3 ms·

The above is a highly skewed, and one-sided, comment that cherrypicks things in an apparent attempt to tear down what has been achieved. Readers should read the

by natch 7y ago

The above is a highly skewed, and one-sided, comment that cherrypicks things in an apparent attempt to tear down what has been achieved. Readers should read the original article and decide for themselves. For example compare this quote from the actual article: "It was even equipped with OEM tires from a Porsche 911 GT3 RS (997), which are good on the track but also great for regular driving." to what is said by the parent about the tires. That's a pretty wide gap to bridge. And that's just one example.

BoorishBears 7y ago
What on earth are you talking about? First off, describing Cup Sports like that is incredibly dumb, it’s like saying “I drive a 911 with a V12, standard equipment on a Ferrari” when you’re talking about setting track records They are not “great” on the street. They’re not even OK. They’re the legal minimum to be legally sold as an on-road tire, and immediately after you use them on a track they don’t even meet that limit. Now the following probably sounds like obsessing over a nit if you don’t know better and aren’t aware just how much tires matter for lap times. Tire technology accounts for a vast portion of the insane increases in acceleration we’ve seen in modern sports cars. - The F1 run Best Motoring did is like record number 30 something on the circuit, yet only 4 seconds from the top listed outside of race cars. When you’re talking about 4 seconds, driving tires which are actually good on the street would easily cost you seconds. The version of this tire which is “good on the track but also great for regular driving” actually exists by the way... it’s the Pilot Sport 4S, which is what I usually run on the car I track these days. It easily loses me 3 seconds on a 1:50 lap compared to the RE-71Rs I used to run (an equivalent to the Cup Sports), and I’m not even close to the fastest on the track. A better driver could squeeze even more out of better tires The GT3 RS is not a normal car, even by 911 standards, which is why it comes with tires which start losing traction before the quoted 40 degrees where they start degrading... - When you’re talking about less than 4 seconds separating 30+ cars, street tires you can track vs track tires you can Street is a huge difference. - Now what else about my comment is wrong? No one in the motoring world talks about records the way the title wants to. If I say “I beat the GT3 RS's record at my local track”, people would assume I meant I beat the overall track record, held by a GT3 RS. Here it was meant to mean it beat the record for the F1... there were 64 F1s ever made for road use! No one would really compare their track record to the one set by a TV show running a 1 of 64 supercar on a rainy day. But if they did they wouldn’t do it with the wording they used. - The car was also heavily modified, again to a layperson if they didn’t change the power output who cares? But when you’re talking about tracking a car, suspension and aero bits are extremely important, to the point they’re restricted by really complex rules in each racing class. - For the record, I also have a Volt, and I’m not anti-EV. I’m anti-lightly veiled aftermarket manufacturer puff pieces, which the performance driving field is rife with.
- natch 7y ago
  >Pilot Sport 4S, which is what I usually run on the car I track these days. Yep I have the same tires on my daily driver. I don't track though, too much of a n00b. I'll admit you're much wonkier than me on this stuff. But I found the original article much more balanced with the negative and positive, and it did fully disclose that the car was heavily modified, where your comments imply that it didn't. And I'm pretty skeptical that the (yes rare) road version of the F1 had no differences from the track version, but your comments didn't mention any, as if there were none. Which made me think your presentation of the facts is tilted beyond what's warranted.
  - BoorishBears 7y ago
    My comments don’t imply that they didn’t mention it, my comments reiterate it as part of why this article reads like a puff piece. The catch when it comes to stuff like this is always in tiny details like runouts, special tires, weirdly specific records that move the goal post from what you’d expect. It all ends up sounding like a bunch of nits from the outside, but again, under 4 seconds separate the that F1 run from the 30+ cars that did it faster (ironically a 911 GT3 has the fastest hot lap) Honestly to me the title alone is the biggest hint. It sounds kind of insane to say this, but there is nothing truly special about a car being faster than an F1 on that track, it’s much more about the driver, and to me that’s what would impress (but wouldn’t let you right an advertisement for Unplugged...). In fact, you can watch the original F1 run separately and see that in action: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YcRY15toko0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YcRY15toko0 To the untrained eye sliding = pushing it, but if you look closer, you can clearly see they were not pushing it. Especially by Best Motoring standards. And who can blame them? Damp track, skinny tires, irreplaceable car, on a track with an unforgiving layout Many other cars in the price range of their modded Model 3 could have beat that lap (for reference, their front brake kit alone is almost 10k. All their aero upgrades and body mods also cost well over 10k in total, they also have a 15k wheel package for sale...) > And I'm pretty skeptical that the (yes rare) road version of the F1 had no differences from the track version, but your comments didn't mention any, as if there were none. Which made me think your presentation of the facts is tilted beyond what's warranted. Also don’t know what this is supposed to be saying. The F1 and the F1 GTR were immensely different cars, and the F1 GTR was obviously not what set that record. I haven’t brought up the GTR (which would be the “track version”) at any point, so why would I bring up the differences?

by natch 7y ago

BoorishBears 7y ago

What on earth are you talking about? First off, describing Cup Sports like that is incredibly dumb, it’s like saying “I drive a 911 with a V12, standard equipment on a Ferrari” when you’re talking about setting track records They are not “great” on the street. They’re not even OK. They’re the legal minimum to be legally sold as an on-road tire, and immediately after you use them on a track they don’t even meet that limit. Now the following probably sounds like obsessing over a nit if you don’t know better and aren’t aware just how much tires matter for lap times. Tire technology accounts for a vast portion of the insane increases in acceleration we’ve seen in modern sports cars. - The F1 run Best Motoring did is like record number 30 something on the circuit, yet only 4 seconds from the top listed outside of race cars. When you’re talking about 4 seconds, driving tires which are actually good on the street would easily cost you seconds. The version of this tire which is “good on the track but also great for regular driving” actually exists by the way... it’s the Pilot Sport 4S, which is what I usually run on the car I track these days. It easily loses me 3 seconds on a 1:50 lap compared to the RE-71Rs I used to run (an equivalent to the Cup Sports), and I’m not even close to the fastest on the track. A better driver could squeeze even more out of better tires The GT3 RS is not a normal car, even by 911 standards, which is why it comes with tires which start losing traction before the quoted 40 degrees where they start degrading... - When you’re talking about less than 4 seconds separating 30+ cars, street tires you can track vs track tires you can Street is a huge difference. - Now what else about my comment is wrong? No one in the motoring world talks about records the way the title wants to. If I say “I beat the GT3 RS's record at my local track”, people would assume I meant I beat the overall track record, held by a GT3 RS. Here it was meant to mean it beat the record for the F1... there were 64 F1s ever made for road use! No one would really compare their track record to the one set by a TV show running a 1 of 64 supercar on a rainy day. But if they did they wouldn’t do it with the wording they used. - The car was also heavily modified, again to a layperson if they didn’t change the power output who cares? But when you’re talking about tracking a car, suspension and aero bits are extremely important, to the point they’re restricted by really complex rules in each racing class. - For the record, I also have a Volt, and I’m not anti-EV. I’m anti-lightly veiled aftermarket manufacturer puff pieces, which the performance driving field is rife with.

natch 7y ago
>Pilot Sport 4S, which is what I usually run on the car I track these days. Yep I have the same tires on my daily driver. I don't track though, too much of a n00b. I'll admit you're much wonkier than me on this stuff. But I found the original article much more balanced with the negative and positive, and it did fully disclose that the car was heavily modified, where your comments imply that it didn't. And I'm pretty skeptical that the (yes rare) road version of the F1 had no differences from the track version, but your comments didn't mention any, as if there were none. Which made me think your presentation of the facts is tilted beyond what's warranted.
- BoorishBears 7y ago
  My comments don’t imply that they didn’t mention it, my comments reiterate it as part of why this article reads like a puff piece. The catch when it comes to stuff like this is always in tiny details like runouts, special tires, weirdly specific records that move the goal post from what you’d expect. It all ends up sounding like a bunch of nits from the outside, but again, under 4 seconds separate the that F1 run from the 30+ cars that did it faster (ironically a 911 GT3 has the fastest hot lap) Honestly to me the title alone is the biggest hint. It sounds kind of insane to say this, but there is nothing truly special about a car being faster than an F1 on that track, it’s much more about the driver, and to me that’s what would impress (but wouldn’t let you right an advertisement for Unplugged...). In fact, you can watch the original F1 run separately and see that in action: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YcRY15toko0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YcRY15toko0 To the untrained eye sliding = pushing it, but if you look closer, you can clearly see they were not pushing it. Especially by Best Motoring standards. And who can blame them? Damp track, skinny tires, irreplaceable car, on a track with an unforgiving layout Many other cars in the price range of their modded Model 3 could have beat that lap (for reference, their front brake kit alone is almost 10k. All their aero upgrades and body mods also cost well over 10k in total, they also have a 15k wheel package for sale...) > And I'm pretty skeptical that the (yes rare) road version of the F1 had no differences from the track version, but your comments didn't mention any, as if there were none. Which made me think your presentation of the facts is tilted beyond what's warranted. Also don’t know what this is supposed to be saying. The F1 and the F1 GTR were immensely different cars, and the F1 GTR was obviously not what set that record. I haven’t brought up the GTR (which would be the “track version”) at any point, so why would I bring up the differences?