Lap Times: F10 Vs. E60
08-02-2010, 08:31 AM
#51
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
. How did you miss that in the first post? I wrote the following "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". If you check the numbers in the first post you will find them exactly coinciding with ones in my detailed acceleration post. I just mentioned a summary of three acceleration timkes since I know that technical memebers would check from the Sport Auto site. I am asking you for the third time to read my first post, please. 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?
). 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?
Autozeitung Track
Hockenheim Short
Autozeitung has 6 corners (points 1,3,7,9,10,12 on the chart above) while Hockenheim has 8 corners. The straight line portion is longer in percentage in Autozeitung track compared to Hockenheim Short.
Did you notice that the E90 M3 sedan did a much better time than the E92 M3 coupe and the C63 AMG on Autozeitung track?
That is basically because the M3 sedan was equipped with Michelin Pilot Cup Semi-Slick Tires on 19" wheels while the E92 M3 coupe was equipped with the normal 18" wheels and tires.
Tracks are different, that is why Formula 1 teams never win all the races in one season. Some teams have better straigh line acceleration, and some have better cornering stability. So the ones who best tune their aerodynamics and other car equipment win the race.
The magazines do the test once with extensive lap times testing. They do not replace the tests. If they test a car twice they would mention both tests each with its date and car equipment at the time of test.
Do you still think my analysis is subjective
?
08-02-2010, 08:55 AM
#52
Members
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: singapore
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes I did . How did you miss that in the first post? I wrote the following "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". If you check the numbers in the first post you will find them exactly coinciding with ones in my detailed acceleration post. I just mentioned a summary of three acceleration timkes since I know that technical memebers would check from the Sport Auto site. I am asking you for the third time to read my first post, please.
There's a misunderstanding here. My point is that your first post did not take into account any elasticity; only 2 or3 of the acceleration data from 0 kmph. I fully understand your post #1
That is not a big question, it is a very simple one. The Autozeitung track has a higher percentage of its length in straight lines than Hockenheim. The superior acceleration and elasticity numbers for the C63 AMG proved to be of higher influence in the Autozeitung track than in Hockenheim. This means that the M3 was not able to make up for its defficiences in straight line acceleration due to the shorter length of corners and lower number of corners in Autozeitung track compared to Hockenheim.
When I look at the 2 tracks, I have difficulty saying which has more straight portions. Is it objectively reported that "The Autozeitung track has a higher percentage of its length in straight lines than Hockenheim"?
. How did you miss that in the first post? I wrote the following "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". If you check the numbers in the first post you will find them exactly coinciding with ones in my detailed acceleration post. I just mentioned a summary of three acceleration timkes since I know that technical memebers would check from the Sport Auto site. I am asking you for the third time to read my first post, please. There's a misunderstanding here. My point is that your first post did not take into account any elasticity; only 2 or3 of the acceleration data from 0 kmph. I fully understand your post #1
That is not a big question, it is a very simple one. The Autozeitung track has a higher percentage of its length in straight lines than Hockenheim. The superior acceleration and elasticity numbers for the C63 AMG proved to be of higher influence in the Autozeitung track than in Hockenheim. This means that the M3 was not able to make up for its defficiences in straight line acceleration due to the shorter length of corners and lower number of corners in Autozeitung track compared to Hockenheim.
When I look at the 2 tracks, I have difficulty saying which has more straight portions. Is it objectively reported that "The Autozeitung track has a higher percentage of its length in straight lines than Hockenheim"?
08-02-2010, 09:04 AM
#53
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
Do you need more objectivity than that?
LOL
08-02-2010, 09:07 AM
#54
Members
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: singapore
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aside from the above, allow me to highlight the portions/use of data which imo are subjective
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. In your use of terms, the F10 has "better ..." but when not, it's "close"
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. (Which data is being relied for this? Acceleration? Elasticity? At what speed and gear? F10 is heavier but it has some better features as you've mentioned, question is which performs better. From the manner which post #1 is written, is it objective?
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. In your use of terms, the F10 has "better ..." but when not, it's "close"
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. (Which data is being relied for this? Acceleration? Elasticity? At what speed and gear? F10 is heavier but it has some better features as you've mentioned, question is which performs better. From the manner which post #1 is written, is it objective?
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.
08-02-2010, 09:15 AM
#55
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
Post#1 was completely objective, because post #1 contained links.
And had you checked the links and all the tabs I specified in post#1, you would not have gone into a lot of discussion points.
Just tell me that you got some knowledge from this thread
BTW, did you read my long post?
And had you checked the links and all the tabs I specified in post#1, you would not have gone into a lot of discussion points.
Just tell me that you got some knowledge from this thread
BTW, did you read my long post?
08-02-2010, 09:18 AM
#56
Members
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: singapore
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
08-02-2010, 09:23 AM
#57
Members
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: singapore
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 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.
and this main point of yours has been paraphrased by me earlier check the cars I referred to even before your long post
08-02-2010, 09:26 AM
#58
Members
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: singapore
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
08-02-2010, 09:35 AM
#59
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
Below is the Nissan GT-R Hockenheim Lap
And the Nissan GT-R Autozeitung Lap
The maximum speed in the Autozeitung was 222.4 km/h from the table below the chart, the maximum speed in the Hockenheim short was 203 km/h.
Which one would have longer straights in your opinion?
Do you believe me now?
Damn I am so good
.
08-02-2010, 02:05 PM
#60
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
Nissan GT-R average speed on Autozeitung: 142.3 km/h
Nissan GT-R average speed on Hockenheim: 131.3 km/h
E92 M3 average speed on Autozeitung: 136.7 km/h
E92 M3 average speed on Hockenheim: 126.2 km/h
C63 AMG average speed on Autozeitung: 136.8 km/h
C63 AMG average speed on Hockenheim: 124.7 km/h
BMW 320si average speed on Autozeitung: 121.8 km/h
BMW 320si average speed on Hockenheim: 114.0 km/h
I have added the BMW 320si to show that a relatively weak car (130 hp/ton, 173 hp) would still be able to achieve a noticeably higher speed on Autozeitung than on Hockenheim just like a much stronger car (Nissan GTR with 275 hp/ton, 479 hp).
Do you believe me now
?(N.B. Average Speed (km/h) = Track Length (km) * 3600 (s/h) / Lap Time (s))