I would agree with this, if your purpose in buying any of these cars is to drive it for track times on a closed circuit, on bone stock tires. Outside of mag journalists and factory drivers, how many people actually do this?
What % of the benefits you gain in the new Corvette is a result of track testing? What % of the benefits is the result of road testing?

To distill the discussion for a moment, suppose we theorize that a car can drive itself using GPS coordinates or any other electronic means. If such a car is 20s faster than another car driven by a human, is it necessarily better?

 

You are right...being competetive with the Z06 is the same as 2nd place to it! Or 1st loser!

 

Also, it better beat the GS or we have a serious problem Houston.

 

I remember GM used to have their finished cars do a bunch of autocross, road racing, and a full speed large oval to empty the tank.

The Ring seems also to be a standard of theirs!

Cool June! Standard!

 

Still stuck on what "Todays Z06" means, but, still guessing less the Z07's wheels, tires, frame stiffener(?), and extra fiber. Which would put it at the level of the older ZR1 without all the HP, and latest the PTM!

Interesting!

 

Originally Posted by michaelinmech
And the best way to measure the advancements in these systems is track times. And the best way to compare car A to car B is comparing track times. So while you may not be headed to the Nurburgring with your new Corvette, you will still benefit immensely from the track developed advancements.

Well you are substituting 'eliminating the driving experience' for 'saving you car and your *** so they are both around for the next driving experience'. All the electronic safety systems can be disengaged if you so choose. And if you want the 'better' you describe, take the train or fly - they are both imminently safer . . . .

 

My 09 Z06 came with first generation run craps vs. later ones that came with Sport Cups, so yes, this is a good point since it is a very vague statement. Picking the worst possible set up on Z06 and then compare it against best equipped C7 can skew results quite a bit. Barnum and Bailey and Billy Mays would agree.

 

I fully agree with track testing for compressing development time for duarability (though much of that need can be reduced via stress failure modeling, heat transfer simulation, etc). That, by and large, is what the Europeans have been using the 'Ring for. They also test on the autobahn and do hot-weather testing in Death Valley, South Africa, etc. Whether they use the 'Ring for tuning to get outright lap times is another matter entirely. Jaguar, for instance, does 80% of its damper tuning on the road, despite the fact that they occupy garage space at the Nordschleife. What figure do you suppose it is for Chevrolet?
I did not say safer == better. I'm talking about what it means to deliver a good, driver-oriented sports car. I agree that the track is the best way to objectify the fractional 10/10ths differences between cars, but is that the only way to measure progress? And from the customer point of view, what is the real benefit? My question still stands: Would such a self-driving car be better? (I'm not talking about safer, I'm talking about whether faster == better.)
Is a car that can get a 7:11 only after dozens of tries, where most laps are 7:20-7:30, better than a car that can hit 7:16, but with much smaller deviations (typically 7:16-7:20)? What if the 7:11 car requires a professional race car driver (who bins it on a 7:10 attempt), while the 7:16 car can have its limits and best lap time easily exploited by a journalist with only 2 flying laps? The raw lap times from manufacturers tell us nothing about that.

To clarify my previous point about lap times selling car magazines...there is not a reputable car magazine on earth that I know of that prints pure, raw data specs (0-60, 1/4-mile, lap times, etc) and absolutely nothing else. I think we all know why: It's because it would be boring as f***. On the other hand, there are penty of reputable car magazines that compare cars on the road, often with no lap times at all to speak of. These magazines do quite well. It is not by accident that they publish high-quality photographs of the cars in question. This seems to support drmustang's point about aesthetics being a prime motivator of buying a sports car. I think when most people cite "performance" as a factor, they are talking about sufficient performance. The kind you can easily feel between a Corvette vs Miata. When it comes down to fractional differences between a Z07 vs an ACR, I think matters of practicality, brand allegiance, and aesthetics count for far more than whatever the differences are on some track thousands of miles away that few people ever drive at the 10/10ths limit. Is the ACR a better car simply because it might be fractionally faster? I'm not convinced that it is.

 

Wouldn't that technically be second generation run craps? I thought the C5 had even older ones. The statement of "today's Z06" was made in 2013, or possibly very late 2012 with journalist lag times or embargos, so that suggests PS2s. Even on the Goodyear runflats, the Z06 is not exactly slow. Nothing street legal that runs a 7:42.9 on the full Nordschleife is slow.

 

Here is a link to the on line version of the March C&D C7 article,

http://www.caranddriver.com/features...tingray-page-4


read the third paragraph, in it, It clearly states:

"The guys who’ve run mules at VIR are getting lap times competitive with today’s Z06."

Find a post by me saying the C7 will out run a C6Z06 and I will donate $500 to St. Jude's right now. if you can't find it you make the donation.

talk about confused....

 

Smaller and lighter, but, better wheels and tires!
60% more rigid frame!
Stiffer steering!
More steering feel due to smaller tires!
Better PTM compensating for the smaller tires!

Will it be running on E85 so it can make it's MAX power all the way?

Anyway, when GM goes over there and makes a really good showing the noise will resonate loudly throughout. The marketing guys will love it!

 

Car and Driver....wow, they always get the info right huh?

 

Sam's comprehension skills seem far below par. Its almost as if he's in denial.

 

Good save.
But it's not Car and Driver that's saying it.

 

No, I like facts....not Fairy Dust BS.
Some of you C7 Nut Huggers know more about the car than GM from the looks of it!
Also, I do not put alot of faith in magazines like you and Dreamer do.

 

Thats where Dreamer's quote is coming from?

 

They are quoting a GM engineer.

 

More then ever before GM's(not your) *** is on the line!

 

No, they are not the source of the quote. From the top:

"2014 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray: In-Depth with the People Who Made It Happen

...Mike Bailey, Vehicle Systems Engineer, Chassis...

What's new with the brakes?
Bailey: We’ve got two distinct brake systems for two distinct cars. The base C7 has 35 percent more swept area than the base C6. The C7 Z51 has 6 percent more swept area than the current Z06. They’re some pretty awesome brakes. The guys who’ve run mules at VIR are getting lap times competitive with today’s Z06."

 

Still haven't read that article we've been talking about for the past month or two huh?

Here you go

http://www.caranddriver.com/features...happen-feature