lmao

 

its establishing whether you have any actual experience of the ring at all, and whether you have any knowledge of the subject you are pontificating about.

So, I ask again, whats your actual experience of the Ring Pete?

 

I'm not pontificating, I'm not interested in getting into a silly argument with you about comparative number of times round the Nordschlieffe, I'm expressing an opinion, based on my experience of the ring, that the times on Wikipedia are not an absolute indication of relative performance.


Ok?

 

The dodge viper did a sub 8 minute lap! so three!

Now that driver did have ***** of steel!!

 

Just like every win in a GP or F1 world championship win is not idicative of absolute performance of the cars involved. GP/F1 world championship winners are still winners. There must be some measure FFS

 

What do the times of a GP of F1 cars round a circuit have in common?

They are all driven by F1 or GP drivers.

What kind of drivers have been involved in the times displayed in the Wiki list?

Some unnnamed, some named. Some just name the publication.

Let me put it this way, if you had a time for avehicle, and the source was listed as being "Top Gear". You have a choice of Sabine, Jeremry, The Stig, Hammond, May or A.N.Other being the driver.

You don't think that will have a significant impact on time round the ring?


Of course a quick car is a quick car, no denying it - But I wouldn't say that a ZR1 is quicker than a Zonda F round the ring just because that list says so.

 

Yes, if the record is incomplete, i.e. no driver name etc. then it's meaningless. However; if there is a recorded time (official), driver name, date, car etc. why would it be less of a record than any other?
Just because a significantly slower car (on paper) records a time quicker than an (on paper) faster car, does not mean the said car/driver does not deserve the record.
If you don't agree with the Wiki list then offer your insight.

 

Right so you agree, that an incomplete list is meaningless. The Wikilist is incomplete and by your own definition, meaningless.

So, the question has to be asked. Why the fvck are you arguing with me about it?

 

The incomplete listings are meaningless. The brighter reader can mentally discard these . The complete listings remain as records unless discredited.
BTW, who's arguing with you? Argument is reliant on two opposed 'valid' viewpoints

 

Anyway, as I said on the first thread, it was a ballsy, highly entertaining drive in a car at the Ring. A car that most wouldn't expect was capable of such a quick time. OK the driver must spend a fair amount of time in one, given his job, BUT, he still had to produce the goods around the circuit and he did that admirably.

Of course there will always be comparisons but with so many variables, (and yes warrenm2 I've been to the Ring for years now and prefer to visit it with a quilted sheet), it's difficult to make a definite comparison without it being regulated like class racing is.

 

For any direct comparison you need consistancy, you need repeatable results. If you don't have those, then its guesswork. The wiki list gives an "idea" of which cars go faster round the ring that others, but it is by no means definitive. And I certainly wouldn't put my life on car "A" being consistantly faster than car "B" when the difference is <5-10 seconds.
Why is it when you tie one of you kids up in knots they consistantly feel the need resort to insult?

 

That is complete fantasy. How can you have consistency on a track? The variables are probably unquantifiable.

Where was the insult? Which/whose child have you tied up?

 

I would probably start by looking at any professional driver in the world that manages to belt out lap after lap after lap varying by tenths of a second.

The best drivers are defined by consistency. It's what seperates the men from the boys. Anyone can go fast, but to do it consistently, thats the key.

I feel we are moving further and further away from the list, and an unmistakably great drive, and towards you arguing with me purely for the sake of it. I think its called "trolling".

All I said was that the list wasn't a reliable one - And youself and Warren took great umbrage to it for some reason.

 

It's so, so easy to take any record/list and examine it till it squeaks.
I'm not 'trolling', that's not my purpose.
I will however challenge generalism (is that a word?).
In the profession in which I'm involved, it is not credible to challenge 'recorded facts' without valid, verifiable data that you wish to replace the previous record/data with.
As I said earlier, if you have data/timings that challenge those listed then the option is there for you to amend the record.

 

Which profession is that, then?

Surely if you have data which you know is less than reliable, then you accept that it may in error, regardless of whether you have a replacement or not.

I mean the fourth best time recorded in the Wiki list is a Lexus LF-A. And in the comments field it says "Unofficial time measured by bystanders at the track"

Now I would say that data does not stand up to any scrutiny at all. And you certainly couldn't use in any definitive statement that this car is faster than <insert similarly specced car here>. All you can say is that "this car is pretty quick". You cannot be any more specific than that.

Certainly not when saying that Car "X "is 5 seconds a lap faster than car "Y" which is waht I was saying in the context of the discussion before you and Warren got all exicited.

 

PeteBrants recent Nurburgring experience.



About to start the clock on another hot BtG lap...