Civic Type R announced for US. 2016 Civic debuts [MERGED]
so basically you do think they're cheating. only thing I think they're cheating with is the cage... which doesn't make all that much difference... sure a "real production" can be slower, but I don't think its gonna be something like 20 seconds slower... maybe like 2-7; which in my mind isn't all that much on something as long as the 'ring...
that 7:54 time was a Porsche test... and they have their own agenda... several other independent establishments tested the GT-R and they all went faster
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._manufacturers
the next slowest for the GT-R is a 7:43
Looks like Robevo went out of his way to find the slowest GTR time for that list...
If it comes to the US, it'll also be part of Motor Trends best handling car test. they usually do that at Laguna Seca with Randy Pobst driving. I'm looking forward to that more than lightning lap... Laguna Seca is also a pretty high speed track and a pro is always more consistent getting the best times out of all cars. and VIR is even more fast car friendly than the 'ring in my opinion.
VIR is shorter and smoother, and has a better straights to corners ratio for fast cars than the 'ring. the 'ring is more like a mountain road, its bumpy, its very long, so its hard to remember even for pro drivers... which is another reason why in my book the CTR being this fast there isn't as much of a surprise to me as it is to you
that 7:54 time was a Porsche test... and they have their own agenda... several other independent establishments tested the GT-R and they all went faster
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._manufacturers
the next slowest for the GT-R is a 7:43
Looks like Robevo went out of his way to find the slowest GTR time for that list...
If it comes to the US, it'll also be part of Motor Trends best handling car test. they usually do that at Laguna Seca with Randy Pobst driving. I'm looking forward to that more than lightning lap... Laguna Seca is also a pretty high speed track and a pro is always more consistent getting the best times out of all cars. and VIR is even more fast car friendly than the 'ring in my opinion.
VIR is shorter and smoother, and has a better straights to corners ratio for fast cars than the 'ring. the 'ring is more like a mountain road, its bumpy, its very long, so its hard to remember even for pro drivers... which is another reason why in my book the CTR being this fast there isn't as much of a surprise to me as it is to you
It looks like Rob just clipped some of times that were slower than the CTR from that Wikipedia link. I think that page is good, though. I read the controversies tab, and James May's comments are pretty much how I feel about it.
Since the GT-R is on that list several times, I'll use it as my example. Let's take that slow GT-R time and throw it out. Let's also take the fastest one, which is a Nismo, and throw it out too. The delta between the second fastest and second slowest is insane.
On a semi-wet track in 11/2010, a GT-R ran 7:24.22. On a dry track only one month before on 10/2010, a GT-R ran 7:43.65. Different drivers with almost a twenty second disparity. The guy that ran the slower time is a champion German racecar driver. Tell me how he was twenty seconds slower than the Nissan test in the wet?
Answer: Factory backed Nurburgring time attacks are total bull**** as a performance yardstick. They're for marketing and nothing more. We can argue semantics forever, and there is no denying the CTR is excellent in it's class, but this 300HP & 3000lb FWD has the advantage of all the best variables and tricks possible to run that time.
finally someone that agrees with me that 'Ring times mean nothing LOL. i admit, however, that it's impressive that it can do that time, even if it were cheating a bit. most cars would be nowhere near that time even with r-comps, a cage, AND a professional driver.
Sorry, tried to reply from my phone, and it fragmented. I'm having problems with the full site from my phone the past couple of days.
It looks like Rob just clipped some of times that were slower than the CTR from that Wikipedia link. I think that page is good, though. I read the controversies tab, and James May's comments are pretty much how I feel about it.
Since the GT-R is on that list several times, I'll use it as my example. Let's take that slow GT-R time and throw it out. Let's also take the fastest one, which is a Nismo, and throw it out too. The delta between the second fastest and second slowest is insane.
On a semi-wet track in 11/2010, a GT-R ran 7:24.22. On a dry track only one month before on 10/2010, a GT-R ran 7:43.65. Different drivers with almost a twenty second disparity. The guy that ran the slower time is a champion German racecar driver. Tell me how he was twenty seconds slower than the Nissan test in the wet?
Answer: Factory backed Nurburgring time attacks are total bull**** as a performance yardstick. They're for marketing and nothing more. We can argue semantics forever, and there is no denying the CTR is excellent in it's class, but this 300HP & 3000lb FWD has the advantage of all the best variables and tricks possible to run that time.
It looks like Rob just clipped some of times that were slower than the CTR from that Wikipedia link. I think that page is good, though. I read the controversies tab, and James May's comments are pretty much how I feel about it.
Since the GT-R is on that list several times, I'll use it as my example. Let's take that slow GT-R time and throw it out. Let's also take the fastest one, which is a Nismo, and throw it out too. The delta between the second fastest and second slowest is insane.
On a semi-wet track in 11/2010, a GT-R ran 7:24.22. On a dry track only one month before on 10/2010, a GT-R ran 7:43.65. Different drivers with almost a twenty second disparity. The guy that ran the slower time is a champion German racecar driver. Tell me how he was twenty seconds slower than the Nissan test in the wet?
Answer: Factory backed Nurburgring time attacks are total bull**** as a performance yardstick. They're for marketing and nothing more. We can argue semantics forever, and there is no denying the CTR is excellent in it's class, but this 300HP & 3000lb FWD has the advantage of all the best variables and tricks possible to run that time.
Answer: Factory backed Nurburgring time attacks are total bull**** as a performance yardstick. They're for marketing and nothing more. We can argue semantics forever, and there is no denying the CTR is excellent in it's class, but this 300HP & 3000lb FWD has the advantage of all the best variables and tricks possible to run that time.
However specifically I don't believe Honda "cheated" , calculated variable to succeed, maybe
but that's just my opinion because I want to see is succeed... and to be honest I can tell you from fact that some manufactures certainly cheat when it comes to running NR times. Equip their vehicle with non factory options (tires, brakes, weight savings, or "pre production" engine tuning.
In regards to the cage, being a test vehicle, every Honda vehicle that goes to a racetrack must have a safety cage, weather its a civic, MDX, accord, NSX, etc if its a Honda test vehicle, it'll have a cage.
Having a fair understanding of vehicle development, I'd assume the video was recorded during tire development testing because its the biggest limiting factor for the vehicle to achieve those times. Honda wants to know their performance too, in this case they published the results because they were fantastic.
I would like to add some food for thought regarding the GTR NR 20sec time difference.
Its not so crazy to think that 20 seconds is possible over a 7+ min track that track environment, slight driver errors, and even vehicle differences could result in that time difference.
For instance, this past weekend at Mid-Ohio the Indy car qualifying laps.
#1 fastest 1:06.51
#25 slowest 1:10.24
You have a 3+ second difference from cars the same day, short 70 second track, top drivers in the world, with almost identical cars.
I understand this isn't a perfect science but a long track like the NR would be more difficult to hold similar track times with variables I'd imagine
OK one more point. From the list
Chevrolet Corvette C5 Z06 (7:56)
Porsche 911 Turbo – 996 (7:56)
Porsche Panamera Turbo (7:56)
Caterham R500 Superlight (7:55)
Ferrari F430 F1 (7:55)
2008 Nissan GT-R (7:54)
Porsche 911 Turbo – 997 (7:54)
Renault Megane RS 275 Trophy-R (7:54)
Mercedes CLK DTM AMG (7:54)
Lamborghini Gallardo LP 560-4 (7:52) "
targeting specifically at the Trophy R, the main focus of what the CTR was trying to gain the title from.
Are we all accepting this fact that this time is legit and fast as the M4, 997, blah blah blah, you know everything we want to stack the CTR up against?
Put your horse blinders on, comparing ONLY the Trohpy vs the CTR, its not so crazy to imagine that the latest developed CTR with more technology, more power could cut the trophy by 4 seconds on the ring.
Seems like it was easier to accept a Renault over a Civic, but if those facts are true you may have to put ego's aside and accept that those times posted for those cars on those specific days are similar and as fast as the current CTR... sorry BMW fans.
Last edited by GTijoejoe; Aug 5, 2015 at 08:39 AM.
but that's industry. customers expect each model to be bigger, better, and have more options. all cars grow fat. we now have big Minis and Fiats.
then the manufacturer comes out with an all-new small car.. again..and it slowly gets fat... again LOL.
have you noticed how BIG the Accord is now?
then the manufacturer comes out with an all-new small car.. again..and it slowly gets fat... again LOL.
have you noticed how BIG the Accord is now?
I definitely agree with this.
However specifically I don't believe Honda "cheated" , calculated variable to succeed, maybe but that's just my opinion because I want to see is succeed.
.. and to be honest I can tell you from fact that some manufactures certainly cheat when it comes to running NR times. Equip their vehicle with non factory options (tires, brakes, weight savings, or "pre production" engine tuning.
In regards to the cage, being a test vehicle, every Honda vehicle that goes to a racetrack must have a safety cage, weather its a civic, MDX, accord, NSX, etc if its a Honda test vehicle, it'll have a cage.
Having a fair understanding of vehicle development, I'd assume the video was recorded during tire development testing because its the biggest limiting factor for the vehicle to achieve those times. Honda wants to know their performance too, in this case they published the results because they were fantastic.
I would like to add some food for thought regarding the GTR NR 20sec time difference.
Its not so crazy to think that 20 seconds is possible over a 7+ min track that track environment, slight driver errors, and even vehicle differences could result in that time difference.
For instance, this past weekend at Mid-Ohio the Indy car qualifying laps.
#1 fastest 1:06.51
#25 slowest 1:10.24
You have a 3+ second difference from cars the same day, short 70 second track, top drivers in the world, with almost identical cars.
I understand this isn't a perfect science but a long track like the NR would be more difficult to hold similar track times with variables I'd imagine
OK one more point. From the list
Chevrolet Corvette C5 Z06 (7:56)
Porsche 911 Turbo – 996 (7:56)
Porsche Panamera Turbo (7:56)
Caterham R500 Superlight (7:55)
Ferrari F430 F1 (7:55)
2008 Nissan GT-R (7:54)
Porsche 911 Turbo – 997 (7:54)
Renault Megane RS 275 Trophy-R (7:54)
Mercedes CLK DTM AMG (7:54)
Lamborghini Gallardo LP 560-4 (7:52) "
targeting specifically at the Trophy R, the main focus of what the CTR was trying to gain the title from.
Are we all accepting this fact that this time is legit and fast as the M4, 997, blah blah blah, you know everything we want to stack the CTR up against?
Put your horse blinders on, comparing ONLY the Trohpy vs the CTR, its not so crazy to imagine that the latest developed CTR with more technology, more power could cut the trophy by 4 seconds on the ring.
Seems like it was easier to accept a Renault over a Civic, but if those facts are true you may have to put ego's aside and accept that those times posted for those cars on those specific days are similar and as fast as the current CTR... sorry BMW fans.
However specifically I don't believe Honda "cheated" , calculated variable to succeed, maybe
but that's just my opinion because I want to see is succeed... and to be honest I can tell you from fact that some manufactures certainly cheat when it comes to running NR times. Equip their vehicle with non factory options (tires, brakes, weight savings, or "pre production" engine tuning.
In regards to the cage, being a test vehicle, every Honda vehicle that goes to a racetrack must have a safety cage, weather its a civic, MDX, accord, NSX, etc if its a Honda test vehicle, it'll have a cage.
Having a fair understanding of vehicle development, I'd assume the video was recorded during tire development testing because its the biggest limiting factor for the vehicle to achieve those times. Honda wants to know their performance too, in this case they published the results because they were fantastic.
I would like to add some food for thought regarding the GTR NR 20sec time difference.
Its not so crazy to think that 20 seconds is possible over a 7+ min track that track environment, slight driver errors, and even vehicle differences could result in that time difference.
For instance, this past weekend at Mid-Ohio the Indy car qualifying laps.
#1 fastest 1:06.51
#25 slowest 1:10.24
You have a 3+ second difference from cars the same day, short 70 second track, top drivers in the world, with almost identical cars.
I understand this isn't a perfect science but a long track like the NR would be more difficult to hold similar track times with variables I'd imagine
OK one more point. From the list
Chevrolet Corvette C5 Z06 (7:56)
Porsche 911 Turbo – 996 (7:56)
Porsche Panamera Turbo (7:56)
Caterham R500 Superlight (7:55)
Ferrari F430 F1 (7:55)
2008 Nissan GT-R (7:54)
Porsche 911 Turbo – 997 (7:54)
Renault Megane RS 275 Trophy-R (7:54)
Mercedes CLK DTM AMG (7:54)
Lamborghini Gallardo LP 560-4 (7:52) "
targeting specifically at the Trophy R, the main focus of what the CTR was trying to gain the title from.
Are we all accepting this fact that this time is legit and fast as the M4, 997, blah blah blah, you know everything we want to stack the CTR up against?
Put your horse blinders on, comparing ONLY the Trohpy vs the CTR, its not so crazy to imagine that the latest developed CTR with more technology, more power could cut the trophy by 4 seconds on the ring.
Seems like it was easier to accept a Renault over a Civic, but if those facts are true you may have to put ego's aside and accept that those times posted for those cars on those specific days are similar and as fast as the current CTR... sorry BMW fans.
exactly, 'ring is freaking long... 20 second disparity isn't that out of the question
about the torphy r, as much as I don't agree, that only supports the honda cheated with tires arguement... the trophy r comes with Pilot Sport Cups stock
btw, does anyone know wht tires the CTR has stock?
As a fan of smaller cars, it's a source of endless frustration LOL
Looks like they have only been "testing" :-P
As for that 20 sec gap with the GTR, isn't there, like, 100 turns on that course? If the slower driver were only .2sec slower per turn, that would = 20sec. It doesn't take much. A better brake pad, a few WHP, a mistake here or there = very much possible.
Looks like they have only been "testing" :-P
As for that 20 sec gap with the GTR, isn't there, like, 100 turns on that course? If the slower driver were only .2sec slower per turn, that would = 20sec. It doesn't take much. A better brake pad, a few WHP, a mistake here or there = very much possible.
Its not just bench racing. The Honda Civic Type R is the fastest fwd car around the Nurburgring to date. Period.
Now if you personally do not place much stock in that fact, that is your perogative. But some of us to think it is worth talking about.
Now if you personally do not place much stock in that fact, that is your perogative. But some of us to think it is worth talking about.
easy, tiger. this whole thread is pretty much bench racing material as nobody really knows the test conditions for any of these cars. if it will be "this" car or "that" car at "blah blah" track is the epitome of bench racing. obviously it's worth talking about... because we are.
easy, tiger. this whole thread is pretty much bench racing material as nobody really knows the test conditions for any of these cars. if it will be "this" car or "that" car at "blah blah" track is the epitome of bench racing. obviously it's worth talking about... because we are.
sorry, couldn't help myself haha