Are Nurburgring times really that relevant?

yeah but look at the top #20 street legal times of the ring and tell me how many of those cars aren't exciting on the road!

 

Weak Sauce.

Average MPH on a track is mostly determined by the length of the straights.

There's a reason Jaguar, Aston, BMW, Porsche, Nissan, Toyota, Hyundai, Ferrari, Lamborghini, McLaren, MB, Volvo, (I could go on) ALL test their production cars at the Ring.

 

don't leave out Cadillac & Corvette!
gotta have 1 US mfg. represented

 

and Viper.

Especially true about Corvette.

 

Its a pride thing. Dodge and team SRT were very excited to say there ACR was the baddest car money could buy as they should be.

 

When was the last time that Ferrari tested their cars there?

 

Ferrari tests there all the time.

http://wot.motortrend.com/ultimate-job-perk-schumacher-crashes-ferrari-prototype-on-ring-emerges-unhurt-1689.html#axzz2UbU2pqwt

 

The major car manufactures have spent millions of dollars on permanent facilities at the Ring to test for exactly that reason.

 

Isn't the Ring just the most ideal location for testing cars because of the huge variety of turns/straights without getting too much attention from press and spectators? And because of it being a populair testing location, (super)car manufacturers want to set good benchmark times. That's logical.

But is the Ring also the best track or course to see if a fastest lap time really means its set by the best (allround) performing car?

 

Yes

 

Discussing the relevance of nurburgring lap times considering "UK road speeds" and "speed limits" is inane, IMO. Go buy a smart car, honda civic, whatever.

When a journalist or other car enthusiast starts to blather on about the "real world" and the "speed limit" it's simply to make excuses for a slower and/or cheaper and/or worse car.

 

Are the absolute lap times relevant? Not unless they're run on the same tires and same conditions, imo.

 

As others have stated very relevant! A car being fast on the Ring means it is real world fast since the Ring not your average billiard smooth racetrack.....just sticking on fat rubber and ultra stiff springs might do wonders on the skid pad but has you bounce right of the track when driving the Nordschleife. Just like on the real street.

Suspension articulation, geometry control, balance....they all play a prime role in setting a fast lap over there.

 

One of the main reasons for carmakers bragging about their cars' performances at the Ring is due to the horrible and sometimes comical performance of Japanese luxury cars from some years back.

Cars like many Lexus, Infiniti and Acura were rightfully ridiculed because they simply copied some of the looks and build quality of makes like MB and BMW but drove like Camrys with big engines. The reality was and is, that fast driving on public roads is benchmarked on European roads, mainly in Germany. Fast driving is a well-honed tradition in Germany and some other EU countries. European cars were and are designed to handle very high speed expectations from these enthusiasts and many of them also exhibit very broad performance envelopes that include speed limit conditions in N. America and Asia. BMW in particular, did extremely well because unlike auto-tranny muscle car makers it also focused on manual transmissions, compliant ride, nimble RWD handling and excellent driver feedback, all traits that can be enjoyed and explored at non-ticketing speeds.

Toyota soon realized their error and started aiming their cars at European drivers with Germany being the ultimate target as it is home to MB and BMW as well as home to unrestricted highspeed runs on certain stretches of the Autobahn. Toyota and Honda both went into F1 to learn how to build fast cars and then tested them on the Ring. I think Nissan followed in a similar vein with their brands. More recently, the "Big 3" also tested their cars on the Ring to use it as a benchmark to compare against their rivals as a move to extend global brand recognition. Many of these makers targeted BMW, and started to make manual transmission, rear-drive performance cars, often introducing V8 sport models that mimic the M5.

So it was mainly a bid by newcomers to gain recognition against European performance cars.

At this point in time, I would say all the serious car makers have great cars because they all targeted makes like MB and BMW, with BMW arguably a greater influence. But they also all push against an immovable barrier: LEGAL SPEED LIMIT. So a part of Traveller's point is well-taken. There is a limit to how much sense it makes to increase performance on tracks like the Ring. We cannot drive any of these cars anywhere near how they were proven on the Ring. IMO, while it's nice to see a car make the grade on the Ring, it's more important how the car feels to drive everyday, as a DD, as well as a weekend driver.

What's the point that your car can brag about nailing a top-3 number on the Ring when it looks and feels like a piece of !@#$% when you sit in it and try to justify the ludicrous price you paid as you (try to) putter your way to wherever you normally enjoy your ride? Very few of us live near the Ring. I think this is why Ferrari gets it right. It clearly isn't that anal about numbers.

 

Test must be organised quickly now as the ring is for sale! (Nürburgring on sale this week - Autoweek)

 

In relative terms: yes, different conditions than in most tracks.

In absolute terms: no, unless you race cars for a living and doing good lap times means putting food on the table.

For the manufacturers is important too: they can justify outrageous bills for irrelevant gains in performance.

 

OP?
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

I think they are important as long as the times recorded are fast when compared to the competition. I dont think achieving the fastest time is that important for road cars considering that most owners will never be able to extract the same lap times, and road cars will never race anyway. Especially in the US where track days are so restricted.

Having said that, i wouldnt base my decision to buy a car on its Nring lap time. As most of you im sure, otherwise you would all be driving GTRs.

 

Exactly, most buyers do not use nurburgring times as a basis for purchasing a car. So already the author's point is itself largely moot.

Still, even though they're not the most reliable metric, nurburgring times provide a lot of food for thought, and allow for a more "apples to apples" comparison among cars without having to look at the various stone cold stats and figures.

It's interesting to see how a particular manufacturer pursues and achieves its times, how or if they alter the car, which tires/options are on the car, if they close the track down or run with traffic, and of course the lap times themselves.

 

There is some truth to the original post. My fastest (and most fun) street car for curvy roads is probably my GT3 RS, not my CGT, Enzo, F40, etc. It's small size, great road feel, visibility, light weight, instant response, etc are what makes it fast. It's comfortable and predictable. It doesn't have the ultimate grip and power of a P1, 918 or La Ferrari, but it will easily stay with those cars on curvy street roads. Not too many drivers are going to enter a tight turn on the street at 100+ mph, no matter how much traction they have!

We often have the 7:20 Ring cars join us on runs, and they're usually not in the front. They would be on the Ring, but the street is not the Ring. Get a Radical if you want to beat everyone on the Ring.

 

I also think that the reason they are not in front is because the monetary consequences of a crash would be 10 times higher than a GT3/430 etc..
I once saw an Enzo being driven by a pro pilot at Magny Cours, the owner had told the pilot that he could go all out (I guess he wasnt worried about $1m..) and even in the rain, he was eating GT3s/Stradales/Turbos like they were standing still..