r00t61

Or an "unsophisticated," wife-beater wearing pushrod motor.

Retired GM Engr

OK Major, you're the 'Ring MAN ! ! !
Time to drag out my old tired post.

Notice how I fudged between 7:40 and 7:45.

I think a low 7:40's is possible with a really clean lap, experienced driver, GOOD tires.
Under 7:40 and I will be TOTALLY AMAZED.

blandcastle

rockettc

I wonder how fast it could go with GREAT tires!

Zlicious

Thanks for the info..Anything else he said that is exciting in regards to performace in general?

Another Yellow

Sorry to repeat myself on this thread also but a number of people questioned me when I posted the 7:43 time back on July 5th and said it was a regular production Z06 and not the "Blue Devil". Guess I was correct with the time.

Wonder why David took so long to confirm it?

Frank

Scissors

Glad to hear that they have an official time for a production C6 now.

So now the official 'Vette list is:

8:18 - C5
7:59 - C6
7:56 - C5 CE Z06
7:43 - C6 Z06

DT

7:20 - C7
6:00 - C8

-1:00 - C9 (with optional time shift upgrade)

Lazerwolfe

Thanks for the info!

Scissors

i

Foosh

Thanks for the confirmation. A 13 second improvement on one lap is nothing short of astounding. For comparison purposes, imagine a NASCAR oval track race, as the winner crosses the finish line. A second place car, 13 seconds behind, would barely be visible in the rear view mirror.

Unless I missed it, I haven't seen anyone really confirm that the 7:43 number was produced on the stock F1s, but I doubt the C5 variant, or any of the other vehicles in the same class, were on stock tires either.

Another Yellow

Just for the record, the wheel is symmetrical. Some Corvette Team members get a chuckle from threads that say it's asymmetrical.

Tom Steele

Yes it is! The only thing I can think of to compare it to is the 22 second improvement from the C5 to the C5 Z06!

SWCDuke

All the Corvette 'Ring tests are done with the car in production trim, including the tires. At MOST, a fresh set of production tires may have been shaved when going for the final results.

Duke

Tom Steele

Frank,

I'm not sure how to take your post and IM on the subject. In the original post, I most certainly asked for a source. I didn't beat you up on whether you were right or wrong though. I'll never apologize for, or be wrong for, asking for a source. Nor should anyone else. It's just good fact gathering.

I may be reading your IM wrong, but if you are bragging - that is great. If you are suggesting that because someone asked for a source, that they were somehow "questioning you" then I think you are off base. There's nothing wrong with asking for a source. Until then, its just rumor. Rumors turn out to be correct approximately 50% of the time in my experience, which makes them poor information sources.

Foosh

Duke, I'm not questioning you, but I've seen the same thing said by many others. I'm a recovering scientist, however, and I always like to see definitive citations. I just don't recall seeing one.

I didn't see it in the account of Dave Hill's remarks last night either.

Cheers...............

PeteyPete

7:43....

Great job to everyone at the Corvette Team and GM!!!

Any info on the top speed?

Another Yellow

Tom, I copied my IM to you here being that you mentioned it in this thread. I was not bragging at all but merely saying that the source was correct.

Some things I find out about I must keep to myself and do. The lap time info I had was from someone who knew. Whether I post something or not, I never reveal the source as that might stop some of my information flow. There are times when Team Corvette wants the correct info out there about something and I may help with a post about it.

I certainly don't mind you asking the source so I'm sorry if I didn't explain it further to you at the time.

Frank

The IM read.

Z06 7:43 ring time

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Guess my source was right on the nose.

http://forums.corvetteforum.com/sho...38&forum_id=100

Frank

Retired GM Engr

Here is my rationale for "production trim", including tires.

If Dave Hill said 7:43 for a "C6 Z06" in a public forum (he apparently did) and said it it was production (maybe he did, maybe not) or did not say, but left the impresson it was production (who knows) THEN it had BETTER have production tires.

Repeating from my previous reply to a post on "did it really do 3.xx 0-60 mph".

Alphabet Soup = FTC. Google "FTC". Item # 1 is:

Federal Trade Commission
FTC works to eliminate unfair or deceptive marketplace practices.
Site includes areas of FTC involvement plus a complaint form for consumers.
www.ftc.gov/ftc/consumer.htm

Finally, if the 7:43 time is ever quoted in a GM ad, or in a magazine interview, (or a banquet "speech") and it wasn't on production tires, at LEAST one member of the GM Legal Staff is going to get a VERY LOW annual appraisal rating for not "properly vetting" the statement.

Dave Hill is WAY MORE than PERFECTLY aware of this.

And, now, for you conspiracy buffs: It might be "quasi-legal", but it's WAY too, too involved to do all the development and testing on softer tires, and put them on the initial pilot build and initial production cars, and create the legal paperwork trail, and then "suddenly" introduce a production change for the "real" tires that have been undergoing parallel development. Dave is "pretty powerful", but I don't think even he could hide that development effort and budget HIT. And, he's not that kind of guy.

1Day

thats is freakin fast...well i also predicted it around 7:45ish..anyhow

now what I dont understand is..ppl say the C6 Z06 is leaps and bounds ahead of the C6 incomparison to C5Z06 and C5..but the C5Z06 bettered the ring time by almost 22secs where as here the C6Z06 was only 16...

so my question goes..then isnt C5Z06 leaps and bound ahead of C5 vs C6Z06 over C6..