Actually if you're dismissing cars because they're track-focussed, you do have that issue. The Radical drove there, from the factory. The others were trailered there - even the Gumpert, which is built in the same country as the track... If the Radical was so track-focussed, why is it the only one to make its own way there on the public road?
I'm not dismissing it, once again just saying it is more purpose built for a track, and should perform better due to basically being and LMP-esque monocoque, aero performance and so on for the road. Also maybe Radical aren't as big as some of the other outfits, perhaps they wanted to have a selling point.
'Kay. So what? Don't recall mentioned slicks anywhere, except to point out to you that the Radical's tyres weren't them.That's what Radical said. I even just quoted it for you.
That's right you said "fresh, sticky rubber", so basically it proves that the road going tires can do many miles and then run on the track to make a lap record. I would hope that all super/hypercars could do that since that is the point to road going performance tires.
Is there any physical proof? Not that I'm aware of - but then I didn't make the claim they changed their car. You can't prove non-existence, so the burden of proof isn't on Radical who say they didn't change their car...Which, when other examples of cars not being legal in the USA were used, you dismissed as "political crap" that "only stands for so long".
I didn't dismiss them over the radical, where did I say that? All I said was the grey list is a joke, and political more than safety driven, and statue only last for so long but have ways to be worked around (e.g. kit car and so on). Also there is equally no proof that it wasn't set up.
Sauce for the goose. If the "political crap" can be swept away from the illegality of the McLaren F1 on the US highways, it can be done for any other car too. Though since it's been pointed out in this thread that the Radical comes with a Federalisation package to make it US road legal, it's kinda
moot. You can buy a Radical and run it on the road in the USA.
Which I've avoided - save for pointing out that the supposedly track-focussed Radical was driven 1400 miles to and from the track as well as round it on public roads and the Gumpert, Lexus and Dodge were shipped there.You mentioned this before. No idea what the relevance was then either.Radical did have one. He drove the car to the 'Ring from the factory and back, pausing only to do a day's worth of Touristfahren laps.You originally stated that "the Radical isn't a production car like those it beat". You "clarified" this to "The radical is more of a track oriented car that is road going. I get it is a production car, but I'd expect it to beat out everyone it did.".
You'd expect the Radical to beat the cars it beat because it is more of a track-oriented car that is road going - with the implication being the cars that were beaten are less track-oriented and more road going by comparison to the Radical.
The Radical was built at the factory and drove, on public roads, to the 'Ring. Fairly roadgoing. Then it drove round the 'Ring with the rest of the hoi-palloi on a Touristfahren day (on the same set of road-legal cheater slicks it had been wearing since Peterborough) - a day only open to roadgoing cars. Quite roadgoing. Later in the week it drove home again, on public roads. I'd call that quite the roadgoing car.
I'm sure you would, all of them are road going cars, just because it did a road trip doesn't change the reality that being an FIA spec car, that lives up to FIA standards and other features shown gives way to the idea that a race car was in mind all while keeping it road legal. Yes it is far more of a track car than others it compares itself to a GP3 and hints at other aspect of Formula racing.
The Gumpert was built at the factory and loaded onto a trailer. It, with three other Gumperts, was trailed by truck to the 'Ring. Not particularly roadgoing. It then drove round the 'Ring with no-one else for company on a closed, private test day - when anything manufacturers want to bring is allowed on circuit. Not even slightly roadgoing. It was then loaded onto a trailer and taken away again. At no point did it turn a wheel on the public roads.
How is it not road going? I've helped trailer cars to tracks because the owner didn't want to run up the miles making the trek. So because it didn't do the trip like the radical it's less road going, though people drive them on the road and have shown them to be road going (not great but road going). Once again it does not detract or add anything to make a long trip in the car just to run a lap time, it in no way changes that it is a road going car. Perhaps as I've said asking them why they do it is something you should look into.
So. The Radical did some track time but spent most of the time on the road. Meanwhile the Gumpert Apollo - and the Viper ACR, the Donkervoort, the LF-A, the Corvette and everything down to the 7'30 range - spent no time on the road. They were shipped there, raced round a closed track with a full team of engineers on hand and then shipped home.
They've spent plenty of time on the road, them driving the car to the track doesn't prove that they aren't road worthy. Once again it's a marketing game, the average person is going to see it beat the ZR1 (Dodge for example) and the LF-A and others. Like NASCAR or Le Mans, the idea is a manufacture to conquer a "feat" and then present it in a way that makes people think it is the best buy. IF they used a team or not doesn't matter, especially if the rest of their main competition is doing so.
And the Radical is the car you want to dismiss as "more track-oriented".And when you're citing 'Ring laptimes, unless "here" is Germany - or at the very least a European country - it's not relevant.
Because it is more track oriented, all of them could drive that distance but can never meet the level or track performance because they aren't trying to be road legal race cars. It seems to me that Radical did it to prove it can travel on the road as well as any other, which it's counterparts don't need to because it's quite obvious they can. Also considering the Viper tested was taken from a Texas dealership and then sold, I'd say they like others shipped them to save mileage and just do the run and claim king of the hill.
The Radical SR8LM is a full production, road legal, road car. You can buy it and drive it away from the factory on the public roads. You can fly it to the USA and drive it on the public roads there. There's no private clientele list (like the F50 and Enzo - and probably the LaFerrari too), you just give them the deposit and you can pick your car up in around 2 months. The exact same car that rolled out of the factory and, 700 miles later, lapped the 'Ring in less than 7 minutes despite being a public open day with speed limits.
Okay and a car from the production line at GM and Dodge and so on were taken there and tested. They didn't build any one off version to conquer it and yet again who cares if did that trek, the others could have done the same. If there was some marketing value in doing so that would sell more cars they'd all be doing it. Many times that longevity factor of a performance car is done in car magazines.
To dismiss it as such simply because it looks a bit racey is foolishness.
Why is it foolish? The car is a track car even Radical themselves promote it as such, over the road going ability it has. It has nothing to do with looks but the facts and reality it is set up like that.
The problem mainly does lie with motoring journos. They've labelled far too many non supercar cars as supercars just because they go really quick. It has oversaturated the market, which is where all the confusion comes in.
Which cars aren't supercars. Because the list you gave prior, many of those cars are supercars. Why isn't a GT-R, ZR1 or Viper ACR or SRT GTS a super car.
(and none of that mid-engine biz... the very first "supercars" were front-engined sportscars)
