Lap Times: F10 Vs. E60
07-31-2010, 06:12 PM
#41
Senior Members
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Cairo, Egypt
Posts: 347
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My Ride: 523iA, 2006, Silver Grey, Black Leatherette Interior, Fine-Wood Trim Poplar Grain Brown High-Gloss, 6 Speed Automatic Transmission with Steptronic, Automatic Air Conditioning with Extended Content, Interior and Exterior Mirrors with Automatic Anti-Dazzle Function (Incl. Folding Function for Exterior Mirror), Electric Front Seats with Memory for Driver, Multi-Function Steering Wheel with Cruise Control, Adjustable Steering Column, BMW Radio with 8 Speakers and CD Drive, Park Distance Control, Universal Bluetooth Cell Phone, Electric Rear Sunblind
Ok, I beg you to read this post fully before you respond, as I am putting a lot of my engineering knowledge and trying to simplify complex theories.
A track has a length in meters. The track is driven in laps. The best lap time is recorded according to experimental methods (each magazine would have a minimum number of laps to make sure that the driver is fully aquainted with the car and that the tyres and well warmed up, etc). The best lap time would be the shortest. Why is that?
That is because Lap Time (s) = Track Length (m) / Average Speed Across the Track (m/s).
Therefore the higher the Average Speed Across the Track, the shorter and the better the lap time will be.
A track is divided into two segments: straight lines and corners.
1. The Average Speed Across the Track on straight lines segment results from one thing, and only one thing, that is Acceleration (positive and negative) Ability across different speeds. Acceleration ability results from the following:
a. Horse power and torque values across the rpm range.
b. Weight of the vehicle.
c. Gearbox ratios utilizing the horse power and torque values.
d. Gearbox Shift times.
e. Coefficient of Drag.
f. Coeffictient of friciton of tyres with the ground for traction and braking.
g. Braking power and feel.
2. The Average Speed Across the Track on corners segment results mainly from one thing, the ability to contain centrifugal force which results from rotation across the corner. This ability is called the centripetal force. Once centrifugal force cannot be contained by the centripetal force, the car will slide. The centrifugal forces come from a very simple equation. CF = m * v ^2 / r, where m is the mass of the vehicle, v is the speeed of the car in m/s and r is radius of the curve.
Centripetal force (the ability to contain centrifugal force) comes from the friction forces of the tyres with the ground. The amount of force generated = u * f , where u is the coefficeient of friction (static or kinetic), and f is the downward force on the tires. u and f depends on the following:
a. The static coefficient of friction u-s (yes static since the rubber compound is considerd to be static with the ground material when the tire is not sliding) of the tyres with ground.
b. The dynamic coefficient of friction u-k (once the tyres start sliding on the ground).
c. The contact surface area of the tire with ground. This depends on the width and shape of the tread. The reason the width would help in stabiliy is that the total pressure on each tire would be less. The relationship between the force on each tire and coefficient of friction is not linear, the COF tends to decrease as the force gets higher. Therefore a wider tire would have less force per area meaning that we make use of the higher coefficient of friciton.
d. The suspension geometry under body roll. As the car corners, the body rolls. The suspension gemotry that provides the lowest change in the contact patch area of the tire with the ground delivers the best traction to the outer wheels in a corner. This is where you read about double wishbone, Mcpherson strut, or multilink suspension, etc.
e. The total force on the tires during cornering. This is the weight of the vehicle transferred to each tire in addition to the downforce generated by the wind on the vehicle and transmitted to each tire.
f. The weight transfer during cornering to the outer wheels in the corner. This depends on the height of center of gravity divided by the track width.
g. The body roll of the car, which moves the center of gravity upwards and outwards during the corner putting more load on the outer tires. This depends on the suspension setup (dampers and springs) and the presence of Active roll Stabilization minimizing the body roll.
h. The slip angle of the tire. It will be very difficult to explain here but I can give you links.
i. The weight distribution of the car front/rear.
j. The polar moment of inertia of the car. This is basically the distribution of the weight of the car across its lenght. A car with more wight in the middle has a lower polar moment of inertia than a car with an evenly distributed wieght across its length. A car with a lower moment of inertia turns easier and has less tendency to oversteer to understeer.
k. The camber angle (the angle at which the tire is inclined in respect to the vertical axis of the car). This also have effect of the understeering and oversteering of the car.
l. The kingpin angle. This affects the ability of the car to steer back to its neutral postion.
m. The castor angle. Similar effect to the king pin angle. It will be be very time consuming to explain here.
n. The torsional rigidity of the chasis. If this is too low, it can badly affect the handling as the car will not act as a solid unit during weight transfer.
Let's start by the elemination technique.
The driver is the same for the Sport Auto Magazine tests, Horst von Sauwrma.
The straight segment of the track is in favor of the F10 due to the better acceleration and easticity times in sport auto magazine (check the acceleration data across gears for both cars) done by the same driver. The braking data are almost the same.
Therefore, if we note correctly that the straight segment is in favor of the F10 because of the info just stated, then the E60 must have made up for the defficiency in the straight segment in the coreners segment of the track.The corners segment has factors from a to m.
a, b, c, h, and g are the same since we verified that both cars have the same tyres category and tread width and wheel sizes and both do not have ARS or sports suspension and were run on the same tarmac. Factor g might be in favor of the F10 due to the presence of dynamic damping control.
The main differences would now come from the corners segments factors d, e, f, i - m. All of these depend on the cars design.
Since i & j are in favor of the F10 due to the presence of the cast iron heavy engine block in the E60 worsening the weight distribution and polar moment of inertia for the E60. But again the E60 chasis is made of Aluminum in the front while the F10 is totally steel which might turn the favor to the E60 for factor j.
Factor d should be in favor of the F10 as well since the double wishbone suspension provides more contact patch area than the Macpherson struts in the E60. You can google that.
Factor n is in favor of the F10 since the torsional rigidity of the F10 is higher than that of the E60 as BMW claims.
Factors k, l, m remain a mystery to myself since I do not have the engineering drawings of the F10 or the E60. We can assume that they are close in design if not slightly in favor of the F10 due to the technological advancement across the years.
The conclusion of this study would be the following:
The centrifugal force on the F10 was not well contained by the centripetal force as it was with the E60. The straight line segment of the track was in favor of the F10. Therefore, due to the equivalent lap times with the same driver, The E60 must have made up for its loss in the straight line segment during the corners segment. Consequently, the cornering stability of the E60 must be better than that of the F10. This was verified by the g forces and corenering speeds charts posted earlier.
The main factors favoring the E60 would be the less centrifugal force due to the overall weight and also the lower polar moment of inertia (factor 2-j) due to the front aluminum chassis. It might also be due to higher downforce generated by wind in corners (factor 2-e), but I do not have the data of the drag and downforce for the F10 and E60. Finally, it might have been due to the lower weight transfer in corner, which is related to the height of center of gravity to the track width and the total weight of the car (factor 2-f). The higher CG might result from the chasiss material design as well.
A track has a length in meters. The track is driven in laps. The best lap time is recorded according to experimental methods (each magazine would have a minimum number of laps to make sure that the driver is fully aquainted with the car and that the tyres and well warmed up, etc). The best lap time would be the shortest. Why is that?
That is because Lap Time (s) = Track Length (m) / Average Speed Across the Track (m/s).
Therefore the higher the Average Speed Across the Track, the shorter and the better the lap time will be.
A track is divided into two segments: straight lines and corners.
1. The Average Speed Across the Track on straight lines segment results from one thing, and only one thing, that is Acceleration (positive and negative) Ability across different speeds. Acceleration ability results from the following:
a. Horse power and torque values across the rpm range.
b. Weight of the vehicle.
c. Gearbox ratios utilizing the horse power and torque values.
d. Gearbox Shift times.
e. Coefficient of Drag.
f. Coeffictient of friciton of tyres with the ground for traction and braking.
g. Braking power and feel.
2. The Average Speed Across the Track on corners segment results mainly from one thing, the ability to contain centrifugal force which results from rotation across the corner. This ability is called the centripetal force. Once centrifugal force cannot be contained by the centripetal force, the car will slide. The centrifugal forces come from a very simple equation. CF = m * v ^2 / r, where m is the mass of the vehicle, v is the speeed of the car in m/s and r is radius of the curve.
Centripetal force (the ability to contain centrifugal force) comes from the friction forces of the tyres with the ground. The amount of force generated = u * f , where u is the coefficeient of friction (static or kinetic), and f is the downward force on the tires. u and f depends on the following:
a. The static coefficient of friction u-s (yes static since the rubber compound is considerd to be static with the ground material when the tire is not sliding) of the tyres with ground.
b. The dynamic coefficient of friction u-k (once the tyres start sliding on the ground).
c. The contact surface area of the tire with ground. This depends on the width and shape of the tread. The reason the width would help in stabiliy is that the total pressure on each tire would be less. The relationship between the force on each tire and coefficient of friction is not linear, the COF tends to decrease as the force gets higher. Therefore a wider tire would have less force per area meaning that we make use of the higher coefficient of friciton.
d. The suspension geometry under body roll. As the car corners, the body rolls. The suspension gemotry that provides the lowest change in the contact patch area of the tire with the ground delivers the best traction to the outer wheels in a corner. This is where you read about double wishbone, Mcpherson strut, or multilink suspension, etc.
e. The total force on the tires during cornering. This is the weight of the vehicle transferred to each tire in addition to the downforce generated by the wind on the vehicle and transmitted to each tire.
f. The weight transfer during cornering to the outer wheels in the corner. This depends on the height of center of gravity divided by the track width.
g. The body roll of the car, which moves the center of gravity upwards and outwards during the corner putting more load on the outer tires. This depends on the suspension setup (dampers and springs) and the presence of Active roll Stabilization minimizing the body roll.
h. The slip angle of the tire. It will be very difficult to explain here but I can give you links.
i. The weight distribution of the car front/rear.
j. The polar moment of inertia of the car. This is basically the distribution of the weight of the car across its lenght. A car with more wight in the middle has a lower polar moment of inertia than a car with an evenly distributed wieght across its length. A car with a lower moment of inertia turns easier and has less tendency to oversteer to understeer.
k. The camber angle (the angle at which the tire is inclined in respect to the vertical axis of the car). This also have effect of the understeering and oversteering of the car.
l. The kingpin angle. This affects the ability of the car to steer back to its neutral postion.
m. The castor angle. Similar effect to the king pin angle. It will be be very time consuming to explain here.
n. The torsional rigidity of the chasis. If this is too low, it can badly affect the handling as the car will not act as a solid unit during weight transfer.
Let's start by the elemination technique.
The driver is the same for the Sport Auto Magazine tests, Horst von Sauwrma.
The straight segment of the track is in favor of the F10 due to the better acceleration and easticity times in sport auto magazine (check the acceleration data across gears for both cars) done by the same driver. The braking data are almost the same.
Therefore, if we note correctly that the straight segment is in favor of the F10 because of the info just stated, then the E60 must have made up for the defficiency in the straight segment in the coreners segment of the track.The corners segment has factors from a to m.
a, b, c, h, and g are the same since we verified that both cars have the same tyres category and tread width and wheel sizes and both do not have ARS or sports suspension and were run on the same tarmac. Factor g might be in favor of the F10 due to the presence of dynamic damping control.
The main differences would now come from the corners segments factors d, e, f, i - m. All of these depend on the cars design.
Since i & j are in favor of the F10 due to the presence of the cast iron heavy engine block in the E60 worsening the weight distribution and polar moment of inertia for the E60. But again the E60 chasis is made of Aluminum in the front while the F10 is totally steel which might turn the favor to the E60 for factor j.
Factor d should be in favor of the F10 as well since the double wishbone suspension provides more contact patch area than the Macpherson struts in the E60. You can google that.
Factor n is in favor of the F10 since the torsional rigidity of the F10 is higher than that of the E60 as BMW claims.
Factors k, l, m remain a mystery to myself since I do not have the engineering drawings of the F10 or the E60. We can assume that they are close in design if not slightly in favor of the F10 due to the technological advancement across the years.
The conclusion of this study would be the following:
The centrifugal force on the F10 was not well contained by the centripetal force as it was with the E60. The straight line segment of the track was in favor of the F10. Therefore, due to the equivalent lap times with the same driver, The E60 must have made up for its loss in the straight line segment during the corners segment. Consequently, the cornering stability of the E60 must be better than that of the F10. This was verified by the g forces and corenering speeds charts posted earlier.
The main factors favoring the E60 would be the less centrifugal force due to the overall weight and also the lower polar moment of inertia (factor 2-j) due to the front aluminum chassis. It might also be due to higher downforce generated by wind in corners (factor 2-e), but I do not have the data of the drag and downforce for the F10 and E60. Finally, it might have been due to the lower weight transfer in corner, which is related to the height of center of gravity to the track width and the total weight of the car (factor 2-f). The higher CG might result from the chasiss material design as well.
07-31-2010, 06:44 PM
#42
Members
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: singapore
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks 
I shall reply to your last post soon. If I may ask again, are you maintaining that 59.BMW M3 CSL (E46) is sportier, stabler, and handles better than eg
66.Porsche Cayman S(facelift) PDK
76.BMW M3 (E92) DKG
78.BMW M3 (E92)
104.Mercedes C 63 AMG
114.Porsche Cayman S
133.Porsche 997 Carrera (2008 facelift) etc?
And likewise, any car positioned higher for the Autozeitung test track http://www.fastestla...om/track24.html is sportier, stabler, and handles better?
I shall reply to your last post soon. If I may ask again, are you maintaining that 59.BMW M3 CSL (E46) is sportier, stabler, and handles better than eg66.Porsche Cayman S(facelift) PDK
76.BMW M3 (E92) DKG
78.BMW M3 (E92)
104.Mercedes C 63 AMG
114.Porsche Cayman S
133.Porsche 997 Carrera (2008 facelift) etc?
And likewise, any car positioned higher for the Autozeitung test track http://www.fastestla...om/track24.html is sportier, stabler, and handles better?
07-31-2010, 08:09 PM
#43
Senior Members
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Cairo, Egypt
Posts: 347
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My Ride: 523iA, 2006, Silver Grey, Black Leatherette Interior, Fine-Wood Trim Poplar Grain Brown High-Gloss, 6 Speed Automatic Transmission with Steptronic, Automatic Air Conditioning with Extended Content, Interior and Exterior Mirrors with Automatic Anti-Dazzle Function (Incl. Folding Function for Exterior Mirror), Electric Front Seats with Memory for Driver, Multi-Function Steering Wheel with Cruise Control, Adjustable Steering Column, BMW Radio with 8 Speakers and CD Drive, Park Distance Control, Universal Bluetooth Cell Phone, Electric Rear Sunblind
Thanks I shall reply to your last post soon. If I may ask again, are you maintaining that 59.BMW M3 CSL (E46) is sportier, stabler, and handles better than eg
66.Porsche Cayman S(facelift) PDK
76.BMW M3 (E92) DKG
78.BMW M3 (E92)
104.Mercedes C 63 AMG
114.Porsche Cayman S
133.Porsche 997 Carrera (2008 facelift) etc?
And likewise, any car positioned higher for the Autozeitung test track http://www.fastestla...om/track24.html is sportier, stabler, and handles better?
I shall reply to your last post soon. If I may ask again, are you maintaining that 59.BMW M3 CSL (E46) is sportier, stabler, and handles better than eg66.Porsche Cayman S(facelift) PDK
76.BMW M3 (E92) DKG
78.BMW M3 (E92)
104.Mercedes C 63 AMG
114.Porsche Cayman S
133.Porsche 997 Carrera (2008 facelift) etc?
And likewise, any car positioned higher for the Autozeitung test track http://www.fastestla...om/track24.html is sportier, stabler, and handles better?
Instead, I do correctly claim that any track is divided into two segments: straight lines and corners. Straight lines are judged by the factors in my post above, but are largely dependent on hp/ton and Nm/ton figures and Coefficient of Drag, provided that the rest of the factors in my post above are very close. Corners segment of a track would be goverend by the factors mentioned above.
Therefore, if we have corrrect acceleration and elasticity data (acceleration across gears, these acceleration and elasticity data are taken seperately from the lap on a straight line track, not during the lap itself, if you are not aware of that fact) stating that car A is faster than car B, and yet car B can achieve the same lap time or better, then car B must be able to achieve better average speeds across the corners segment. Consequently, car B must handle better than car A.
While if we have acceleration and elasticity data stating that car A is faster than car B, and car A achieves better lap time than car B, then further investigation is required. This investigation will simply be the cornering speeds (which will translate into G forces) across the different corners of the track.
I don't have the time to check the whole list you chose above, but I will give you a very simple example from your list. Comparing the E92 M3 DKG to the C63 AMG, you will notice that the BMW has much lower acceleartion and elasticity times.
BMW has 0-100 kph in 5.0 s and 0-200 kph in 16 s and 80-160 kph in 4th gear in 8.9 s
MB--- has 0-100 kph in 4.4 s and 0-200 kph in 14 s and 80-160 kph in 4th gear in 7.9 s
However, the BMW is able to achieve a better lap time of 1:14.2 compared to 1:15.2 for the MB. Therefore, we can correctly deduce that the E92 DKG M3 is a much better handling car than the MB C63 AMG since it was able to make up for its straight line defficiencies in the corners segment of the track.
The same applies for the F10 535i vs. the E60 535d. Since the acceleration and elasticity data were better for the F10 than that of the E60 and both had the same lap times, then one can correctly deduce that the E60 made up for its straight line defficeinces in the corners segment of the track.
Please read my long post above as well. It contains a lot of information.
07-31-2010, 10:46 PM
#44
Members
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: singapore
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't have the time to check the whole list you chose above, but I will give you a very simple example from your list. Comparing the E92 M3 DKG to the C63 AMG, you will notice that the BMW has much lower acceleartion and elasticity times.
BMW has 0-100 kph in 5.0 s and 0-200 kph in 16 s and 80-160 kph in 4th gear in 8.9 s
MB--- has 0-100 kph in 4.4 s and 0-200 kph in 14 s and 80-160 kph in 4th gear in 7.9 s
However, the BMW is able to achieve a better lap time of 1:14.2 compared to 1:15.2 for the MB. Therefore, we can correctly deduce that the E92 DKG M3 is a much better handling car than the MB C63 AMG since it was able to make up for its straight line defficiencies in the corners segment of the track.
BMW has 0-100 kph in 5.0 s and 0-200 kph in 16 s and 80-160 kph in 4th gear in 8.9 s
MB--- has 0-100 kph in 4.4 s and 0-200 kph in 14 s and 80-160 kph in 4th gear in 7.9 s
However, the BMW is able to achieve a better lap time of 1:14.2 compared to 1:15.2 for the MB. Therefore, we can correctly deduce that the E92 DKG M3 is a much better handling car than the MB C63 AMG since it was able to make up for its straight line defficiencies in the corners segment of the track.
The performance of each of the above cars are as follows: 2003 BMW M3 CSL (E46)
PerformanceMax speed155 miles/h (250 km/h)0-100 km/h4.8 seconds0-160 km/h-0-200 km/h16.7 seconds0-300 km/h-Quarter mile12.968 seconds0-100-0 mph-EnginePower265 kw (355 bhp / 360 ps)Torque370 Nm (274 lb-ft)Displacement3.2 litersEngine typeR6Engine locationfront
2008 Porsche Cayman S(facelift) PDK
PerformanceMax speed170.5 miles/h (275 km/h)0-100 km/h4.5 seconds0-160 km/h10.3 seconds0-200 km/h17.0 seconds0-300 km/h-Quarter mile12.9 seconds0-100-0 mph-EnginePower235 kw (315 bhp / 320 ps)Torque370 Nm (274 lb-ft)Displacement3.5 litersEngine typeFlat-6 n/aEngine locationMid Engined
2008 BMW M3 (E92) DKG
PerformanceMax speed155 miles/h (250 (restricted) km/h)0-100 km/h4.3 seconds0-160 km/h9.7 seconds0-200 km/h15.2 seconds0-300 km/h-Quarter mile12.6 sec @ 113.2 mph seconds0-100-0 mph-EnginePower309 kw (414 bhp / 420 ps)Torque400 Nm (296 lb-ft)Displacement4.0 litersEngine typeV8 32V n/aEngine locationfront
2007 BMW M3 (E92)
PerformanceMax speed155 miles/h (250 km/h)0-100 km/h4.6 seconds0-160 km/h9.4 seconds0-200 km/h15.2 seconds0-300 km/h-Quarter mile12.5 @ 114.8mph seconds0-100-0 mph-EnginePower309 kw (414 bhp / 420 ps)Torque400 Nm (296 lb-ft)Displacement4.0 litersEngine typeV8, 32vEngine locationFront
2005 Porsche Cayman S
PerformanceMax speed170.5 miles/h (275 km/h)0-100 km/h5.1 seconds0-160 km/h11.6 seconds0-200 km/h18.8 seconds0-300 km/h-Quarter mile13.2 @ 106.5 seconds0-100-0 mph16.46 secondsEnginePower217 kw (291 bhp / 295 ps)Torque340 Nm (252 lb-ft)Displacement3.4 litersEngine typeB6Engine locationrear
2008 Porsche 997 Carrera (2008 facelift)
PerformanceMax speed179.18 miles/h (289 km/h)0-100 km/h4.6 seconds0-160 km/h10.3 seconds0-200 km/h16.5 seconds0-300 km/h-Quarter mile12.1 seconds0-100-0 mph-EnginePower254 kw (341 bhp / 345 ps)Torque390 Nm (289 lb-ft)Displacement3.6L litersEngine typeFlat 6 direct fuel injectionEngine locationrear.
Would it mean that 59.BMW M3 CSL (E46) is sportier, more stable, and handles better than eg
63.Porsche 997 Carrera S (factory kit 381 PS)
66.Porsche Cayman S(facelift) PDK
76.BMW M3 (E92) DKG
78.BMW M3 (E92)
104.Mercedes C 63 AMG (which I take it that you have answered in the affirmative)
114.Porsche Cayman S
133.Porsche 997 Carrera (2008 facelift) etc?
07-31-2010, 10:57 PM
#45
Senior Members
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Cairo, Egypt
Posts: 347
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My Ride: 523iA, 2006, Silver Grey, Black Leatherette Interior, Fine-Wood Trim Poplar Grain Brown High-Gloss, 6 Speed Automatic Transmission with Steptronic, Automatic Air Conditioning with Extended Content, Interior and Exterior Mirrors with Automatic Anti-Dazzle Function (Incl. Folding Function for Exterior Mirror), Electric Front Seats with Memory for Driver, Multi-Function Steering Wheel with Cruise Control, Adjustable Steering Column, BMW Radio with 8 Speakers and CD Drive, Park Distance Control, Universal Bluetooth Cell Phone, Electric Rear Sunblind
Please check the Sport Auto site for acceleration and elasticity data Sport Auto. Search for the name of the car in the search tab on the top of the page. Press on the Fahwerte tab on the lower box at the bottom of the test report. You will find the correct data for straight line acceleration and elasticity.
If car A is faster than car B in acceleration and elasticity, and yet car B can achieve the same lap time or better, then car B must be able to achieve better average speeds across the corners segment. Consequently, car B must handle better than car A.
For the BMW E92 DKG M3 and the C63 AMG here is the complete test data:
Acceleration BMW --- MB
0-40 km/h 1.8 s --- 1.6 s
0-60 km/h 2.6 s --- 2.3 s
0-80 km/h 3.8 s --- 3.2 s
0-100 km/h 5.0 s --- 4.4 s
0-120 km/h 6.5 s --- 5.7 s
0-140 km/h 8.3 s --- 7.2 s
0-160 km/h 10.4 s --- 9.2 s
0-180 km/h 12.9 s --- 11.4 s
0-200 km/h 16.0 s --- 14.0 s
0-100 km/h
(Manufacturer) 4.6 s --- 4.5 s
Top speed 250 km/h --- 250 km/h
Elasticity
80-100 km/h
(4th Speed) 2,1 s --- 2,0 s
80-120 km/h
(4th Speed) 4,4 s --- 3,9 s
80-140 km / h
(4th Speed) 6,6 s --- 4,9 s
80-160 km/h 80-160 km / h
(4th Speed) 8,9 s --- 7,9 s
80-180 km/h 80-180 km / h
(4th Speed) 11,4 --- 10,1 s
Driving Dynamics
Slalom 18m 70,1 km/h --- 66,0 km/h
Stopping distance
from 100 km / h (cold) 35,2 m / 11,0 m/s² --- 36,7 m / 10,5 m/s²
from 200 km / h (warm) 139,9 m --- 144,2 m
M3 E92 DKG
MB C63 AMG
The BMW is able to achieve a better lap time of 1:14.2 compared to 1:15.2 for the MB. Therefore, we can correctly deduce that the E92 DKG M3 is a much better handling car than the MB C63 AMG since it was able to make up for its straight line defficiencies in the corners segment of the track (the straight line defficeinces of the M3 ar apparant in the chart above, in Zielgerade, which is the end of the long straight, the C63 achieves 194 km/h while the M3 DKG achieves 190 km/h). The higher cornering forces and g forces in the charts above show the superiority of the M3 in corners.
Be careful that E92 M3 DKG has a different suspension setting and gearbox (DKG) than the E90 M3 in the same chart with C63 AMG. It is faster by a second across the track.
Got is sir?
If car A is faster than car B in acceleration and elasticity, and yet car B can achieve the same lap time or better, then car B must be able to achieve better average speeds across the corners segment. Consequently, car B must handle better than car A.
For the BMW E92 DKG M3 and the C63 AMG here is the complete test data:
Acceleration BMW --- MB
0-40 km/h 1.8 s --- 1.6 s
0-60 km/h 2.6 s --- 2.3 s
0-80 km/h 3.8 s --- 3.2 s
0-100 km/h 5.0 s --- 4.4 s
0-120 km/h 6.5 s --- 5.7 s
0-140 km/h 8.3 s --- 7.2 s
0-160 km/h 10.4 s --- 9.2 s
0-180 km/h 12.9 s --- 11.4 s
0-200 km/h 16.0 s --- 14.0 s
0-100 km/h
(Manufacturer) 4.6 s --- 4.5 s
Top speed 250 km/h --- 250 km/h
Elasticity
80-100 km/h
(4th Speed) 2,1 s --- 2,0 s
80-120 km/h
(4th Speed) 4,4 s --- 3,9 s
80-140 km / h
(4th Speed) 6,6 s --- 4,9 s
80-160 km/h 80-160 km / h
(4th Speed) 8,9 s --- 7,9 s
80-180 km/h 80-180 km / h
(4th Speed) 11,4 --- 10,1 s
Driving Dynamics
Slalom 18m 70,1 km/h --- 66,0 km/h
Stopping distance
from 100 km / h (cold) 35,2 m / 11,0 m/s² --- 36,7 m / 10,5 m/s²
from 200 km / h (warm) 139,9 m --- 144,2 m
M3 E92 DKG
MB C63 AMG
The BMW is able to achieve a better lap time of 1:14.2 compared to 1:15.2 for the MB. Therefore, we can correctly deduce that the E92 DKG M3 is a much better handling car than the MB C63 AMG since it was able to make up for its straight line defficiencies in the corners segment of the track (the straight line defficeinces of the M3 ar apparant in the chart above, in Zielgerade, which is the end of the long straight, the C63 achieves 194 km/h while the M3 DKG achieves 190 km/h). The higher cornering forces and g forces in the charts above show the superiority of the M3 in corners.
Be careful that E92 M3 DKG has a different suspension setting and gearbox (DKG) than the E90 M3 in the same chart with C63 AMG. It is faster by a second across the track.
Got is sir?
08-01-2010, 06:24 AM
#46
Contributors
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 21,274
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My Ride: Mini Cooper
I think it is to do with the robot feeling of the steering wheels now that it is controlled by a computer :thumbsdown:
08-01-2010, 09:48 AM
#47
Members
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: singapore
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now, let's see I have a number of points to make First, yes you do not mean that the car with the shorter time lap means that it handles better The cars have to be of equal speed or the one compared against (ie car 
has to be faster on a straight road. If this is so, car B should be faster on the straight part of the track but slower on the bends, otherwise its track time can't be longer. In short, your basis in post #1 is generally that car A performs and handles better than car B if car B has faster acceleration times than car A but car B's laptime is longer.
In post #1, the acceleration times were from 0 kmph, which I had objected as the engines of cars preform differently at different speeds. In your last post you've posted the a much more detailed acceleration and elasticity times which would substantiate the analysis. In a track, imo the more impt factor is its elasticity compared to acceleration from 0 kmph.
For your example on BMW E92 DKG M3 vs Mercedes 2007 C63 AMG, your analysis has basis if your acceleration and elasticity data are accurate. From http://www.fastestla...M3_E92_DKG.html the BMW E92 DKG M3 has max speed 155 miles/h (250 (restricted) km/h)
0-100 km/h 4.3 seconds
0-160 km/h 9.7 seconds
0-200 km/h 15.2 seconds
There remains the following points
1) What is the detailed acceleration and elasticity of the E60 and F10 cars mentioned in post #1, if you have the info? (I presume your analysis is now refined which includes such data being taken into account, but not taken into account earlier.) Elasticity as in your last post
80-100 km/h (4th Speed)
80-120 km/h
(4th Speed)
80-140 km / h
(4th Speed)
80-160 km/h 80-160 km / h
(4th Speed)
80-180 km/h 80-180 km / h
(4th Speed)
2) Does Autozeitung and Hockenheim test the same car model from time to time on their tracks and if so, do they substitute the previous laptime with the later laptime, if the latter is better?
Your analysis from post #1 would have resulted in one concluding that the
59. 2003 BMW M3 CSL (E46) is sportier, stabler, and handles better than
63.2005 Porsche 997 Carrera S (factory kit 381 PS) (which you've pointed out is correct)
66.2008 Porsche Cayman S(facelift) PDK
76.2008 BMW M3 (E92) DKG
78.2007 BMW M3 (E92)
104.2007 Mercedes C 63 AMG (which you've pointed out is correct)
133.2008 Porsche 997 Carrera (2008 facelift)
as taken from http://www.fastestlaps.com/track7.html
Notice the vintage of the cars above
The reason is because these cars have generally faster acceleration times (as elasticity was not compared initially, only 0 to 100 and 160 kmph acceleration times).
To illustrate this
2003 M3 CSL (E46) technical data as taken from http://www.fastestla...5753fa2d14.html
Performance
Max speed 155 miles/h (250 km/h)
0-100 km/h 4.8 seconds
0-200 km/h 16.7 seconds
M3 (E92) DKG technical data as taken from http://www.fastestla...M3_E92_DKG.html
Performance (as I couldn't get the technical data from sportauto webpage)
Max speed 155 miles/h (250 (restricted) km/h)
0-100 km/h 4.3 seconds
0-160 km/h 9.7 seconds
0-200 km/h 15.2 seconds
2008 Porsche Cayman S(facelift) PDK as taken from http://www.fastestla...4ffe0084fc.html
Max speed 170.5 miles/h (275 km/h)
0-100 km/h 4.5 seconds
0-160 km/h 10.3 seconds
0-200 km/h 17.0 seconds
I understand I'm assuming that the G forces are higher in the 2003 M3 CSL (E46), but it should be as its laptime is shorter but the other cars' acceleration times are faster. Correct me if the data shows otherwise
Rather late, and my post may be a bit jumbled will post further
First, yes you do not mean that the car with the shorter time lap means that it handles better The cars have to be of equal speed or the one compared against (ie car has to be faster on a straight road. If this is so, car B should be faster on the straight part of the track but slower on the bends, otherwise its track time can't be longer. In short, your basis in post #1 is generally that car A performs and handles better than car B if car B has faster acceleration times than car A but car B's laptime is longer.In post #1, the acceleration times were from 0 kmph, which I had objected as the engines of cars preform differently at different speeds. In your last post you've posted the a much more detailed acceleration and elasticity times which would substantiate the analysis. In a track, imo the more impt factor is its elasticity compared to acceleration from 0 kmph.
I was checking fastestlaps.com and came up with the only two tracks that had both the F10 and E60:
1. Autozeitung Test Track.
2. Hockenheim Short.
In the first track their is the F10 530d vs. the E60 530i. Both have the same 0-100 kph of 6.3 seconds. Both also have very close 0-160 kph figures as shown on fastestlaps.com (14.0 s vs 13.9 s). The E60 530i has scored the 138th position with 1:46.2 while the F10 530d has been timed at 181st position with 1:48.1 s.
The second track has the F10 535i vs. the E60 535d. Both have the same lap time of 1:19.6 and both are automatic gearboxes. Considering the better 0-100 kph of the F10 535i of 6.1 s to the 6.3 s of the E60 535d and with both having the same 0-160 kph at 14.2 s, and very close 0-180 kph (18.6 to 18.4), we should expect the F10 to have better lap time.
F10 535i Sport Auto Test.
E60 535d Sport Auto Test.
Choose the Hockenheim tab on the upper box and Fahrwerte tab on the lower box. Please use the google translate feature if you don't understand german.
Both ended up with the same exact lap time, and I will leave you to comment on this fact.
Although the F10 has better gearbox (8 speeds compared to 6 speeds with lower shift times), stiffer chassis, double wishbone suspension the E60 still manages to do the same laptime on the second track and a better laptime on the first track with its lower acceleration and lower ability to achieve top speed.
From my point of view, I think that the extra weight and more luxurious setup of the F10 is the reason for its underwhelming performance on track. Nevertheless it is still a very good car.
1. Autozeitung Test Track.
2. Hockenheim Short.
In the first track their is the F10 530d vs. the E60 530i. Both have the same 0-100 kph of 6.3 seconds. Both also have very close 0-160 kph figures as shown on fastestlaps.com (14.0 s vs 13.9 s). The E60 530i has scored the 138th position with 1:46.2 while the F10 530d has been timed at 181st position with 1:48.1 s.
The second track has the F10 535i vs. the E60 535d. Both have the same lap time of 1:19.6 and both are automatic gearboxes. Considering the better 0-100 kph of the F10 535i of 6.1 s to the 6.3 s of the E60 535d and with both having the same 0-160 kph at 14.2 s, and very close 0-180 kph (18.6 to 18.4), we should expect the F10 to have better lap time.
F10 535i Sport Auto Test.
E60 535d Sport Auto Test.
Choose the Hockenheim tab on the upper box and Fahrwerte tab on the lower box. Please use the google translate feature if you don't understand german.
Both ended up with the same exact lap time, and I will leave you to comment on this fact.
Although the F10 has better gearbox (8 speeds compared to 6 speeds with lower shift times), stiffer chassis, double wishbone suspension the E60 still manages to do the same laptime on the second track and a better laptime on the first track with its lower acceleration and lower ability to achieve top speed.
From my point of view, I think that the extra weight and more luxurious setup of the F10 is the reason for its underwhelming performance on track. Nevertheless it is still a very good car.
0-100 km/h 4.3 seconds
0-160 km/h 9.7 seconds
0-200 km/h 15.2 seconds
There remains the following points
1) What is the detailed acceleration and elasticity of the E60 and F10 cars mentioned in post #1, if you have the info? (I presume your analysis is now refined which includes such data being taken into account, but not taken into account earlier.) Elasticity as in your last post
80-100 km/h (4th Speed)
80-120 km/h
(4th Speed)
80-140 km / h
(4th Speed)
80-160 km/h 80-160 km / h
(4th Speed)
80-180 km/h 80-180 km / h
(4th Speed)
2) Does Autozeitung and Hockenheim test the same car model from time to time on their tracks and if so, do they substitute the previous laptime with the later laptime, if the latter is better?
Your analysis from post #1 would have resulted in one concluding that the
59. 2003 BMW M3 CSL (E46) is sportier, stabler, and handles better than
63.2005 Porsche 997 Carrera S (factory kit 381 PS) (which you've pointed out is correct)
66.2008 Porsche Cayman S(facelift) PDK
76.2008 BMW M3 (E92) DKG
78.2007 BMW M3 (E92)
104.2007 Mercedes C 63 AMG (which you've pointed out is correct)
133.2008 Porsche 997 Carrera (2008 facelift)
as taken from http://www.fastestlaps.com/track7.html
Notice the vintage of the cars above
The reason is because these cars have generally faster acceleration times (as elasticity was not compared initially, only 0 to 100 and 160 kmph acceleration times).
To illustrate this
2003 M3 CSL (E46) technical data as taken from http://www.fastestla...5753fa2d14.html
Performance
Max speed 155 miles/h (250 km/h)
0-100 km/h 4.8 seconds
0-200 km/h 16.7 seconds
M3 (E92) DKG technical data as taken from http://www.fastestla...M3_E92_DKG.html
Performance (as I couldn't get the technical data from sportauto webpage)
Max speed 155 miles/h (250 (restricted) km/h)
0-100 km/h 4.3 seconds
0-160 km/h 9.7 seconds
0-200 km/h 15.2 seconds
2008 Porsche Cayman S(facelift) PDK as taken from http://www.fastestla...4ffe0084fc.html
Max speed 170.5 miles/h (275 km/h)
0-100 km/h 4.5 seconds
0-160 km/h 10.3 seconds
0-200 km/h 17.0 seconds
I understand I'm assuming that the G forces are higher in the 2003 M3 CSL (E46), but it should be as its laptime is shorter but the other cars' acceleration times are faster. Correct me if the data shows otherwise
Rather late, and my post may be a bit jumbled
will post further
08-01-2010, 02:41 PM
#48
Senior Members
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Cairo, Egypt
Posts: 347
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My Ride: 523iA, 2006, Silver Grey, Black Leatherette Interior, Fine-Wood Trim Poplar Grain Brown High-Gloss, 6 Speed Automatic Transmission with Steptronic, Automatic Air Conditioning with Extended Content, Interior and Exterior Mirrors with Automatic Anti-Dazzle Function (Incl. Folding Function for Exterior Mirror), Electric Front Seats with Memory for Driver, Multi-Function Steering Wheel with Cruise Control, Adjustable Steering Column, BMW Radio with 8 Speakers and CD Drive, Park Distance Control, Universal Bluetooth Cell Phone, Electric Rear Sunblind
Now, let's see I have a number of points to make First, yes you do not mean that the car with the shorter time lap means that it handles better The cars have to be of equal speed or the one compared against (ie car has to be faster on a straight road. If this is so, car B should be faster on the straight part of the track but slower on the bends, otherwise its track time can't be longer. In short, your basis in post #1 is generally that car A performs and handles better than car B if car B has faster acceleration times than car A but car B's laptime is longer.
First, yes you do not mean that the car with the shorter time lap means that it handles better The cars have to be of equal speed or the one compared against (ie car has to be faster on a straight road. If this is so, car B should be faster on the straight part of the track but slower on the bends, otherwise its track time can't be longer. In short, your basis in post #1 is generally that car A performs and handles better than car B if car B has faster acceleration times than car A but car B's laptime is longer.. I thought that was clear from the beginning. That is why I did not understand the points you were raising. In post #1, the acceleration times were from 0 kmph, which I had objected as the engines of cars preform differently at different speeds. In your last post you've posted the a much more detailed acceleration and elasticity times which would substantiate the analysis. In a track, imo the more impt factor is its elasticity compared to acceleration from 0 kmph.
I did not imagine that you missed them from the beginning, and that is why I was a little bit surprised from the comments made. For all the cars that you chose on your list, these data are avaiable at the Sport Auto site at a click of a button.
Just spend sometime on the site and you will easily get all the elasticity times. They are available for the F10, E60, M3, C63, and all the porsches.
It will be very difficult for me to keep posting all of these times as the process is time exhausting, but I will do it for you, and just for you for the last time
BMW F10 535i ---- BMW E60 535d
0-40 km/h 1,8 s ---- 1.7 s
0-60 km/h 3,0 s ---- 2,9 s
0-80 km/h 4,3 s ---- 4,3 s
0-100 km/h 6,1 s ---- 6,3 s
0-120 km/h 8,2 s ---- 8,3 s
0-140 km/h 10,9 s ---- 10,9 s
0-160 km/h 14,2 s ---- 14,2 s
0-180 km/h 18,6 s ---- 18,4 s
0-200 km/h - ---- -
0-100 km/h
(Manufacturer) 6,1 s ---- 6,4 s
Maximum Speed 250 km/h
Elasticity
80-100 km/h
(4., 5., 6., 7. Speed) 2,2 s /2,8 s /3,6 s /5,0 s ---- 2,5 s /3,3 s /4,8 s / - s
80-120 km/h
(4., 5., 6., 7. Speed) 4,5 s /5,7 s /7,4 s /9,8 s ---- 5,1 s /6,9 s /9,5 s / - s
80-140 km/h
(4., 5., 6., 7. Speed) 7,1 s /8,8 s /11,6 s /15,1 s ---- 7,8 s /10,6 s /14,4 s / - s
80-160 km/h
(4., 5., 6., 7. Speed) 10,2 s /12,3 s /16,2 s /21,4 s ---- 10,9 s /14,6 s /19,8 s / - s
Stopping Distance
From 100 km/h (cold) 36,9 ---- 35,8
From 200 km/h (warm) 153,4 ---- 147,1
F10 535i
E60 535d
The better straight line acceleration and elasticity is further proven from the straight segment of the Hockenheim Short.
The F10 535i starts the straight line at Sudkurve at 99 km/h and ends it at 173 km/h.
The E60 535d starts the straight line at Sudkurve at 100 km/h and ends it at 172 km/h.
All these data were sitting all the time in the links in my first post waiting to be checked
. However, I am glad that finally my analysis is clear
.
08-01-2010, 07:31 PM
#49
Members
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: singapore
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now, now now, your analysis in post #1 did not use these other data, did it?
Now for the big question I have (maybe no biggie for you ). Since you are relying on laptimes for your interpretation of data, can you please explain the following as the positioning of 2 identical cars have laptimes such that their positions are reversed of which one of them, detail specs have been provided by you -
1) for the Hockenheim test track http://www.fastestlaps.com/track7.html
104.2007 Mercedes C 63 AMG http://www.fastestla...77fa80ea8e.html
78. 2007 BMW M3 (E92) http://www.fastestla...388b437911.html
2) now the opposite results for the Autozeitung test track http://www.fastestla...om/track24.html
35.2007 Mercedes C 63 AMG http://www.fastestla...77fa80ea8e.html
36.2007 BMW M3 (E92) http://www.fastestla...388b437911.html
Now, what does the above show and how should it affect your analysis and interpretation?
And there is no response to below, which I take it that you agree with?
63.2005 Porsche 997 Carrera S (factory kit 381 PS) (which you've pointed out is correct)
66.2008 Porsche Cayman S(facelift) PDK
76.2008 BMW M3 (E92) DKG
78.2007 BMW M3 (E92)
104.2007 Mercedes C 63 AMG (which you've pointed out is correct)
133.2008 Porsche 997 Carrera (2008 facelift)
as taken from http://www.fastestlaps.com/track7.html
Notice the vintage of the cars above
The reason is because these cars have generally faster acceleration times (as elasticity was not compared initially, only 0 to 100 and 160 kmph acceleration times).
Now for the big question I have (maybe no biggie for you
). Since you are relying on laptimes for your interpretation of data, can you please explain the following as the positioning of 2 identical cars have laptimes such that their positions are reversed of which one of them, detail specs have been provided by you -1) for the Hockenheim test track http://www.fastestlaps.com/track7.html
104.2007 Mercedes C 63 AMG http://www.fastestla...77fa80ea8e.html
78. 2007 BMW M3 (E92) http://www.fastestla...388b437911.html
2) now the opposite results for the Autozeitung test track http://www.fastestla...om/track24.html
35.2007 Mercedes C 63 AMG http://www.fastestla...77fa80ea8e.html
36.2007 BMW M3 (E92) http://www.fastestla...388b437911.html
Now, what does the above show and how should it affect your analysis and interpretation?
And there is no response to below, which I take it that you agree with?
2) Does Autozeitung and Hockenheim test the same car model from time to time on their tracks and if so, do they substitute the previous laptime with the later laptime, if the latter is better?
Your analysis from post #1 would have resulted in one concluding that the
59. 2003 BMW M3 CSL (E46) is sportier, stabler, and handles better than
Your analysis from post #1 would have resulted in one concluding that the
59. 2003 BMW M3 CSL (E46) is sportier, stabler, and handles better than
63.2005 Porsche 997 Carrera S (factory kit 381 PS) (which you've pointed out is correct)
66.2008 Porsche Cayman S(facelift) PDK
76.2008 BMW M3 (E92) DKG
78.2007 BMW M3 (E92)
104.2007 Mercedes C 63 AMG (which you've pointed out is correct)
133.2008 Porsche 997 Carrera (2008 facelift)
as taken from http://www.fastestlaps.com/track7.html
Notice the vintage of the cars above
The reason is because these cars have generally faster acceleration times (as elasticity was not compared initially, only 0 to 100 and 160 kmph acceleration times).
08-02-2010, 08:17 AM
#50
Members
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: singapore
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It will be very difficult for me to keep posting all of these times as the process is time exhausting, but I will do it for you, and just for you for the last time
BMW F10 535i ---- BMW E60 535d
0-40 km/h 1,8 s ---- 1.7 s
0-60 km/h 3,0 s ---- 2,9 s
0-80 km/h 4,3 s ---- 4,3 s
0-100 km/h 6,1 s ---- 6,3 s
0-120 km/h 8,2 s ---- 8,3 s
0-140 km/h 10,9 s ---- 10,9 s
0-160 km/h 14,2 s ---- 14,2 s
0-180 km/h 18,6 s ---- 18,4 s
0-200 km/h - ---- -
0-100 km/h
(Manufacturer) 6,1 s ---- 6,4 s
Maximum Speed 250 km/h
Elasticity
80-100 km/h
(4., 5., 6., 7. Speed) 2,2 s /2,8 s /3,6 s /5,0 s ---- 2,5 s /3,3 s /4,8 s / - s
80-120 km/h
(4., 5., 6., 7. Speed) 4,5 s /5,7 s /7,4 s /9,8 s ---- 5,1 s /6,9 s /9,5 s / - s
80-140 km/h
(4., 5., 6., 7. Speed) 7,1 s /8,8 s /11,6 s /15,1 s ---- 7,8 s /10,6 s /14,4 s / - s
80-160 km/h
(4., 5., 6., 7. Speed) 10,2 s /12,3 s /16,2 s /21,4 s ---- 10,9 s /14,6 s /19,8 s / - s
Stopping Distance
From 100 km/h (cold) 36,9 ---- 35,8
From 200 km/h (warm) 153,4 ---- 147,1
F10 535i
E60 535d
BMW F10 535i ---- BMW E60 535d
0-40 km/h 1,8 s ---- 1.7 s
0-60 km/h 3,0 s ---- 2,9 s
0-80 km/h 4,3 s ---- 4,3 s
0-100 km/h 6,1 s ---- 6,3 s
0-120 km/h 8,2 s ---- 8,3 s
0-140 km/h 10,9 s ---- 10,9 s
0-160 km/h 14,2 s ---- 14,2 s
0-180 km/h 18,6 s ---- 18,4 s
0-200 km/h - ---- -
0-100 km/h
(Manufacturer) 6,1 s ---- 6,4 s
Maximum Speed 250 km/h
Elasticity
80-100 km/h
(4., 5., 6., 7. Speed) 2,2 s /2,8 s /3,6 s /5,0 s ---- 2,5 s /3,3 s /4,8 s / - s
80-120 km/h
(4., 5., 6., 7. Speed) 4,5 s /5,7 s /7,4 s /9,8 s ---- 5,1 s /6,9 s /9,5 s / - s
80-140 km/h
(4., 5., 6., 7. Speed) 7,1 s /8,8 s /11,6 s /15,1 s ---- 7,8 s /10,6 s /14,4 s / - s
80-160 km/h
(4., 5., 6., 7. Speed) 10,2 s /12,3 s /16,2 s /21,4 s ---- 10,9 s /14,6 s /19,8 s / - s
Stopping Distance
From 100 km/h (cold) 36,9 ---- 35,8
From 200 km/h (warm) 153,4 ---- 147,1
F10 535i
E60 535d