Funny how Ring times are not that important when the car you own doesn't crack a great time..... Only a 8:06...... https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=1685512
Are they that important? The Focus is a cracking car, not as quick over a lap of the ring but a great road car, not sure many get tracked, I've not seen one so far this year on track, too much emphasis put on it, I'm sure not many could get within 20 seconds of the manufactures lap times, sounds good down the pub though.
I don't really understand this topic. How is 8:06 not a good time? The article says it's a good time. For a pretty heavy, five-seater hatchback, it is a good time. It's in the mix with its rivals according to the posts on the topic, which I can't be bothered to look up to confirm. I don't see what you're getting at? Is it because some FWD cars have gone faster? FWD cars with no rear seats, bucket seats and various other lightweight components? Not a particularly relevant comparison... What's your best time around there in a Focus RS? Or anything else for that matter?
It's posted hoping for a bite, nothing more, and his lap time would be awful, based on the fact he doesn't have a car
I walked from Ex-Muhle to Adenauer-Forst and back when I was there earlier this year - sod doing the whole lap, that was far enough lol. Part of me would quite like to cycle round it, but I think it would be a lot of effort with all the elevation changes. Perhaps we will all be surprised one day when a picture of a car Aerofoil owns appears? Or he will stun us with the fact that he is an engineer for an F1 team or something...
Nope, don't think we will be stunned, more like all proved right. He's hoping his profile pic fools us. He seems to be stalking me as he knows what mods I've done before I've done them , bit scary but it's keeping me amused enough to stay on a forum he's ruined
I was thinking the other day of posting something along these lines, but stopped short. It is true though; a lot of threads end up ruined and I'm sure people stop posting their views or opinions because they can't be bothered with the inevitable. I tried reaching out to him but got nowhere.
we hired bikes and did this..and yes..its fkn steep in places! great though to dump the bikes and hang around the old marshaling posts for cars testing,going past flat out.
If you can sift through the variability of Ring lap times then they do set a reasonable benchmark. What there relevance is depends on the angle you want to take, The Focus? Depends on the angle you want to take... I thought it might do a bit better, but Ford knew it wouldn't. The 8:00 min has now become a hot hatch benchmark in people's minds. FWD? In 2013 the Megane 265 Trophy did it in 8:08, standard production car, no stripped out special and on Bridgestone road tyres. Only 2 sec slower than the Focus. There's a message there.
Ive owned and tracked a Clio 197 cup, Megane 250 cup and a Cupra 280, i now have a Mk 3 Focus rs wich ive not tracked or intend to, but on a slimey damp Engish B road (real world) i know where i my money would be.
Yes there is a message there. On a fast track where traction is less of an issue, a heavy, 4WD car is only marginally faster than a lighter, 2WD one. Not really a surprising message. 8min is a benchmark to some but obviously not to the thousands of people that have bought the RS - and other hot hatches - that haven't cracked an 8min lap. Only a select few have broken that barrier and all have been lightweight specials. Honda claim theirs wasn't, but it's a questionable claim by all accounts. Have you driven an RS out of interest?
I think what you meant there Massivebasoomas was on a fast track where traction is less of an issue the 2WD is faster than a heavier equivalent 4WD. That's well proven. Weight comes out, not goes in for the win. The 8 min thing or any Ring time is only a bit of data like any other and only sets a capability. I'm sure there are a few sub 8 min hot hatches that never come out of London, doesn't effect its capability or limit a viewpoint. Honda's latest time should be binned as it was on non-standard and production spec tyres. Renault play to the rules and that's why it's important to sift the data.
I did 5 laps of the Ring,many years ago, in myFQ400 Evo,complete with suitcases!. My best time was 10minutes,and I thought that was quick, considering the traffic, before the gearbox went.Back perhaps next year, together with Spa?. Maybe.
Someone who is prepared to be honest about their experience at the Ring. ;-) I don't go as frequently as I used to (2-3 times P.A.) during that time my fastest time BTG was 9:09 in a Clio R27. I did passenger with a semi pro in his M3 CSL and he ran an 8:06. Both on TF days. Re: Aerofoil, I don't think the vast majority of drivers allow official Ring times to influence their buying decisions. Those numbers are just for forum braggers (nee pub talk). BTW, what time did you do the Ring in? Sent from my E6653 using Tapatalk
I don't know why but I've never timed my laps ... Nurburgring or any other tracks. Funny how Ring times are not that important when the car you (don't) own can't even make a good time ... Don't be so negative ... He's got some records to beat: Running-1hr 30mins Bicycle- 40mins
8:06 is faster than 8:08, so I don't understand why I needed to be corrected? Regardless, I still don't really see the point of the thread. Unless of course it was in the name of attention seeking? Perhaps I have answered my own question there...
I have done a few laps at the `ring`in under 6 minutes, piss easy, on a tourist day resembling the M25. Stefan Bellof was a shit driver anyway. Then i woke up.
Ford didn't either, but the Ring is a Mecca for lap times. 8.06 at the shrine. About the best it will do. The Ring honed Hyundai?, tidy motor and on my shopping list. Personally, I would be pleased to see an 8.05.
I'll come from a different angle. A 265 bhp 2WD Meg on bog road tyres gets within a few seconds of a 345 bhp 4WD Ford. Or another way to put it, a 306/316 bhp 2WD Type R can do it much faster than the Ford. 2WD for the Ring kudos.
Mate has an mk 3 Focus rs. We went to Bedford autodrome last month and I took my r26. His car looks and sounds awesome. It seemed very quick on track and stupid quick when I was in the passenger seat. (No he didn't let me drive it)
Time to place your Mk4 bets. Only a few weeks to go before the beast is revealed in all its glory. R26R........................8:16.90 265 Trophy................8:07.97 275 Trophy R.............7:54.36 Mk4 Megane RS..........?? Will it start with an 8 or a 7? Will they even have a pop?
I think the megane will be a few steps behind the latest offerings from competitors. Honda have listened to the criticism of the previous gen civic,to even go as far to spend millions going back to multi link suspension on the rear to improve handling .Just like the old real type R`s had. The new facelifted cupra is even more powerful with 300HP,and 4 wheel drive for the estate version.
You can come at it from any angle you like, that doesn't make the point of your thread any clearer. From what I remember, we don't know whether the Ford was on "bog" road tyres or not. The Ford is giving about 200kg to the Megane, while the traction advantage from 4WD is all but nullified on a dry, relatively high speed circuit. I can't say that the small time difference is surprising in any way at all. As for the Civic, didn't you say earlier that, "Honda's latest time should be binned as it was on non-standard and production spec tyres." Consistency in your argument would go a long way... Ordered your Hyundai yet?
It was on Cup 2 tyres and just like other attempts at a Ring with similar results. The 4WD traction advantages are also nullified on low speed circuits as well as high speed. Honda's latest time should be binned, but if you read my post correctly I also included the old model versions time which is still much quicker than the Ford RS, as is the 275 Trophy R (no cheating). VW opted for 2WD for the Clubsport S knowing the 4WD wouldn't crack it. Point of the thread.... Whatever you like as its Ring lap times, 2WD v 4WD, but started off with the well proven premise that if you have a car that doesn't do as well as expected, then the lap times suddenly aren't important. Hyundai is on the shopping list. So are others.
Oh my. If you don't think traction counts on any circuit, that does suggest that you may not have driven many powerful FWD cars... I did read your post correctly and, as I recall, there were also plenty of questions surrounding the specification of the outgoing Type-R when it set it's 'ring lap time. What makes you so sure that Renault didn't cheat? Or VW for that matter? Were you there? Have you seen what tyres were used, the weight, engine maps or dyno graphs for all cars involved? Were you driving one of them? Is that your big secret? You're actually a test driver? You also state that VW "knew" that 4WD wouldn't crack it. Seeing as no manufacturer has yet built a hardcore, track-special version of one of the 4WD hyper hatches, we can't actually definitively answer that question. You do seem to excel at answering questions based on little or no information. And I suppose it would be foolish to suggest that the 40th birthday of the Golf GTI had nothing to do with VW's selection of the GTI as their 'ring contender? I suspect PR played as big a part in that decision as engineering did. Sadly, despite your best attempts at an explanation, I still don't see the point. At what point did Ford ever claim that Nurburgring lap times were important for the Focus RS? What should it have done? From what I have bothered to read, it beat most of it's direct rivals, apart from the revised A45 AMG (which is significantly more expensive), while it isn't as quick as some (mostly irrelevant) 'track special' FWD hot hatches and a couple of Civics with questionable spec. How has the car not done as well as expected? As well as who expected? As I and others have asked in the past, I would love to know about your car experiences or your background, as you do really seem to enjoy sharing your wisdom about the automotive industry with us. It might even gain you some credibility and stop people from pulling your posts apart...
Not bad for a chap that doesn't understand what the thread is about.........plus 11 questions. Questions are easy. Ref the traction, my reply was just correcting your point that 4WD traction is nullified by 2WD on a dry fast circuit. It's nullified on all circuits, that's why equivalent type lightweight 2WD (FWD or RWD) lap faster in the dry. Simple. 4WD adds mass, advantages and disadvantages. Cheating - who knows what Renault did. There is cheating in F1, what's new. It just appears that Renault didn't blatantly bend the rules as much as Honda, Seat or maybe VW. That's why a range of Ring lap times from a different tests, drivers and conditions adds credence to a true overall capability. That's why Ring times are a nice benchmark to know. VW declared the 2WD Golf was the best choice based on weight and overall chassis capability. Ford have never claimed lap times are important but they are for other people, and Ford knew the RS wouldn't do well in the Ring lap time game. Whether the time it achieves is important to you is a personal viewpoint. It defines a capability. The Ford RS does loads of stuff very well, it just doesn't do the Ring thing. My turn for just one question: are you going to be interested in the Mk4 Megane RS Ring time? Car shopping lists are all theoretical until actioned.
Fellas, can you all stop destroying him, he might go to another forum, then we wont be able to laugh at him anymore, leave off with all the common sense and facts please and keep it on topic.........LOL
To be honest i enjoy the intelligence of the argument between these 2. Aerofoil is entitled to his opinion on a public car forum,and to be fair,his arguments are valid,debatable points. He also doesnt lower himself to personal insults,or respond to them. Tell you what though..i wouldnt mind betting that Aerofoil and Conley are one and the same. The personality traits are uncannily similar.
