I was looking through lap times of different production cars, and there are some wildly out of place cars doing ring laptimes, some cars are faster than they seem they should be, while others are slower than they should be. Which got me thinking how some cars truly get tested in showroom condition, and others get the “marketing” treatment to produce a laptime a showroom car would never touch, solely to sell more cars. Then I found this article that talks exactly about just that.
https://www.thedrive.com/porsche/11012/nurburgring-times-dont-matter
You must log in or # to comment.
i agree its a bit of a gimmick. ‘oh this car is 5 seconds faster on a 7 minute lap!!’ Like dude thats 5 seconds out of 420 seconds of driving. literally a 1% improvement.
0-60 is also not as important as 5-60. theres a good article on it and shows how many cars achieve a great 0-60 due to launch control, awd, and turbos… but fall flat on the 5-60. most of this is because newer cars have downsized engines with big turbos , they lack low end instant power that a big motor would give
When I saw the list of cars that were in front of the LP670-4 Super Veloce and Carrera GT I knew there has to be some HUGE differences in testing conditions. Tires, tunes, roll cages, weather, traffic, driver, these are things that could shave off 10-20 seconds.
The dude in the red bull x1 on Gran Turismo 5 doing the full circuit in under 3 minutes was nuts
Considering the driver is a major component on that track, it’s all meaningless unless every test was done by 1 driver.
Eh trying to say Nurburgring times are useless is just as circlejerky as treating them as gospel.
Ring times are a rough measure of relative track performance. To be useful, one has to consider the context of the lap time(s) like the driver, tires, whether it was a factory effort, and whether that manufacturer is prone to cheating.
So if a car is with 5-7 seconds a lap of a comparable car, generally they’re in the same ballpark, unless there’s something out of whack with the lap times, like one car on a vastly superior tire.
Matters for some certain groups of cars. Like the AMG GT-R or the Porsche 911 GT3RS that are purpose built track monsters. They’re directly competing for title of fastest road going track car and the ring is the best place to test it, since it’s over 20 kilometers long and has so many corners, so even small shades of difference will show up and differences of several seconds over the entire course. Is it relevant for the new M3 that is now a comfortable cruiser with a powerful engine and many creature comforts? Nope. But it’s important for the Aventador SVJ since they were batting for the throne as well. Honda and Renault have been battling it out as well for fastest production FWD car. It’s not exactly a metric that consumers can directly make use of, but it’s the proving grounds for those who wish to buy their cars based of pure track performance.
It’s an interesting metric that allows a somewhat standardized way to compare different cars. It’s also a long and varied track so a car typically needs to be somewhat well rounded to do really well there.
A better stat for testing and marketing is: how many laps can a car complete from the factory before something breaks?
They always were to me lol
I like the idea of a track that tests acceleration, braking, corerning, unsettling surfaces (corkscrew, kerbs, etc) and being long enough to notice any potential brakefade and other shortcomings that are only apparent after 5 mins of hard driving.
It would be nicer if it was done on “showroom-spec” cars like you mentioned though.
And also, the 'Ring is such a long track driven by so many drivers in so many different weather conditions, it seems nearly impossible to get consistent results.
The best test would be the same driver who’s job it is to drive every car on a much shorter track in a much more stable climate. But it’s probably an unrealistic wish.
I like Pobst Laguna Seca tests. It’s a pretty balanced track, also Road Atlanta is nice.
Stock car laptimes have always been worthless
I’d say a they’re one of the most meaningless stats for the average driver. Most people drive stoplight to stoplight or on relatively straight roads
Even as a measure of a car’s true real world performance they seem to be tainted
It’s a good stat for Porsche fanbois who can’t afford a GT3 but praises one like they own one to use. Only because Porsche specifically builds their cars for this very specific track so it’s extremely biased.
A C8 Z06 will beat a GT3 around 75% of global race tracks. Again, people who can’t afford the Corvette will shit on it as if they own one as well. It’s all badge/logo in the car community when it comes to cars that cost over $100,000.
Not meaningless, but not incredibly useful.
Nurburgring is one of the most downforce rewarding tracks in the world. A lot of the track is around 120 mph or more in a fast car and those fast parts are filled with hill crests and long sweepers. Basically made for aero. If you look at the top road cars lap times, they all have great downforce.
For a road car, even one you bring to the track, aero wont matter nearly as much. Maybe an exception is on say highly illegal backroad excursions, but blasting down back roads at 130 mph is just not something people do much.
I think the best track benchmark we have is C&D’s lightning laps at VIR. That track is just better to compare with for real world performance than Nurburgring. Plus there are more controls in place so no marketing silliness.
They never were meaningful, if you’re really concerned by the testing procedure being completely equal for all vehicles.
I mean the Nürburgring is a famous difficult track that’s a cultural staple in the automotive world so as a car enthusiasts I like knowing what time was made regardless if it’s a GR Corolla or an Aventador, hell I’d even like to know what a Honda Accord does around it cause it’s fun.