardly like normal roads or anywhere near. That said, this will always be the case (and it's better honing the suspension there rather than a normal track) but wherever cars are tested won't be right for all people in all countries.Add to the fact that handling is somewhat subjective, you'll never get something that pleases all. The problem with setting handling by track testing is that it often ends up with silly stiff suspension that certainly does not make a good handling car.
Also, just look at how many manufacturers make and set up their cars for most the world but when they come here they have to change the setup as many of our roads are different.
However, as for constantly quoting "times" at the Nurburgrung, most of it is silly willy waving and only really good for pub talk. Granted, better than quoting 0-60 times, but the Ring still favours cars with better high speed performance and handling (e.g. 70mph plus) which doesn't help those of us (99%) who drive 99% of the time at lower speeds. I want to know how quick, good a car is at speeds from 20-70 across back roads for example, Ring times tell me nothing in that regard.
Edited by Dracoro on Wednesday 28th July 13:06
The Caterham R500 will outrun virtually anything around a twisty track like Brands or Cadwell, which represents the British B road more than any track, and even at Silverstone, which is a power circuit by our standards. However, at the ring they're far from the quickest thing - most Caterhams only just dip under the 8 minute mark.If you want to know how fast cars are in the real world I'd suggest looking out for Autocar handling days and the lap times their tests give you around more realistic UK tracks.
havoc said:
Dracoro said:
Add to the fact that handling is somewhat subjective, you'll never get something that pleases all. The problem with setting handling by track testing is that it often ends up with silly stiff suspension that certainly does not make a good handling car.
However, as for constantly quoting "times" at the Nurburgrung, most of it is silly willy waving and only really good for pub talk. Granted, better than quoting 0-60 times, but the Ring still favours cars with better high speed performance and handling (e.g. 70mph plus) which doesn't help those of us (99%) who drive 99% of the time at lower speeds. I want to know how quick, good a car is at speeds from 20-70 across back roads for example, Ring times tell me nothing in that regard.
Agree emphatically with both points! However, as for constantly quoting "times" at the Nurburgrung, most of it is silly willy waving and only really good for pub talk. Granted, better than quoting 0-60 times, but the Ring still favours cars with better high speed performance and handling (e.g. 70mph plus) which doesn't help those of us (99%) who drive 99% of the time at lower speeds. I want to know how quick, good a car is at speeds from 20-70 across back roads for example, Ring times tell me nothing in that regard.
I've been saying for a few years that 'Nurburgring times' are actually harming the everyday drivability of 'everyday sportscars' - everything now has over-stiff suspension and over-wide tyres to chase those sub-8 times, but in doing so they rob the car of low-speed involvement AND make it less comfortable for the 50/60/70/80% of the time when you're NOT on a charge.
My NSX is the most comfortable and best-riding of our 3 cars, and the wife's Golf GTi is the worst. Yet if you look at what the 3 cars are intended for, that's completely arse-backwards... Ludicrous!
RobM77 said:
However, at the ring they're far from the quickest thing - most Caterhams only just dip under the 8 minute mark.
The answer lies in the aerodynamics principally:
You notice it on the road let alone on track - from motorway speeds upwards a Caterham that was previously chasing 911 GT3s can struggle to keep up with a decent hot hatch.
Edited by Chris71 on Wednesday 28th July 13:39
WHen Heidfeld did the run, the F1 car had to be set up with special very high suspension to deal with the track and it had to round the top at the Carousel. As for times, for most ordinary or medium skilled drivers, the talent of the driver seems to me to be a huge factor. I have seen people there with relatively modest cars who were very quick indeed, and also the lees talented with inherently quick cars.
I am sure you could ultimately design something that would reconfigure itself on the fly, but not soon.
I am sure you could ultimately design something that would reconfigure itself on the fly, but not soon.
RDMcG said:
WHen Heidfeld did the run, the F1 car had to be set up with special very high suspension to deal with the track and it had to round the top at the Carousel. As for times, for most ordinary or medium skilled drivers, the talent of the driver seems to me to be a huge factor. I have seen people there with relatively modest cars who were very quick indeed, and also the lees talented with inherently quick cars.
I am sure you could ultimately design something that would reconfigure itself on the fly, but not soon.
It wasn't just huge ride height (which the car definately had). They also fit it wit the shortest gears and most wing available - essentially monaco spec. There was speculation BMW did this to stop Nick from doing one Banzai lap against orders from the boss.I am sure you could ultimately design something that would reconfigure itself on the fly, but not soon.
They castrated the car for that photo shoot.
C
ETA: Video of the event: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ceX5Wk-zSY
Edited by CraigyMc on Wednesday 28th July 14:21
Chris71 said:
RobM77 said:
However, at the ring they're far from the quickest thing - most Caterhams only just dip under the 8 minute mark.
The answer lies in the aerodynamics principally:You notice it on the road let alone on track - from motorway speeds upwards a Caterham that was previously chasing 911 GT3s can struggle to keep up with a decent hot hatch.
Edited by Chris71 on Wednesday 28th July 13:39
Precisely why I mentioned it in response to a guy that said he wanted to see what car was quickest in the real world up to 100mph. I've owned two Caterhams, and you're absolutely right - they just blitz up to about 130-140mph and then stay there, when other more slippery cars just keep accelerating.RobM77 said:
Chris71 said:
RobM77 said:
However, at the ring they're far from the quickest thing - most Caterhams only just dip under the 8 minute mark.
The answer lies in the aerodynamics principally:You notice it on the road let alone on track - from motorway speeds upwards a Caterham that was previously chasing 911 GT3s can struggle to keep up with a decent hot hatch.
Edited by Chris71 on Wednesday 28th July 13:39
Precisely why I mentioned it in response to a guy that said he wanted to see what car was quickest in the real world up to 100mph. I've owned two Caterhams, and you're absolutely right - they just blitz up to about 130-140mph and then stay there, when other more slippery cars just keep accelerating.'* Stand to be corrected but wasn't this car capable of 140mph+ with only 1300cc?
braddo said:
RobM77 said:
Chris71 said:
RobM77 said:
However, at the ring they're far from the quickest thing - most Caterhams only just dip under the 8 minute mark.
The answer lies in the aerodynamics principally:You notice it on the road let alone on track - from motorway speeds upwards a Caterham that was previously chasing 911 GT3s can struggle to keep up with a decent hot hatch.
Edited by Chris71 on Wednesday 28th July 13:39
Precisely why I mentioned it in response to a guy that said he wanted to see what car was quickest in the real world up to 100mph. I've owned two Caterhams, and you're absolutely right - they just blitz up to about 130-140mph and then stay there, when other more slippery cars just keep accelerating.'* Stand to be corrected but wasn't this car capable of 140mph+ with only 1300cc?
braddo said:
It's why I'd be interested to see what the lovechild of a R500 and a Lotus Eleven* would be like - crazy power, low weight and aerodynamic efficiency.
'* Stand to be corrected but wasn't this car capable of 140mph+ with only 1300cc?
http://lotuseleven.org/Design&Prod/Motor%20Spo... says it had a top speed of 90mph with the safe revlimit, or just over 100 if you were willing to remove the screen and ignore the limiter.'* Stand to be corrected but wasn't this car capable of 140mph+ with only 1300cc?
Perhaps another car?
Anyway, you're right, an aerodynamic caterham would be rather fast. These guys are halfway there: http://www.donkervoort.nl/cars/d8gt.htm
C
ETA: Yes, the racing version of this car did a 143mph lap of monza, but it had a coventry climax 1.5l race engine..
Edited by CraigyMc on Wednesday 28th July 15:57
Gassing Station | General Gassing [Archive] | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff