Why not a C7.R performance package similiar to the ACR?
01-22-2016, 10:51 PM
#21
Le Mans Master
Well, you could say the same about the P1, Laferrari, GT3RS, 918 and every other track beast ever built though. Just because you don't see them regularly at road courses, doesn't make them invalid as machines.
I doubt ACR has really DIVERTED a Corvette sale more than possibly a few times. I also agree that GM hardly has their sights focused on anything Viper other than a tip of the hat at they come and go, in and out of existence.
The basis of my argument statement is, you never underestimate your "rival". Yes, Viper may be weak/invalid, but the fact is, it's grown a fan base. Regardless of what it sells, if you park a random Viper next to a random Corvette in a parking lot...there is no comparison to the attention the Viper will get. You could of course account that to simple "rarity" (i.e. lack of success selling any), but I believe it invokes more fantasy and excitement. You can't deny also that, much like the Corvette, the Viper has stepped its game up in refinement and quality.
During Vipers lifespan we've seen Dodge go through multiple transitions and changes. Looking at the same changes in GM, we've seen Corvette falter heavily, so we know that internal strain will impact the car itself, due to budget. Fiat/Chrysler though, along with its position with Ferrari is NOT to be underestimated. Don't think for a second anyone in that company will simply sign off Viper and it's fanbase...there is money to be made there.
You stay asleep on the Viper, that b*tch will bite one day and bite good. There comes a time when the big dawg needs to step up and say, "get back where you belong" and Corvette kind of needs to think about doing that. This isn't about MPG, sales figures and all that, it's about the basis of future buyers and ownership. The corvette team admitted, that with the design of the C7, they targeted childrens walls with that car. That's a long term position that shouldn't be discounted. Viper captured a lot of imagination over 4 generations...it WILL be back.
I doubt ACR has really DIVERTED a Corvette sale more than possibly a few times. I also agree that GM hardly has their sights focused on anything Viper other than a tip of the hat at they come and go, in and out of existence.
The basis of my argument statement is, you never underestimate your "rival". Yes, Viper may be weak/invalid, but the fact is, it's grown a fan base. Regardless of what it sells, if you park a random Viper next to a random Corvette in a parking lot...there is no comparison to the attention the Viper will get. You could of course account that to simple "rarity" (i.e. lack of success selling any), but I believe it invokes more fantasy and excitement. You can't deny also that, much like the Corvette, the Viper has stepped its game up in refinement and quality.
During Vipers lifespan we've seen Dodge go through multiple transitions and changes. Looking at the same changes in GM, we've seen Corvette falter heavily, so we know that internal strain will impact the car itself, due to budget. Fiat/Chrysler though, along with its position with Ferrari is NOT to be underestimated. Don't think for a second anyone in that company will simply sign off Viper and it's fanbase...there is money to be made there.
You stay asleep on the Viper, that b*tch will bite one day and bite good. There comes a time when the big dawg needs to step up and say, "get back where you belong" and Corvette kind of needs to think about doing that. This isn't about MPG, sales figures and all that, it's about the basis of future buyers and ownership. The corvette team admitted, that with the design of the C7, they targeted childrens walls with that car. That's a long term position that shouldn't be discounted. Viper captured a lot of imagination over 4 generations...it WILL be back.
Last edited by RC000E; 01-22-2016 at 10:51 PM.
01-22-2016, 11:38 PM
#22
Racer
So if the Corvette is meant to be a daily driver with a side of track capability while retaining it's creature comforts, then what happens when a particular electric car becomes better all around in both comfort and capability off the track? If the people who intend to buy a car meant for the track end up going with the Viper, because it's the better track car - then where does that leave the Corvette Z06?
Outside of the guys who have been life long Corvette fans and the few track guys that might prefer the looks of the Z06 over the ACR - what's going to happen when the Tesla destroys the Z06 on the street upto well over the speed limit and is able to carry the family with luggage in comfort? And if the Viper ACR destroys the Z06 on the track, where does that leave the Z06? Why would someone buy a Z06 over an ACR for the track, or why the Z06 over the Tesla on the street? Just an honest question... Z06 needs to be the best at something, or it will get left behind.
Outside of the guys who have been life long Corvette fans and the few track guys that might prefer the looks of the Z06 over the ACR - what's going to happen when the Tesla destroys the Z06 on the street upto well over the speed limit and is able to carry the family with luggage in comfort? And if the Viper ACR destroys the Z06 on the track, where does that leave the Z06? Why would someone buy a Z06 over an ACR for the track, or why the Z06 over the Tesla on the street? Just an honest question... Z06 needs to be the best at something, or it will get left behind.
Last edited by <<427_V8>>; 01-22-2016 at 11:38 PM.
01-23-2016, 05:51 AM
#23
Le Mans Master
Thus evolves the world of integration. Sports cars will all occupy the P1/Laferrari hybrid style systems. NSX will validate that it's possible to build this type of performance car at the 175k level. GM's Volt will likely act as the basis to expand that type of technology as well.
If I had to guess I'd think you'd go for a "fleet" average. We know the "Eray" has been trademarked. We know that the electric supercharger has been patented by GM. So, I see a potential for a potential Tesla/Volt approach Eray, a V8 equipped (small displacement turbo/supercharger) and a HALO hybrid (NSX competitor). That fleet may then lead to an average.
Whether that theory plays or not, I think you do properly recognize that there is a fork in the road approaching. My immediate fear with NSX, based upon some very preliminary reviews of the car, is that the "driver car" sensations are being deleted by electronics. These systems are numbing the purity of the cars, and making them feel like highly refined, electronics. The NSX hub motors and electric steering will likely take away all "feel" the car has, simply making it a point and shoot type of car without much driver engagement. Coming from a hugely defining predecessor, in terms of what that car achieved and represented (namely Senna chassis development), I think the impact on NSX will be that of excitement, but will also serve to bolster the predecessors value.
In short..."driver cars" are dying. It's what makes what the latest Miata achieved so exciting. That car is within 100lbs of it's initial offering in 1990. Low mass, focus on power to weight, lightweight construction and aero, coupled with small engines remains highly engaging and "fun".
If I had to guess I'd think you'd go for a "fleet" average. We know the "Eray" has been trademarked. We know that the electric supercharger has been patented by GM. So, I see a potential for a potential Tesla/Volt approach Eray, a V8 equipped (small displacement turbo/supercharger) and a HALO hybrid (NSX competitor). That fleet may then lead to an average.
Whether that theory plays or not, I think you do properly recognize that there is a fork in the road approaching. My immediate fear with NSX, based upon some very preliminary reviews of the car, is that the "driver car" sensations are being deleted by electronics. These systems are numbing the purity of the cars, and making them feel like highly refined, electronics. The NSX hub motors and electric steering will likely take away all "feel" the car has, simply making it a point and shoot type of car without much driver engagement. Coming from a hugely defining predecessor, in terms of what that car achieved and represented (namely Senna chassis development), I think the impact on NSX will be that of excitement, but will also serve to bolster the predecessors value.
In short..."driver cars" are dying. It's what makes what the latest Miata achieved so exciting. That car is within 100lbs of it's initial offering in 1990. Low mass, focus on power to weight, lightweight construction and aero, coupled with small engines remains highly engaging and "fun".
01-23-2016, 12:41 PM
#24
First of all the Z28 could have went faster but the track was damp/wet in places so the result is what it is. Secondly, the ZL1 is comparable to Z28 only in straight line metrics otherwise all bets are off. The gearing, suspension, tires, and brakes account for most of that time. The supercharging has nothing to do with the "lack" of ZL1 performance.
On track, weight and complexity are the ENEMY. Attempting to make up for large deficits here by adding horsepower (especially if it adds weight and complexity) is problematic.
01-23-2016, 01:28 PM
#25
Le Mans Master
^That's should be pretty apparent to most people, given the fact that the C6Z07 and C6ZR1 were separated by 130+hp/120tq but only separated by 2 seconds at Nurburgring. Not to mention Mero said the Z07 was far less work to get the time as well.
Less mass>more hp/tq
The answer to making these cars faster isn't more power. These are at the limit of the tire and what you can put down with the weight distribution of the car. Tadge knew this, but budget forced him into this car. This is a ZR1 that was improved upon in whatever way they could manage/muster.
The car either has to get lighter, has to be more linear/controllable in power delivery (variable boost/boost by gear/etc) or needs more grip.
Less mass>more hp/tq
The answer to making these cars faster isn't more power. These are at the limit of the tire and what you can put down with the weight distribution of the car. Tadge knew this, but budget forced him into this car. This is a ZR1 that was improved upon in whatever way they could manage/muster.
The car either has to get lighter, has to be more linear/controllable in power delivery (variable boost/boost by gear/etc) or needs more grip.
01-23-2016, 01:54 PM
#26
Tech Contributor
Member Since: Mar 1999
Location: Northern VA
Posts: 10,067
Received 3,806 Likes
on
1,146 Posts
"Ask Tadge" Producer
01-23-2016, 02:02 PM
#27
Le Mans Master
Well sure, but all the electronics are doing is getting the maximum out of the tire beyond what human motor skills and sensations are able to. Making those finite adjustments are definitely handy. I often wonder if Pobst is really using the systems in the car as intended. I seem to recall a test where even Milner couldn't outperform the PTM. Again though, why isn't GM ensuring these media tests are setting the car up properly and in the correct modes for when these journalists hop in and out?
Engineering can certainly think its way through getting more out of the car, as proven by what Tadge and the team achieved with the C7Z in general, but end of day you're still limited by the available grip to accelerate the mass of the vehicle. I mean, let's be real, we know for a FACT that Tadge stated internally that the ZR1 was putting the car to its limits. The fact they squeaked some more out of the ZR1 recipe with the Z06 by adding aero, ELSD, new gen mag ride, etc...it's an accomplishment for sure but...what do you do now?
You often pick apart our arguments but you also don't state much of your own theory either. So, you answer...where do you go from here to improve upon the C7Z06? Do you think the Z06 is already reaching to high as is? Should worry less about the performance as it is today even?
Engineering can certainly think its way through getting more out of the car, as proven by what Tadge and the team achieved with the C7Z in general, but end of day you're still limited by the available grip to accelerate the mass of the vehicle. I mean, let's be real, we know for a FACT that Tadge stated internally that the ZR1 was putting the car to its limits. The fact they squeaked some more out of the ZR1 recipe with the Z06 by adding aero, ELSD, new gen mag ride, etc...it's an accomplishment for sure but...what do you do now?
You often pick apart our arguments but you also don't state much of your own theory either. So, you answer...where do you go from here to improve upon the C7Z06? Do you think the Z06 is already reaching to high as is? Should worry less about the performance as it is today even?
Last edited by RC000E; 01-23-2016 at 02:04 PM.
01-23-2016, 02:52 PM
#28
Tech Contributor
Member Since: Mar 1999
Location: Northern VA
Posts: 10,067
Received 3,806 Likes
on
1,146 Posts
"Ask Tadge" Producer
I often wonder if Pobst is really using the systems in the car as intended. I seem to recall a test where even Milner couldn't outperform the PTM. Again though, why isn't GM ensuring these media tests are setting the car up properly and in the correct modes for when these journalists hop in and out?
1. Randy typically shuts everything off. No offense to Randy, but he's misinformed regarding the PTM and thinks he can out-drive it. He can't. He's very good, but he isn't that good.
2. Correct. Milner did a stint with Road and Track (I think) with the previous gen ZR1, showing how lap times improved with various modes of PTM, and he ultimately was faster with it on than with everything off.
PTM was designed to make a fast driver faster by allowing them to be smoother with their throttle inputs. That's it. It's really that simple (the algorithms behind it aren't so simple). Before hitting the apex, push foot to floor and drive. The system will deal out as much torque as the grip, suspension, etc will let it. That versus you as the driver trying to modulate the throttle through the corner. While drivers may think that makes them "better drivers" (and it might), it will also result in them being slower.
It's a total cheater's tool.
3. They do send representatives. Whether those representatives (think: Jim Mero) are listened to or not is another thing entirely. Unfortunately.
You often pick apart our arguments but you also don't state much of your own theory either. So, you answer...where do you go from here to improve upon the C7Z06? Do you think the Z06 is already reaching to high as is? Should worry less about the performance as it is today even?
I like the word Tadge has used in interviews: bandwidth. It's a great way to describe the Corvette. The Vette has never been the best at anything. It's been epically great at everything. It takes an immense amount of engineering prowess to make a car like that: one that is as healthy on the road running errands, on the road taking long trips, on the road driving to work and back, or tearing the **** out of a race track. There are cars better suited for daily driving, running errands, taking long trips, and tearing up a race track. But none of them do it all well.
The Corvette does. And should continue to do so.
I'm not sure how I earned the "I don't care about performance" label in your eyes. I've been a track rat since the mid-90s, always driving a Corvette. The difference between myself and someone who is laser-focused on their lap times is that I understand the car I'm driving is also a street car. The other difference is that I can see the strategic picture and I understand: focused-built cars, in almost every case: fail. They cost way too much to build because there's little to no amortization, and they rarely sell well because of that higher price.
Given all of that, I really don't have any theories that pan out properly. Anything I think of, I can counter almost immediately. The counter to every one of them is generally: cost. It costs real money to engineer, validate, and certify things. Any changes I could propose would require expenditures in all three of those areas, and none of them are inexpensive. Would I like to see the Corvette release a model that mops the floor with everything it goes up against at the track? Sure. Would I buy that car if it were stripped down, missing a lot of the creature comforts, and caused me to cough up blood every time I ran over a pebble? Nope. I wouldn't buy it now, and I wouldn't have bought it in my 20s when I first started tracking Corvettes.
Last edited by jvp; 01-23-2016 at 02:52 PM.
01-23-2016, 06:19 PM
#29
Jvp
There are two glaring misnomers in your statements that make all the rest of your arguments moot.
One: that a performance focused car has to cost a bunch of money in terms of development or price.
Two: that a performance focused car won't sell
Please cite the numerous examples of either that you speak of. I have mentioned several examples to the contrary.
At least you seem to admit that it's your agenda that drives your assertions. Which is fine, but relevant.
There are two glaring misnomers in your statements that make all the rest of your arguments moot.
One: that a performance focused car has to cost a bunch of money in terms of development or price.
Two: that a performance focused car won't sell
Please cite the numerous examples of either that you speak of. I have mentioned several examples to the contrary.
At least you seem to admit that it's your agenda that drives your assertions. Which is fine, but relevant.
Last edited by FlamingZ06; 01-23-2016 at 06:21 PM.
01-23-2016, 08:00 PM
#30
Scraping the splitter.
Well, you could say the same about the P1, Laferrari, GT3RS, 918 and every other track beast ever built though. Just because you don't see them regularly at road courses, doesn't make them invalid as machines.
I doubt ACR has really DIVERTED a Corvette sale more than possibly a few times. I also agree that GM hardly has their sights focused on anything Viper other than a tip of the hat at they come and go, in and out of existence.
The basis of my argument statement is, you never underestimate your "rival". Yes, Viper may be weak/invalid, but the fact is, it's grown a fan base. Regardless of what it sells, if you park a random Viper next to a random Corvette in a parking lot...there is no comparison to the attention the Viper will get. You could of course account that to simple "rarity" (i.e. lack of success selling any), but I believe it invokes more fantasy and excitement. You can't deny also that, much like the Corvette, the Viper has stepped its game up in refinement and quality.
During Vipers lifespan we've seen Dodge go through multiple transitions and changes. Looking at the same changes in GM, we've seen Corvette falter heavily, so we know that internal strain will impact the car itself, due to budget. Fiat/Chrysler though, along with its position with Ferrari is NOT to be underestimated. Don't think for a second anyone in that company will simply sign off Viper and it's fanbase...there is money to be made there.
You stay asleep on the Viper, that b*tch will bite one day and bite good. There comes a time when the big dawg needs to step up and say, "get back where you belong" and Corvette kind of needs to think about doing that. This isn't about MPG, sales figures and all that, it's about the basis of future buyers and ownership. The corvette team admitted, that with the design of the C7, they targeted childrens walls with that car. That's a long term position that shouldn't be discounted. Viper captured a lot of imagination over 4 generations...it WILL be back.
I doubt ACR has really DIVERTED a Corvette sale more than possibly a few times. I also agree that GM hardly has their sights focused on anything Viper other than a tip of the hat at they come and go, in and out of existence.
The basis of my argument statement is, you never underestimate your "rival". Yes, Viper may be weak/invalid, but the fact is, it's grown a fan base. Regardless of what it sells, if you park a random Viper next to a random Corvette in a parking lot...there is no comparison to the attention the Viper will get. You could of course account that to simple "rarity" (i.e. lack of success selling any), but I believe it invokes more fantasy and excitement. You can't deny also that, much like the Corvette, the Viper has stepped its game up in refinement and quality.
During Vipers lifespan we've seen Dodge go through multiple transitions and changes. Looking at the same changes in GM, we've seen Corvette falter heavily, so we know that internal strain will impact the car itself, due to budget. Fiat/Chrysler though, along with its position with Ferrari is NOT to be underestimated. Don't think for a second anyone in that company will simply sign off Viper and it's fanbase...there is money to be made there.
You stay asleep on the Viper, that b*tch will bite one day and bite good. There comes a time when the big dawg needs to step up and say, "get back where you belong" and Corvette kind of needs to think about doing that. This isn't about MPG, sales figures and all that, it's about the basis of future buyers and ownership. The corvette team admitted, that with the design of the C7, they targeted childrens walls with that car. That's a long term position that shouldn't be discounted. Viper captured a lot of imagination over 4 generations...it WILL be back.
My statements were in response to the claim that ACR's were suddenly going to be popular at the track. While there may be anecdotal examples of more than one at a particular track on a particular day, it's going to be far from the norm.
I have no problem with your comments, but you seem extremely focused on trying to prove that GM should build an ACR version of the Corvette. You continue to maintain the position that Viper is some sort of success when by the very most important metric, it's not. The ACR is very fast on-track using a very basic formula. A very few people like that. That's great for them.
S.
01-23-2016, 08:09 PM
#31
Scraping the splitter.
Originally Posted by ;1591382855
So if the Corvette is meant to be a daily driver with a side of track capability while retaining it's creature comforts, then what happens when a particular electric car becomes better all around in both comfort and capability off the track? If the people who intend to buy a car meant for the track end up going with the Viper, because it's the better track car - then where does that leave the Corvette Z06?
Outside of the guys who have been life long Corvette fans and the few track guys that might prefer the looks of the Z06 over the ACR - what's going to happen when the Tesla destroys the Z06 on the street upto well over the speed limit and is able to carry the family with luggage in comfort? And if the Viper ACR destroys the Z06 on the track, where does that leave the Z06? Why would someone buy a Z06 over an ACR for the track, or why the Z06 over the Tesla on the street? Just an honest question... Z06 needs to be the best at something, or it will get left behind.
Outside of the guys who have been life long Corvette fans and the few track guys that might prefer the looks of the Z06 over the ACR - what's going to happen when the Tesla destroys the Z06 on the street upto well over the speed limit and is able to carry the family with luggage in comfort? And if the Viper ACR destroys the Z06 on the track, where does that leave the Z06? Why would someone buy a Z06 over an ACR for the track, or why the Z06 over the Tesla on the street? Just an honest question... Z06 needs to be the best at something, or it will get left behind.
A Tesla (even the older version), AMG E63, Audi S6/S7/RS6 or any number of other 4-door sedans will crush it on the street from a stop to pretty much any legal speed. And there are quite a few other cars out there that'll outrun it on-track, including pretty much any Viper, GT3, etc.. But you still bought a car that wasn't anywhere near the best at anything.
But if the C7 Z06 isn't the best on-track, or the best on the street, it's a failure?
S.
01-23-2016, 08:56 PM
#32
Le Mans Master
01-25-2016, 05:35 PM
#33
Melting Slicks
Great discussion. Reading through the thread now and should have comments and data by tomorrow.
01-25-2016, 08:11 PM
#35
Here is some data
Akebono - rear brake pads
Bassani - X-pipe
B&M - Ripper shifter
BFGoodrich - custom 265/40ZR-18 tires
Bilstein - gas-charged front and rear shock absorbers
Borla Performance Industries - mufflers and side-exit exhaust pipes
Brembo - aluminum 4-piston front brake calipers, front rotors
Canton Racing Products - oil pan and windage tray
Carillo - connecting rods
Dana Perfect Circle - piston rings
Eibach Springs, Inc. - 800 lb./in. front springs and 750 lb./in. rear springs
Federal Mogul - engine bearings
Fuel Safe Systems - 22-gallon bladder-type fuel cell
K&N - cylindrical air filter
McLeod - aluminum flywheel
Multimatic - carbon-fiber front brake heat shields
Recaro - seats
Tremec - T56 6-speed transmission
Visteon - steering, differential
And about 500 other parts that were in common with no other model built at that time, including an aero package that reduced front end lift by 10x and increased rear downforce 3x, with reasonably low drag.
Nobody wanted one though...
I cringe to think how much that cost to engineer and validate.
Akebono - rear brake pads
Bassani - X-pipe
B&M - Ripper shifter
BFGoodrich - custom 265/40ZR-18 tires
Bilstein - gas-charged front and rear shock absorbers
Borla Performance Industries - mufflers and side-exit exhaust pipes
Brembo - aluminum 4-piston front brake calipers, front rotors
Canton Racing Products - oil pan and windage tray
Carillo - connecting rods
Dana Perfect Circle - piston rings
Eibach Springs, Inc. - 800 lb./in. front springs and 750 lb./in. rear springs
Federal Mogul - engine bearings
Fuel Safe Systems - 22-gallon bladder-type fuel cell
K&N - cylindrical air filter
McLeod - aluminum flywheel
Multimatic - carbon-fiber front brake heat shields
Recaro - seats
Tremec - T56 6-speed transmission
Visteon - steering, differential
And about 500 other parts that were in common with no other model built at that time, including an aero package that reduced front end lift by 10x and increased rear downforce 3x, with reasonably low drag.
Nobody wanted one though...
I cringe to think how much that cost to engineer and validate.
01-25-2016, 10:04 PM
#36
Safety Car
The word "enthusiast" has been thrown around a lot lately and I have a few questions....
- What makes one an enthusiast?
- Is it a monolithic group, or can it be diverse?
- If it is diverse who matters the most or are we all equal?
- If we're equal... I ask again why should the expense of dedicated parts for the few be a tax for the whole?
You are overcomplicating things because the discussion is about track cars. An enthusiast in this case is someone that tracks their car. Everyone in that group is equal and can be diverse in any other way.
GM doesn't have to tax everyone. They can start with a Z51 or Z06 and build a reliable, fast, and fun to drive track car. Whatever it costs extra they can tack on the price at cost or at cost plus markup. Then you might say, but this thing will lose money, fine. Calculate how much it will lose by forecasting a small group of buyers and spread the loss equally over the forecasted buyer group in the form of higher M.S.R.P. It's not rocket science to allocate the true cost.
But in reality there is always a tax for the whole. Some of it is price: I pay for sensors that turn on my headlights automatically, OnStar, a fancy key with sensors for those who lock their keys in the car too often. Some of it extra bulk: I pay for a 7th gear, AFM, skip shift and other fuel efficiency measures that I'd be glad to pay the guzzler fee to do without. Why do you think this is an improper way to spread out costs of making a better track car across all buyers when all track guys have to suffer the costs of making a better luxury car for those that want more plush?
I like to think of myself as an enthusiast that understands that word has so many different meanings in today's age of endless options. I've hung out with Corvette: drag racers, roll racers, weekend only cruisers, waxes, and yes track rats. After driving over 60K miles in my obsolete 2013 C6 (
looking at you Tadge), I've come to realize that the modern Corvette platform does not have a true 1:1 competitor.Wifey is from L.A. & San Diego so based on my anecdotal evidence I assume a "typical" track weekend in Cali particularly at Laguna or Sonoma looks like the stuff dreams are made of. So once again I question if anyones anecdotal evidence in such a place aligns true with the heartbeat of the track rat community. I also ask which is the better pulse of the community a track event with 10-15 C6/C7 variants or 3-5 GenIV & GenV Vipers with maybe the occasional ACR two tops.
If GM is supposed to maximize the number of GM cars at track events then they should build a Miata competitor. That is the number 1 track car by quantity. But the Corvette isn't and shouldn't be about that. The Z06 should be the most popular car at the track in it's class, which is the fastest production car. I don't see why GM can't do this with an FMR-aluminum-transaxle chassis with composite body as a starting point. It should be straightforward to beat the Viper at everything but GM isn't trying.
I agree that the C7R was a missed opportunity
but I don't think it is as dire as you put it. Corvette has "racecar" DNA in spades but the reality is ... its a street car and will always be that. I blame the Internet, YouTube, and lazy automotive journalist for reinforcing this stupid narrative that street cars can be and/or are racecars. Real race cars have little in common with street cars because they have one mission: "lowest laptime possible while not violating any regulations." But in many ways a street car that is meant to do well at the track is the same, lowest laptime possible while not violating any regulations! The regulations are different, more restrictive in some ways, less in others!
I partially agree with this portion of your statement, but at the end of he day the question becomes "How fast do you want to go? Well how much money do you have?"
Yes, indeed. All you can ask for is a reliable car that is the fastest in its price class. In many ways the manual Z51 is the closest to the goal for its price point. If GM includes the GMPP second radiator from factory and deletes the AFM valves as done on the Z06 that car is good to go and has only one rival at its price point: Mustang 350.
There is however no competitor for the ACR Viper at this time. Only hypercars can compete with it and they are 7 times more expensive and sold out. So GM has to equal the ACR speed at the same ACR pricepoint or equal the price point but beat the ACR times.
Right here you're thinking like a consumer who's desire is a focused outcome but in large organizations that is not how it works at all. Specifically most of my day job deals with the specific tuning and the validation of subsystems. It takes several engineers and weeks sometimes months of testing to improve 3-5% From a vehicular stand point I can assume the amount of validation, certification, documention associated with such a change is greater. And if you say well they should just ram it thorough... sadly that what happened with the ignition scandal and unfortunately some people lost their lives. Trust me the process sucks for us on the inside too but there is a reason for everything.
The process is desirable, ok, I agree with that. Not sure it's all optimized cost wise or that it's as expensive as you and JVP make it seem. Sounds to me more like an excuse to not manufacture a car that turns little profit than an overwhelming cost. GM's ethos is to provide a lower cost car that does what the competitor's car is doing while turning a profit however minimal. GM has to think outside of its box on an ACR competitor. The market is too thin there to justify the production of a more extreme Z06 with a hefty profit margin. They have to think of it in terms of building the brand and engaging the enthusiast today and tomorrow so that future Corvette generations will survive.
Just because you don't believe what their working on is exciting doesn't mean the feel they same way. Rarely does the end customer understand what it takes to get a product out the door not do they have the patience or understanding to rejoice in the smallest success. I'm willing to bet that someone on their team was excited that their idea and implementation avoided the gas guzzler tax (manual only), but most customers are like .. Why have cylinder deactivation
Engineers of yesterday thought about landing on the moon, engineers of today have to think about efficiency. Combine that with the fact that an engineer's salary is many times under that of most bankers or lawyers and this is data you can see nowadays. They need the dream. It surely explains why a lot of engineering talent is imported nowadays.
My experience with skip shift, AFM, and the 7th speed dictates that the skip shift is merely a system that tricks the EPA testing but has no real world advantage, and that only one of the two (AFM or the 7th gear) are needed in real application. If the 7th gear is used the 4 cylinder mode doesn't kick in. Who is going to go in the eco mode but not choose a gear that is proper for gas saving? It makes no sense, so it must be that it only works with the EPA's routine.
I think your math needs a little perspective. The Viper has been out of production multiple times in that 23 year lifespan. The corvette is at 60+ years with only a single year of none production if my memory is correct. Therefore not an apple-to-apples comparison. Also their sales numbers prove that they aren't getting both either. For the record, I don't expect a Viper to do Corvette sales numbers but I do expect them the be solvent from a business perspective. To date they haven't and honestly its sad
. I'm a big fan of the Viper TA 2.0, it sounds like azz but it is truly a kool car and I love seeing it on track with me. But the truth is kool cars don't live long when the moneys tight.The proper comparison is the number of years there was a Viper in the dealership available for purchase. I haven't checked that...you are correct and I might be off a couple of years. I don't think a small company should risk solvency to create a Viper ACR. Agreed. But I do think that one of the largest car makers in the world should give a little to the enthusiasts.
If you're still here this is my last point.
In my opinion $100K+ track cars are silly 
, especially when they don't come with cages and proper worst case situation safety equipment. I know Z06's, Vipers, the GT3 brothers, Ferrari's, McLarens... are awesome but really what are we talking about. The only appeal of these cars is their street manners because at that price point every buyers asking for a 2-in-1 even if he/she doesn't admit it.
On the low end $125K reasonably can get you a 35K tow vehicle, a 40K full blown race car w/ spares parts, 15K trailer, 10K in garage space, and 25K for track days & miscellaneous consumables. Granted I semi-made those numbers but in short with that budget I know I could have a car that would be faster than all listed above and significantly be safer than all of them combined.
At the end of the day it comes down to "How fast do you want to go? How much money do you have?", especially when they don't come with cages and proper worst case situation safety equipment. I know Z06's, Vipers, the GT3 brothers, Ferrari's, McLarens... are awesome but really what are we talking about. The only appeal of these cars is their street manners because at that price point every buyers asking for a 2-in-1 even if he/she doesn't admit it. On the low end $125K reasonably can get you a 35K tow vehicle, a 40K full blown race car w/ spares parts, 15K trailer, 10K in garage space, and 25K for track days & miscellaneous consumables. Granted I semi-made those numbers but in short with that budget I know I could have a car that would be faster than all listed above and significantly be safer than all of them combined.
For many reasons. 1. People may not have more room than for one car in their garage, let alone a tow vehicle or a trailer. A racecar requires real estate that many can't get in big cities. 2. It's a pain in the *** to have that much machinery, to maintain, to store, to keep charged, or whatever. This results in time lost. 3. As odd as it sounds it's not as cool as the latest production car made. 4. Race engines tend to have short lifespans to deliver what the ACR production car delivers. 5. You get no warranty, so if you blow up that race engine every season you are buying it every season. 6. A lot of race cars are light, but a lot of them are single seaters to get there. I like to have passengers on track.
Randy said he ran PTM. No excuse here.
01-25-2016, 11:04 PM
#37
Drifting
Here is some data
Akebono - rear brake pads
Bassani - X-pipe
B&M - Ripper shifter
BFGoodrich - custom 265/40ZR-18 tires
Bilstein - gas-charged front and rear shock absorbers
Borla Performance Industries - mufflers and side-exit exhaust pipes
Brembo - aluminum 4-piston front brake calipers, front rotors
Canton Racing Products - oil pan and windage tray
Carillo - connecting rods
Dana Perfect Circle - piston rings
Eibach Springs, Inc. - 800 lb./in. front springs and 750 lb./in. rear springs
Federal Mogul - engine bearings
Fuel Safe Systems - 22-gallon bladder-type fuel cell
K&N - cylindrical air filter
McLeod - aluminum flywheel
Multimatic - carbon-fiber front brake heat shields
Recaro - seats
Tremec - T56 6-speed transmission
Visteon - steering, differential
And about 500 other parts that were in common with no other model built at that time, including an aero package that reduced front end lift by 10x and increased rear downforce 3x, with reasonably low drag.
Nobody wanted one though...
I cringe to think how much that cost to engineer and validate.
Akebono - rear brake pads
Bassani - X-pipe
B&M - Ripper shifter
BFGoodrich - custom 265/40ZR-18 tires
Bilstein - gas-charged front and rear shock absorbers
Borla Performance Industries - mufflers and side-exit exhaust pipes
Brembo - aluminum 4-piston front brake calipers, front rotors
Canton Racing Products - oil pan and windage tray
Carillo - connecting rods
Dana Perfect Circle - piston rings
Eibach Springs, Inc. - 800 lb./in. front springs and 750 lb./in. rear springs
Federal Mogul - engine bearings
Fuel Safe Systems - 22-gallon bladder-type fuel cell
K&N - cylindrical air filter
McLeod - aluminum flywheel
Multimatic - carbon-fiber front brake heat shields
Recaro - seats
Tremec - T56 6-speed transmission
Visteon - steering, differential
And about 500 other parts that were in common with no other model built at that time, including an aero package that reduced front end lift by 10x and increased rear downforce 3x, with reasonably low drag.
Nobody wanted one though...
I cringe to think how much that cost to engineer and validate.
01-26-2016, 12:57 AM
#38
Drifting
Specifically, the GT racing cars I've seen with my own eyes are extremely different from street cars. Even without they safety equipment the suspension, aero, and focused mission of high performance via lowest laptime makes them not so great on the street. The only cars that I've see that are similar to their production counterparts are the Challenge Ferrari (s), Trefeo Lamborghini, and the Viper GTD. Yet even in street trim none of those vehicles have the same "bandwidth" as the Corvette, this is why I feel no true 1:1 competitor exists.
The process is desirable, ok, I agree with that. Not sure it's all optimized cost wise or that it's as expensive as you and JVP make it seem. Sounds to me more like an excuse to not manufacture a car that turns little profit than an overwhelming cost. GM's ethos is to provide a lower cost car that does what the competitor's car is doing while turning a profit however minimal. GM has to think outside of its box on an ACR competitor. The market is too thin there to justify the production of a more extreme Z06 with a hefty profit margin. They have to think of it in terms of building the brand and engaging the enthusiast today and tomorrow so that future Corvette generations will survive.
Engineers of yesterday thought about landing on the moon, engineers of today have to think about efficiency. Combine that with the fact that an engineer's salary is many times under that of most bankers or lawyers and this is data you can see nowadays. They need the dream. It surely explains why a lot of engineering talent is imported nowadays.
My wife once heard that ... "good engineers take what was once unconceivable and make it common." And to me that is clearly what the corvette team has done. I'd guess a 650HP vehicle able to easily last more than 100K miles while simultaneous achieving more than reasonable fuel economy was not a big enough dream?
And to the second point. Engineering talent isn't imported it just seems that way to the casual observer. What I can say is that in my opinion the average American doesn't show in actually interest in the hard sciences, therefore the amount people going into the STEM field isn't high.
For many reasons. 1. People may not have more room than for one car in their garage, let alone a tow vehicle or a trailer. A racecar requires real estate that many can't get in big cities. 2. It's a pain in the *** to have that much machinery, to maintain, to store, to keep charged, or whatever. This results in time lost. 3. As odd as it sounds it's not as cool as the latest production car made. 4. Race engines tend to have short lifespans to deliver what the ACR production car delivers. 5. You get no warranty, so if you blow up that race engine every season you are buying it every season. 6. A lot of race cars are light, but a lot of them are single seaters to get there. I like to have passengers on track.
Finally, I'm not saying the Z06 shouldn't be better I just think chasing after the ACR hype if foolish. Honestly, with a decent driver the Z06 will be faster than 9 out of 10 cars at any given track day and with a good driver that number gets real close to 10 out of 10.
01-26-2016, 08:38 AM
#39
Le Mans Master
I agree with you overall (even though you're always buckin me), and there is no dispute that Corvette has "won the war" versus Viper overall. By the simple fact the car for decades can't really get traction to keep its doors opened support that.
MY only point is, if companies always followed the mindset of "sell, sell ,sell" versus putting themselves out there a little, we'd never see cars like the ACR, LFA, Veyron, FordGT, etc. These are the cars that invoke excitement and promote the overall brand.
I go on instagram, where I assure you the demographics are YOUNG, and there are near robotic statements being made about the Z06...overheat, got spanked by old GTR, Viper ACR kills it, etc. True or untrue, your future buying pool are these people. The old boys of the 60's, who only ever dreamed of a Corvette are going to be gone one day, and people are going to buy based upon their memories of what they couldn't afford when they were 20, 30, etc. Point is, creating these cars that aren't necessarily profitable, go to future sales and demographics...and one thing you CAN'T deny is that Corvette has a longstanding demographics problem that's only gotten worse.
If GM and Pratt would just build 300 special edition cars...ANYTHING DAMNIT...the value, even if its a break-even, JUST so the media and team Corvette could claim some visible marketing triumphs...the payoff long term is highly debatable against the "sell, sell, sell...volume, it's a great daily, etc"
Last edited by RC000E; 01-26-2016 at 08:41 AM.
01-26-2016, 11:46 AM
#40
I go on instagram, where I assure you the demographics are YOUNG, and there are near robotic statements being made about the Z06...overheat, got spanked by old GTR, Viper ACR kills it, etc.
.
.
.
If GM and Pratt would just build 300 special edition cars...ANYTHING DAMNIT...the value, even if its a break-even, JUST so the media and team Corvette could claim some visible marketing triumphs...the payoff long term is highly debatable against the "sell, sell, sell...volume, it's a great daily, etc"
.
.
.
If GM and Pratt would just build 300 special edition cars...ANYTHING DAMNIT...the value, even if its a break-even, JUST so the media and team Corvette could claim some visible marketing triumphs...the payoff long term is highly debatable against the "sell, sell, sell...volume, it's a great daily, etc"
Also ironic, is that going into the C7 the C6 was considered a very fast car...for the money. For the money meant that it's interior was substandard, as was its refinement. Now, with C7, there are few complaints about the interior, however its performance is called into question. ...Nevermind that the only cars that consistently outperform the C7 either cost more or are more focus specialized machines, as is Corvette tradition.
Frankly, I always figured Corvette should just be Corvette, people who care about image will always find some excuse not to buy.