Motorvision Track times

[G.T]

And no time was provided for the 2006/2007 STi either...

 

[Max_DC]

Another copy/paste post with absurd times and no contact with reality, where an Audi TT is faster than a Porsche 911 GT3... and where a Focus is faster than a Merc SL55 AMG... puh-leeze!

Dude, it's the same list as above. Are you kidding me ? You are not new to this thread, you posted above, I explained the profile of the track in a post above, and provided videos.

So yeah these times reflect the reality, accept it, or go on living with your obviously wrong stereotypes.

Motorvision is a trustworthy car magazine since over 15 years here in Germany, working together with some of our nation's best drivers including for example Walter Röhrl.

I'm kinda sick of your arrogant reaction. Obviously you didn't even watch the videos above, yet you seem to see yourself in a position which allows you to question my post.
And if you finally decide to watch the video you should see the contact to reality, if you don't, then it's maybe you who lost contact to it

And no time was provided for the 2006/2007 STi either...

Simple reason.... I watched it on TV yesterday and I didn't memorize the exact time. But I recorded the track test and I'll post the time later...




I see where you both are coming from though. I should have posted the exact time in order to underline the correctness of my statement.

The list above is basically similiar to the on of Top Gear with the stig driving on the airfield track. But of course - as you can see in the videos at the very end - the track is really special and unique...and short
That track is revealing the true agility of a car. Power and handling combined. This track doesn't donate good times to a fat ship like the SL55AMG which simply tries to hide its poor handling by raw power on a straight part of the track...


Ok, the time was 18.59 seconds...

 

[Poverty]

Another copy/paste post with absurd times and no contact with reality, where an Audi TT is faster than a Porsche 911 GT3... and where a Focus is faster than a Merc SL55 AMG... puh-leeze!

The merc is nearly two tonnes so what if it has tons of power that doesnt mean anything on twisty roads.

 

[Dave A]

The track isn't just twisty, it's tiny. It's too small to tell you jack about what car is the best at what.

 

[Diego440]

accept it, or go on living with your obviously wrong stereotypes... I'm kinda sick of your arrogant reaction.

Was that really called for?

 

[Roo]

Dude, it's the same list as above.

[snip]

And if you finally decide to watch the video you should see the contact to reality, if you don't, then it's maybe you who lost contact to it

Don't forget Diego's user title - he's generally being sarcastic.

They do call it the handling track, and it's not like it's the only test they do, if the WRX STi test Max_DC posted is a normal test.

Does a track map exist for the circuit, and is it the only track (as opposed to cone course) they use?

 

[Max_DC]

The track isn't just twisty, it's tiny. It's too small to tell you jack about what car is the best at what.

Sorry that doesn't make sense. I didn't say that this list reflects every aspect of car from intertior quality to top speed. But the track is perfectly ok ofr showing the handling and the agility of a car. That's why sector times matter. The whole differnce of a track that is 500 meters long and one that is 5000 meters long is that at the end the time difference is bigger on the bigger track.

I would even go as far and say that a long track with all kinds of straight parts and curves etc - while providing an excellent view on the overall capacities of the car - hides certan weak points of cars if you don't look at sector times. Take an extremly poor handling car with 800 hp and go on a time trial with an Exige on a normal Formula One Grand Prix course. The straight parts could help the poor handling car to win this competition. So what does that say about the two cars ? Nothing as long as we don't look at the sector times. Because in reality the Exige would smoke that 800 hp car in almost every situation but on the Autobahn.

Sure, the focus of this track is on first/2nd gear corners with rather low speed. But aren't those parts, just like winding roads in the mountains - the most fun part of cars ? How much does it matter for your every day ride if your car takes a corner at 250 km/h better than the car of your neighbor ?

For me it isn't. I have fun when I drive fast on small roads on the country side, bringing the car to its limit below 150 km/h... drifting, hairpin curves things like that.

And if a car is fast on that particular track, it is fun and fast in a everyday situation like I described.

And again, it doesn't make any difference if the track is 500, 5000 or 50000 meters long,as long as these tracks have the same profile. Twisty 1st/2nd gear curves in this case.

Of course a track that offers these curves AND straight parts AND faster curves says more about the car, but NOT if the lap times are simply listed as above, but only if sector times are provided and only WHEN these sectores have a focus on either a straight part OR twisty curves OR faster curves.

I can hardly believe that somebody doesn't understand this...


@ Diego : well then you should change the way you post first. You told me that I posted "absurd times" with "no contact to reality" without giving a reason. All you do is simply stating facts that a Uber Mercedes for 150k dollars is always better than a Focus, no matter in which situation the cars are. And since those are wrong stereotypes I told you about your fault. And why is it wrong ? Because the Focus was faster. And is faster on parts of a track where handling matters. Ever driven an AMG ? I did, and that one sucked big time.

"puh-leeze!" in combination with your opinion that I posted crap is arrogant imo, that's why I pointed that out.




@ Roo

That is the whole area , one part of it is the test track. Just look at the video
and you'll see which part it is.

For this particular test they only drive on this course. That magazine has tons of other tests, you know from normal cars like a Toyota Corolla diesel over to Carrera GT. Cars like the Carrera GT are driven on the Hockenheimring or other grand prix courses and cars like a Corolla are tested on normal streets... Motorvision covers everything from normal cars to supercars and this "track test" is one very popular aspect.

 

[Dave A]

First of all I wasn't replying to you, I was talking to Poverty, so I never said or implied you said or implied anything. Second of all, I agree, it's pretty impossible to find a track that will truely corver all a cars capabilities whee performance is concerned. However, as a blanket test, which so far this is since the times on this track are all there is to go it's absolute balls. As for your analogy about the 800bhp car v the Exige, I would expect in most situations for the 800bhp car to win, when your driving on mountain roads you arn't, or rather you should never be pushing your car to it's limits. So the chances are, even though your in a car that doesn't handle as well, you could very well still be taking corners at a similar speed to the other car. Anyone that does push there cars to the limits on public roads is a complete tool simple as. A track that is designed to replicate road driving is useless, because the tests would need to be done as if you were driving on the road and the limits of the car wouldn't even begin to be approached let alone reached.

Now regarding the lenth of the track, you are so wrong, so so wrong. A tiny track means that if the driver makes a small mistake, that's their fault the car could end up being on a par with a car that it's actually far better than. If the track is three times as long, then the impact of that mistake is three times as small. So yes, the lenth of the track is a factor, and a pretty big factor. no lap is perfect, no two laps in different cars are level with each other with regards to potential of the car on that track used. So the impact of these differences is magnified more, the shorter the track is. Also acceleration off the line, the track is so short that you could take the best handling car on the list, but if it was slower to 60 than the next best or the best after that, it could be a mid table car, tiny differences can make huge differences if you get what I'm saying. when your cruising down country lanes, your off the line acceleration isn't much of an issue. You need a track that's really at least 1 minuet long in the faster lapping cars to even begin to get an idea of what beats what in what way.

If this list of times was done with seperate lists of times on tracks that explore the other extremes then sure, I could see a point to this list. But as it stands I don't. I can get skid pan figures already, and I don't use them to judge a car, nor would I use this. I agree with the point you made about a longer track that included everything, but needing the split times to judge the car accurately.

 

[Max_DC]

First of all I wasn't replying to you, I was talking to Poverty, so I never said or implied you said or implied anything. Second of all, I agree, it's pretty impossible to find a track that will truely corver all a cars capabilities whee performance is concerned.

Ok

However, as a blanket test, which so far this is since the times on this track are all there is to go it's absolute balls.

Why ? The track is full of tight corners... so the track says a lot about conering abilities aka handling...

As for your analogy about the 800bhp car v the Exige, I would expect in most situations for the 800bhp car to win, when your driving on mountain roads you arn't, or rather you should never be pushing your car to it's limits. So the chances are, even though your in a car that doesn't handle as well, you could very well still be taking corners at a similar speed to the other car.

Well it was just an example, you know I didn't metion a certain car but I thought of something like an American SUV with 3 tons that can only driv straight
However, you know what I mean....

Anyone that does push there cars to the limits on public roads is a complete tool simple as. A track that is designed to replicate road driving is useless, because the tests would need to be done as if you were driving on the road and the limits of the car wouldn't even begin to be approached let alone reached.

Guess what I don't drive a sports car for posing or cruising around like asissy. Cars are meant for driving and sports cars are meant for being driven fast.
And I don't pay a ton of money for insurence, gas and so on for driving it fast once a year on a race track.
I didn't say that I am the Speed King who is street racing every night. Street races are very dangerous because you focus on your "enemy" and on the "win"... whereas driving fast and on the limit is you know, still not really safe but tolerable from time to time imo. Of course this covers a huge field... If you know the street, know the dangerous sections and if it a certain amount of visible steet in fornt of you, well then it's ok imo. And I have a lot of fun with my STi, believe it or not. Although I respect everybody who criticizes that kind of behavior. It's questionable indeed.

Now regarding the lenth of the track, you are so wrong, so so wrong. A tiny track means that if the driver makes a small mistake, that's their fault the car could end up being on a par with a car that it's actually far better than. If the track is three times as long, then the impact of that mistake is three times as small.

Are you serious about this ? Honestly ? I'm shocked Dude, it's exactly the other way round... why ?

Ok I tell you :

Short track = short driving time = small amount of corners = small amount of steering wheel changes through the driver = less possibilities to make faults = higher ossibility to make a near perfect lap


3 times longer > longer driving time = more corners = bigger amount of steering wheel changes through the driver = more possibilities to make faults = smaller possibility to make a near perfect lap.

💡

Your threory is based on some wrong assumptions : First of all you seem to think that the driver in Motorvison drives a single round, and that's it ... Of course they drive it many many times, and the best lap counts... the best of 25 laps for example. Since the track is short, the probability of a near perfect round out of many is a lot higher than on a longer track.

And we have an exact timer which allows us to record the time until milli seconds.
Sorry but that's simple maths : shorter distance in combination with a high amount of tries = better result that can be compared.

Just remember the licence tests in Gran Turismo. What is easier to achieve :

2 perfect corners or a hwole track with 10 perfect corners all driven with the same perfection within a single lap ?





So yes, the lenth of the track is a factor, and a pretty big factor. no lap is perfect, no two laps in different cars are level with each other with regards to potential of the car on that track used. So the impact of these differences is magnified more, the shorter the track is. Also acceleration off the line, the track is so short that you could take the best handling car on the list, but if it was slower to 60 than the next best or the best after that, it could be a mid table car, tiny differences can make huge differences if you get what I'm saying. when your cruising down country lanes, your off the line acceleration isn't much of an issue. You need a track that's really at least 1 minuet long in the faster lapping cars to even begin to get an idea of what beats what in what way.

If this list of times was done with seperate lists of times on tracks that explore the other extremes then sure, I could see a point to this list. But as it stands I don't. I can get skid pan figures already, and I don't use them to judge a car, nor would I use this. I agree with the point you made about a longer track that included everything, but needing the split times to judge the car accurately.

 

[Bram Turismo]

I've heard from the podcasts, this is a crappy list...and it is...

How the hell can a Mondeo be faster then an NXS?! The NSX is lighter then a Mondeo, thus better cornering, the NSX accelerates faster then a Mondeo, the NSX accelerates from the start line faster as well. Drifting? HAR-HAR, most of these cars are front wheel drive, does a Mondeo drifts faster around a track then a V6 NSX? I think not!

So, Max_DC, Poverty, you fail, this thread sucks, does not inform us about anything, explanations suck as well. I call this most stupid car thread of the month!

 

[MistaX]

I've heard from the podcasts, this is a crappy list...and it is...

How the hell can a Mondeo be faster then an NXS?! The NSX is lighter then a Mondeo, thus better cornering, the NSX accelerates faster then a Mondeo, the NSX accelerates from the start line faster as well. Drifting? HAR-HAR, most of these cars are front wheel drive, does a Mondeo drifts faster around a track then a V6 NSX? I think not!

So, Max_DC, Poverty, you fail, this thread sucks, does not inform us about anything, explanations suck as well. I call this most stupid car thread of the month!

You win, really.

 

[Bram Turismo]

Well thanks for the sarcasm...

 

[Max_DC]

I've heard from the podcasts, this is a crappy list...and it is...

How the hell can a Mondeo be faster then an NXS?! The NSX is lighter then a Mondeo, thus better cornering, the NSX accelerates faster then a Mondeo, the NSX accelerates from the start line faster as well. Drifting? HAR-HAR, most of these cars are front wheel drive, does a Mondeo drifts faster around a track then a V6 NSX? I think not!

So, Max_DC, Poverty, you fail, this thread sucks, does not inform us about anything, explanations suck as well. I call this most stupid car thread of the month!

Says who ? The one who knows nothing about that that track, has never seen the magazine and therefor is as qualified to judge that list as a blind person in a sharpshooter contest... thanks for nothing ultrashot


BTW I thought a little more about live4speeds argument and I have to say that while he is wrong in a away it is true that every fault on that track weighs bigger than a single fault on a longer track. Still, in the end the fact that you can drive a lot more rounds here will result in times that can be compared a lot bette rthan the ones on longer tracks...

 

[MistaX]

No that wasn't sarcasm, you summed up everything correctly. It's pretty perfect.

 

[Diego440]

How the hell can a Mondeo be faster then an NXS?! The NSX is lighter then a Mondeo, thus better cornering, the NSX accelerates faster then a Mondeo, the NSX accelerates from the start line faster as well. Drifting? HAR-HAR, most of these cars are front wheel drive, does a Mondeo drifts faster around a track then a V6 NSX? I think not!

You'd be amazed at what a Mondeo can do.. in the right hands

 

[Dave A]

Ok

Why ? The track is full of tight corners... so the track says a lot about conering abilities aka handling...

Yes, but so does a slalom test. So does a skid pan test. None are infalliable, and I don't use any of thoes to judge a cars true potential. The only proper way to judge a cars true potential is for you to drive it and take it there. This doesn't tell you why each car won, the Impreza is not the best handling car in that list, it's not all about handling even on this track. Perhaps you should post a layout of the track, and perhaps some good information on the track before this point can go further though.

Well it was just an example, you know I didn't metion a certain car but I thought of something like an American SUV with 3 tons that can only driv straight
However, you know what I mean....

Yes I do, but if your referring to road enjoyment, I stand by what I said, you should never be travelling at a speed on a twisty road where handling limits become a factor. If your referring to track enjoyment then this test isn't idicative of what each car can do on your typical track.

I didn't say that I am the Speed King who is street racing every night. Street races are very dangerous because you focus on your "enemy" and on the "win"... whereas driving fast and on the limit is you know, still not really safe but tolerable from time to time imo. Of course this covers a huge field...

I agree that racing is more dangerous than speeding, but either way, excessive speeding is stupid.

If you know the street, know the dangerous sections and if it a certain amount of visible steet in fornt of you, well then it's ok imo.

I knew a kid who thought the same, he killed someone. You know that in regard to the principal I'm right, so as far as I'm concerned my argument stands.

Are you serious about this ? Honestly ? I'm shocked Dude, it's exactly the other way round... why ?

Ok I tell you :

Short track = short driving time = small amount of corners = small amount of steering wheel changes through the driver = less possibilities to make faults = higher ossibility to make a near perfect lap

A professional driver on a 1 minuet a lap track will not make three times as many mistakes in their best run over 25 laps as their best run over 25 laps on the 20 second a lap track. I understand your point, but it still stands that a 1 tenth of a second mistake on a 20 second a lap track is three times as costly as a 1 tenth of a second mistake on a 1 minuet a lap track. The other side you didn't even touch on, the off the line acceleration. A car with poor grip when accelerating hard from 0-20 could suffer a lot on a 20 second a lap track, yet the very same car running a track with a similar corner profile but is three times as long could win. The track is just too short to say, that car is level with that car in that aspect. If you just want to know about handling we already have skid pan and slalom tests.

3 times longer > longer driving time = more corners = bigger amount of steering wheel changes through the driver = more possibilities to make faults = smaller possibility to make a near perfect lap.

But regardless, a professional driver will sill make a near perfect lap.

Just remember the licence tests in Gran Turismo. What is easier to achieve :

2 perfect corners or a whole track with 10 perfect corners all driven with the same perfection within a single lap ?

Personally I found the lap tests easier than the harder licences shorter tests, why because there was less room for error in the shorter tests. One mistake and you failed. On the lap tests, one mistake can be made up for by better driving at another point in the track. But this is not Gran Turismo, this is not regular people doing the driving, this is a professional driver who can get great laps at the Nordschleife.

 

[Max_DC]

Yes, but so does a slalom test. So does a skid pan test. None are infalliable, and I don't use any of thoes to judge a cars true potential. The only proper way to judge a cars true potential is for you to drive it and take it there. This doesn't tell you why each car won, the Impreza is not the best handling car in that list, it's not all about handling even on this track. Perhaps you should post a layout of the track, and perhaps some good information on the track before this point can go further though.

Well I never said that this list is the ultimate list and that every other form of car testing is BS. All I said ist that this list has the same right to exist and is as true as a list with the same cars driven on Silverstone or the Indy 500 oval course, each time with a certain focus on certain abilities of a car.

I defended that list because it says a lot about those cars, I didn't say that the Impreza will kill all other cars in that list under all circumstances.

On a track with this layout it obviously does and that is also close to reality. Because you know, it is reality.
Those are professional car testers as well as professional race drivers. And the track is handling course from the ADAC, the biggest German car club...

The car magazine is successful and the biggest in Germany, dominating the TV car magazine market for like 15 years or so. It is ridiculous to think that this list is total crap as if some 12 year olds made it up.

But that is what certain people in here try to tell me. You know those poeple from Motorvision work together with many of our nations leading car magazine and as I might add, we are not really an unimportant country when it comes to automobiles, right ? So believe me those guys know their job and I won't accept some random opinions by people who call my posts bullsh** although I don't even know if they've ever driven a car in their life outside GT you know.

Of course this is a discussion forum and of course everybody has the right to question this list. Of course it is just one aspect of cars, it's not the most balanced list probably, but one thing is fact : on this track The Subaru smokes the rest. period. And I'd say that this track comes closer to middle European road condition reality than the 300 yard wide formula one tracks.
Or at least it comes as close.


I recently talked to a car dealer, 40 years in business and he told me that the old RS4 for example is a great car, but driven in the alps, it sucks compared to the old Impreza GT. Why ? bewcause it's fat and many peopel seem to forget that these days. They go like : OMG 600 hp and 1000 NM torque... CL 65 AMG for example.Then I tell them : Dude, that's a 2,5 ton car with AT and a fun killer called Traction control : it's not that great as it sounds. And they are like : Hey, it has 600 hp !!!

Oh well...

Yes I do, but if your referring to road enjoyment, I stand by what I said, you should never be travelling at a speed on a twisty road where handling limits become a factor. If your referring to track enjoyment then this test isn't idicative of what each car can do on your typical track.

Ok I respect that. But those limits are exceeded very fast. Handling becomes a limiting factor for me every day... You know, maybe only for seconds, but still. Otherwise I could also drive a 1,6 litre Golf or so...

I agree that racing is more dangerous than speeding, but either way, excessive speeding is stupid.

Let's change "stupid" into selfish and risky Because it's not stupid you know. You want fun > You have fun = problem solved, kinda smart And as I said, every road is different. If the road is in the open country without trees and you can see for miles, no other traffic and you can handle a car at high speed it's not even that dangerous....

I knew a kid who thought the same, he killed someone. You know that in regard to the principal I'm right, so as far as I'm concerned my argument stands.

Well that is sad, but so far I killed nobody and I don't think that I'm a real threat to road saftey. Sure I drive fast, but I don't drink any alcohol at all, never, no other drugs, I never party so I a always had enough sleep. I drive my car hard and therefor I know how it reacts in dangerous situations and I don't intend to crash my beloved STi.

A professional driver on a 1 minuet a lap track will not make three times as many mistakes in their best run over 25 laps as their best run over 25 laps on the 20 second a lap track.

Define mistake. I don't talk about spins or leaving the track. I talk about small mistakes. Ok Micheal Schumacher can drive three nearly perfect laps with almost the same time in a row. But he is one of the best drivers around and drives F1 cars for over 10 years, whereas a test driver drives a 90 hp FF car on monday and a 150 hp FR car on tuesday and a 300 hp AWD car on saturday.

Let's say the car tester has 1 hour to review the car on a certain track. That means like 15 runs on a normal track and 50 runs on that small track. More tries is better right ? Especially since the tester is new to the car.

I say the chance to drive a near perfect lap on a 20 seconds run with 50 tries is a lot higher than the one to drive a near perfect lap on a longer track with more curves and therfor more possibilities to take these curves not 100% optimal, you know. Especially since he doesn't have the same amount of tries, not even close.

I understand your point, but it still stands that a 1 tenth of a second mistake on a 20 second a lap track is three times as costly as a 1 tenth of a second mistake on a 1 minuet a lap track.

True
But if you say a professional driver won't make 5 small mistakes on a track 5 times as long with 5 times as many curves, then you imply that it is possible to make a perfect lap on such a small course.

Again simple maths.


25 possibilities to screw a lap VS 5 possibilities to screw a lap
15 tries VS 50 tries
both times a great driver. I say, small track wins, since it is very likely to get a near perfect lap.

The other side you didn't even touch on, the off the line acceleration. A car with poor grip when accelerating hard from 0-20 could suffer a lot on a 20 second a lap track, yet the very same car running a track with a similar corner profile but is three times as long could win.

Would be true if that was like you described it. But it isn't. Flying laps...

The track is just too short to say, that car is level with that car in that aspect. If you just want to know about handling we already have skid pan and slalom tests.

Of course that also says a lot about handling, but that track combines a few cornes with different kind of radius and elevation changes. therefor it says more about the overall handling imo.

But regardless, a professional driver will sill make a near perfect lap.

Oh well, if he is able to drive a newar perfct lap on a long track then he is also able to make a perfect lap on a small track.

Personally I found the lap tests easier than the harder licences shorter tests, why because there was less room for error in the shorter tests.

And why was there less room ? Because Polyphony knows that it is easier to drive three good corners than 20 good corners.
Go and buy the japanese version of Gran Turismo 1. Then S licence 7th test. White griffith on Special route 11. That was a killer. And the japanese bronze time was as hard as the US/Pal Gold... Then you know how hard it is to make a perfect lap

One mistake and you failed. On the lap tests, one mistake can be made up for by better driving at another point in the track. But this is not Gran Turismo, this is not regular people doing the driving, this is a professional driver who can get great laps at the Nordschleife.

As I said, Polyphony knows that and that's why they made it easier for us.

And in the virtual world of Gran Turismo we are professional drivers. Maybe not me, maybe not you. But in the world of Gran Turismo some 15 year old Korean or so could be the fastest on this planet, which makes him a Michael Schumacher of Playstation so to say
What I want to say is, that why it can't be compared on the one hand, it of course can be compared regarding that aspect.

Uhh... lenghty post Sorry for like probably 3 dozen typos

 

[Poverty]

I think this track gives a perfect insight of the performance of the car for everyday driving. I reckon that if you give a guy a Evo FQ360, and the other a 600hp RWD monster, and tell them to race it through the street of london, staying off motorways the Evo would be victorous.

600Hp is only good for the enviroments that allow it to do so, and lists like this shows people that even cars that doent seem all that on paper can be great performers, and fun drives.

 

[Dave A]

^I dissagree, both will take an hour to move 20ft.

Well I never said that this list is the ultimate list and that every other form of car testing is BS. All I said ist that this list has the same right to exist and is as true as a list with the same cars driven on Silverstone or the Indy 500 oval course, each time with a certain focus on certain abilities of a car.

Which is a fair point, but while I would agree that this list has a right to exist, it's too unusual a situation to represent a cars proper perfomance imo, a test like lapping the Nordschleife as a far more accurate performance analyser. Sure you can say, that doesn't tell you what the best handling cars are per se, but neither does this.

I defended that list because it says a lot about those cars, I didn't say that the Impreza will kill all other cars in that list under all circumstances.

And the circumstances are unlikely to be found in many places outside of this test.

On a track with this layout it obviously does and that is also close to reality. Because you know, it is reality.

I wouldn't argue that the test is bollocks, because as you said, it has happened, thoes cars have ran the track in thoes times. I would just argue how relevent the test is.

Those are professional car testers as well as professional race drivers. And the track is handling course from the ADAC, the biggest German car club...

The car magazine is successful and the biggest in Germany, dominating the TV car magazine market for like 15 years or so. It is ridiculous to think that this list is total crap as if some 12 year olds made it up.

I certainly don't think it's total crap, I just don' think it's that relevant.

Of course this is a discussion forum and of course everybody has the right to question this list. Of course it is just one aspect of cars, it's not the most balanced list probably, but one thing is fact : on this track The Subaru smokes the rest. period. And I'd say that this track comes closer to middle European road condition reality than the 300 yard wide formula one tracks.
Or at least it comes as close.

Not that close overall though imo, and I have driven a lot of European roads. Yes it's far closer than a race track like Siverstone, Sneeterton or the TopGear track. But you will struggle to find an average road that is anything like that track in terms of consistency.

Let's change "stupid" into selfish and risky Because it's not stupid you know. You want fun > You have fun = problem solved, kinda smart And as I said, every road is different. If the road is in the open country without trees and you can see for miles, no other traffic and you can handle a car at high speed it's not even that dangerous....

Well that is sad, but so far I killed nobody and I don't think that I'm a real threat to road saftey. Sure I drive fast, but I don't drink any alcohol at all, never, no other drugs, I never party so I a always had enough sleep. I drive my car hard and therefor I know how it reacts in dangerous situations and I don't intend to crash my beloved STi.

The kid knew didn't intend to crash his car, not did he consider himself a threat to road safety. The unexpected just happened and that can happen to you. I'll agree to dissagree with your view on this, I don't want to take this off topic.

Define mistake. I don't talk about spins or leaving the track. I talk about small mistakes. Ok Micheal Schumacher can drive three nearly perfect laps with almost the same time in a row. But he is one of the best drivers around and drives F1 cars for over 10 years, whereas a test driver drives a 90 hp FF car on monday and a 150 hp FR car on tuesday and a 300 hp AWD car on saturday.

I'm talking about small mistakes too, that's why I used 1 tenth of a second in my example of the effect. What I'm saying is that if you add up all the mistakes a driver makes on this track and an avrage 1 minuet track the total of the mistakes on the 1 minuet track will not be equal to or greater than 3 times the total of the 20 second track.

True
But if you say a professional driver won't make 5 small mistakes on a track 5 times as long with 5 times as many curves, then you imply that it is possible to make a perfect lap on such a small course.

Again simple maths.

But driving a car isn't simple maths, racing a car on a track isn't simple maths, getting a near perfect lap on a track isn't simple maths. Simple maths say that if he makes 0.1 seconds woth of mistakes every 10 seconds he'll have made 0.6 seconds of mistakes on a 1 minuet track and the wasted time will be the same percentage of the total lap time on either track. But that's not how it works.

Would be true if that was like you described it. But it isn't. Flying laps...

Well that's one thing I wasn't aware of, and does negate the off the line acceleration argument.

Oh well, if he is able to drive a newar perfct lap on a long track then he is also able to make a perfect lap on a small track.

Exactley, but the near perfect lap on the long track would have a lower period of time wasted with mistakes relative to the lenth of the track. That's is my argument.

And why was there less room ? Because Polyphony knows that it is easier to drive three good corners than 20 good corners.
Go and buy the japanese version of Gran Turismo 1. Then S licence 7th test. White griffith on Special route 11. That was a killer. And the japanese bronze time was as hard as the US/Pal Gold... Then you know how hard it is to make a perfect lap

How do you know I haven't. Let's not get into assuming somene hasn't done something yet and stick to the actual debate.

Uhh... lenghty post Sorry for like probably 3 dozen typos

this lenthy post was better than your last post and I don't mean gramatically . I'd still like some information on the track and a map of it though.

 

[EvolutionWRX]

Whats the name of the track?