Why laps times are poop
 

Evo posted this video a while back:
[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3jWVTKYcP0"]Audi RS3 vs Volkswagen Golf R | evo DEADLY RIVALS - YouTube[/ame]

On track the Golf R was faster than the RS3, even though it was under powered by 66 HP and 63 lb-ft torque. The Golf posted a time of 1:26.1 and the RS3 of 1:26.6. Small differences, but I'm sure this video sold the Golf R over the RS3 for some people...

Let's take a look at the latest Car and Driver issue. At Virginia International Raceway the Golf R lapped a time of 3:12.3, where the Audi S3 lapped a...wait for it...3:11.3.

One could argue the many variables that go into a lap time such as this, the track in question, weather, the drivers and more importantly the tires. The Audi S3 was mentioned on the article to have slightly better tires than the S3. The Audi wore Contiental ContiSport-contact 5p's, while the Golf R has Potenza RE050A's. However, both cars are very similar, not to mention the S3 is 50 pounds heavier.

Lap times are very subjective and this is a perfect case in it. I had to highlight this. When the RS3 comes to America, when a VIR lap is posted, you'll see an update here...

Whoever is cross shopping these two cars, and makes his purchase decision solely on track performance, was looking at the wrong cars to begin with, IMHO.

No mention of the track chosen?

An F1 car can set a lap record around Spa but will fall apart before it completes lap 1 at your local dirt track.

:cheers:

Edit: Don't forget weather for good measure, the same car and driver can have a lap vary by several seconds based on ambient conditions.

I forgot to mention track. I even tried looking for the track evo used, i watched the video three times and i keep missing it. It's small judging by the lap times...

Weather as well...

I'd disagree, a Golf R makes a fine track car to go to the track and home with. It's not a far too uncommon sight to see at a track day.

@juliog is making the point that those guys aren't trying to set lap records or wheel to wheel racing, being 1-3seconds slower than a comparable car is likely irrelevant to them, primarily in how they enjoy the car and secondarily because in amateur scenarios driving skill and a couple hundred bucks in modifications can tighten, eliminate, or completely reverse any advantage.

The EVO website says the test was done at Bedford Autodrome but doesn't mention which circuit. EVO normally uses the West Circuit for lap time comparison (see the charts in the back of the magazine).

http://www.bedfordautodrome.co.uk/ci...spx#circuitMap

Looking at the January issue I had lying around, other cars in the 1.26 range are M5 (F10) at 1:25.7, EVO X RS 360 at 1:26.1, Audi TTRS 1:26.3, BMW M135i 1:26.6.

The weather in the video is grey, but the circuit looks dry.

I think the side by side lap comparison is pretty clear. The VW beats the Audi's lap time by gaining more under braking and through the corners (less understeer) than it lost in corner exits and the straights. In this case more fun lines up with more fast.

People still buy Mustangs although they've been slower than Camaros round the track in the last 10 years. Same thing with M3/M4, slower than C63. People don't care and buy whatever looks best or fits their everyday needs best.

R and RS3 might be mechanically similar but cater to different buyers.

Even when you compare the ND and the twins... you don't buy the ND because it's 1 sec faster around Streets of Willow. You buy it because you want the roadster experience, and maybe it's you second car so you don't need the twins practicality. It wouldn't matter if it was 1 sec slower than FRS/BRZ.

Magazine track tests are interesting but have overall little impact on changing consumer's purchase decisions.

You sure about that?
[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HeR7XlHnOkQ"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HeR7XlHnOkQ[/ame]

But yeah, tires is probably one of the biggest variables. Recently there was a video of a guy in a SEAT Leon Cupra ST 280 keeping up with a Alfa Romeo Guilia on the Nurburgring, but the SEAT was on most likely much better tires than the Alfa was.

Driver > Track > Tires

the other thing that makes lap times really bogus is that its 3-5 flying laps... if that. In reality no one goes to a track day for 15 minutes of lapping. My GTR or a new Z06 would run a fast flyer no doubt. But after an hour they will be overheated in a puddle of their own piss.

meanwhile a porsche gt3, cayman, miata, brz would be happily trucking on.

low torque and RWD means less stress on the tranny
NA means less heat in the engine
low weight means less heat in the brakes and tires

A BRZ would have piss in its oil pan after the temps got up from a few laps lol

They're similar vehicles that are competitors, they're obviously going to post similar lap times. The difference is VIR is a longer track and allows the RS3 to use that grunt more.

Think about if you took a BRZ and compared it to a 370Z ( I know they aren't direct competitors). How big would the difference in lap time be at a track like Big Willow at WSIR? I imagine it would be a few seconds. Then what about a smaller track like Adam's Kart Track?

Some tracks favor certain cars more. Just the way it is. I wouldn't base my vehicle purchase solely on its lap times to its competitors though. If I did, I would have bought an Evo X.

You chose a poor car to make your point. On lightning lap the 370z wins by 6 seconds, and back then the 2008 lightning lap times was amateur drivers and pobst ran the brz tines, so a prp can probably get an even better 370z time.

On Adams the 370z would probably win by half to a full second on equal tires, more on the oem tires. Why people in solo2 cs qq'd so hard they got the 370z kicked out of the class.

The twins aren't some handling gods. They were meant to be fun, not fast. If don't understand the obsession people on this forum have over lap times. Just accept that the car is a fun drivers car.