Racer

You do know, that nobody has a clue what you are talking about all the time, you know that right?

thebrander

Notch & Guibo,

With all due respect, I realize it absolutely sucks for you that your Porsches have not been very competitive this year in 24 & ALMS; and I also sympathize with the added insult to your injury that comes with having to defend Porsche's fraudulent Nurburgring times. But guys, coming on here to **** in our cheerios after the recent Corvette victories on several fronts is never going to change the fact that Corvettes are simply better than Porsches. GM invented them for the sole purpose of dominating the performance category as well as pissing excellence. They'll continue to do so, generation after generation. Open your hearts to the truth guys. Join us. There's still time.

Now, before you get all "huffy-puffy" for stating the truth, keep in mind that I said "with all due respect".

Yours truly,

The Brander

range96

and with a reduction of 168 hp to make it fair.

Sorry for the salt in your wounds. It's time to gloat guys.

Steve Snake Driver

And no carbon brakes allowed.

Notch

They are not my Porsches. Please show me where I have even mentioned the word "Porsche" in this thread prior to this post.

Fraudulent? Please provide proof.

I've done nothing of the sort. My posts here have not had anything at all to do with the "recent Corvette victories". They have been about the Vette that "didn't win", and then only with regard to the opinion by some that they can accurately predict the future of that car and the driver had there not been an accident. You need to work on your reading comprehension. Oh, and please don't make stuff up about my posts. Thanks.

Z07

I think you'll find that's the job of the manufacturer making the claim.

Until proven, all 'ring times default to being fraudulent and it's got to be that way for very obvious reasons. Otherwise all you get is a retarded bench-race, where the likes of Guibo asks, "well do you not think the GT2 RS is capable of 7:18?"

And the honest answer is 'yes', but what somebody thinks has got sweet FA to do with reality. In theory the ZR1 might be able to do 7:18 or even faster but only what's actually been done and proven counts. Same for any record.

How hard is it to produce a video anyway?

johnglenntwo

Right!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdqeM...eature=related

Thanks!

pcguy2u

johnglenntwo

Lets review my simple analysis:

1.)
That Porsche cost Corvette Racing a double podium finish.

No matter what if that Porsche wasn't there that incident wouldn't have happened!

2.)
If when he saw the hot shoed Magnussen going low he would have pinned it high, and backed off, Magnussen's suspension and apex would have been workable and they would have cleared each other the rest of the way.

Again! If the Porsche somehow got out of the way sooner it wouldn't have happened!

3.)
If Jan did that all by himself then your statement would be true! OTHERWISE IT IS A LOT OF HOT AIR!

Again, If he just lost it....

Pretty clear I think!

pcguy2u

Here's an example of what is not clear in what you say - you speak/write in riddles. If you had said what your last post (#87) says, it may have been well understood - some of your other posts are equally cryptic, I suspect in the interest of being humorous:


And of course, you have now edited what you wrote above (post #87) to represent something more intelligible:

Notch

So I asked thebrander to prove that Porsche's Ring times are fraudulent, and you opine that proving them fraudulent is the job of the manufacturer?

The claim by thebrander is that Porsches Ring times are fraudulent. I asked him to prove that the times are a fraudulent. The lack of video evidence does not mean Porsche is engaging in fraud.

BTW, Porsche is not interested in "establishing official Ring lap times" for their cars. "Official" Ring lap times are just not a big deal to them.

Steve Snake Driver

I can predict the future!

I predict this thread disappearing because of the same crap that made the other one disappear.

As for predicting the win possibility of the Corvette that crashed out, why is the 'prediction' from some parties to this thread that there was a 100 % certainty that it would have crashed at some other point prior to the checkered flag if it had not crashed when it did?

Notch

No one has made that prediction.

CrystalRedMetal ZR-1

I stopped talking about this a long time ago, but honestly this is getting a little old. Here are some facts:

1. You have no proof the GT2RS runs a 7:18 time.
- This means any support of that time on your behalf is a choice of yours to "believe" the manufacturers "claim".

2. You are not in a position to tell the general public what "Porsche is interested in".
- This means if Porsche feels official ring-times are not important to them, they will say so. Until then, everything you say about what "Porsche thinks", or how "Porsche isn't interested in...." etc. etc... is unofficial, and ultimately your opinion.

3. No-one can be sure what the GT2RS runs until there's documentation of this.
- If Porsche has documentation, and chooses not to share it with others, that's another story, but you likely wouldn't be any more privy to such information than the rest of the public in this case, so unless your claims come with facts to back it up, please stop advocating the time as "fact" when you actually don't have any...

4. We all have our opinions, and trusts, and beliefs.
- The fact remains that the GT2RS, (despite our opinions, trust in claims, or beliefs) has no proof of a 7:18 ring time. Any speculation is basically just that. AKA bench racing...

I respect your opinion, but lets not push opinions, beliefs, and claims so far as to misrepresent known facts. The fact of the matter, is that Porsche hasn't provided the facts...... Until further facts are revealed, we are simply speculating with the GT2RS, as are you. There's no argument against that, unless you have inside information that no-one else seems to have on the matter. In which case, it's just as easy to call BS, because we'd just be taking someone's word for it, as you are... which is just fine, but it's simply a belief until proven otherwise.

Can we put this to rest? We know no proof has come from Porsche, or any independent tester on the GT2RS where we can validate beliefs, expectations, or opinions against what Porsche claims... It's no use, don't you see?

- Bryan

Notch

I have no video proof, and have never claimed I did. I have the word of people who were there. I trust them and I believe what they say.


How do you know that?

Talk to thebrander, I didn't bring it up here.

Z07

Providing proof is the job of the manufacturer. Until proof is provided all claims are deemed fraudulent. Come on, you knew what I meant.

As stated above, all claims are fraudulent until proven otherwise. That's the way it has to be for obvious reasons. Testimony of a manufacturer falls some way short of proof, again for obvious reasons.

BS. Funny how they always conveniently let them slip. They like pretending not to be interested because it seems to justify the absence of evidence. Listen, if any manufacturer sets a 7:18 in a car in the year 2011 it will be caught on video. That's my honest take on this. Not capturing it on video makes no sense whatsoever.

So yes, I think the GT2 RS is theoretically capable of a 7:18 but has it done a 7:18? No. (Yes this last bit is just humble opinion AKA WENCH RACING.)

Notch

Two points...First, I can only go on what people write and post here. Words mean things, as does sentence structure. And second, do you know what "fraudulent" means? You and thebrander are accusing Porsche of fraud ("fraud: a deception deliberately practiced in order to secure unfair or unlawful gain) based just on their lack of interest in providing video proof of lap times. Accusing someone or some company of fraud is a serious charge.

CrystalRedMetal ZR-1

I agree 100%. I can see you believe these things. So we are in agreement in that you have no proof but you believe it has run 7:18. Moving on...

Well, are you?

If you are in a position to speak on Porsche's behalf, wouldn't you agree, your actions would speak volumes contrary to your recent posts in the form of spending the last decade on a Corvette forum, and occasionally evangelizing how much Porsche "doesn't care about Corvette sales, or official ring-times?"

Okay you got me.. It is my opinion that you aren't in the position to speak on Porsche's behalf. Got any proof otherwise? If your late-habits precede you, I expect not... Excuse my response, I'm just tired of "guessing games", something I hope you don't engage in as much as blind-faith following of a claimed 7:18 Ring time to the point of calling it "fact" in previous posts suggests.


Perpetuation of non-fact still has it's equal share of negative impact on this thread. Especially after what happened to the last.
While an undocumented/unproven claim of 7:18 by Porsche is in no way "fraudulent", it is much more accurately "not-valid..."


again I respect your opinion, but I think everyone knows your opinion on the matter. Re-stating your views on Porsche, implying they are facts, will get you more frustration with people in a Corvette forum. I'm only suggesting you save yourself the headache.

- Bryan

PS: This thread should be about the documented ZR1 Ring time, and it's Le Mans victory. Agreed?

johnglenntwo

Yes, maybe!

I meant what I originally said as I've noticed some guys going negative right when I have felt that I made a good point!Again, I edited it for more fun!

Notch

CrystalRedMetalZR-1 - You may want to review my posts in the thread. They have been made with regard to two topics. The first topic was about people claiming to be able to accurately predict the outcome of a race that had over seven hours of competition remaining. My replies were focused purely on the logic of such claims. The second topic was in a reply to a post that thebrander made to me personally (Guibo was also identified). I replied to that post without any intent other than offering a reply specifically to him.

You are obviously welcome to review every post I've made on this forum, and if you do you will see that I have never made disparaging remarks about the Vette, and when discussing other car brands I do not do so from the standpoint of "they are better than the Vette". As a matter of fact, a review of my posts will reflect that I'm of the opinion that "better" is a term that is highly personal and does not lend itself to a "one size fits all" definition.

I am a member of several (many) car forums. I like cars, as do many of my close friends. My circle of friends own, and have owned, MANY different brands of sports cars, and we never see the need to get into chest thumping about any aspect of car ownership. We are all past the "mine's bigger than yours" discussion, especially in terms of objective data.

I have several close friends who work for PAG (Germany) and PCNA (U.S.). They are not the guys who sweep the floors or take the trash out. They freely discuss many things with me, but it comes at a price; no association of their names with the information. You can choose to believe me about this, or you can choose not to. It's not a big deal to me either way.