Run flat tires.

 

Run flat tires

 

Yeah diffrent driver for sure will be the difference on this one. But that young chap is a former BTC champion (Jason Plato) so he's got alot of experience under his belt. I thought they drove these cars pretty darn good but not too serious. They should really race these side by side like the Japanese do on Best Motoring.

 

This comparison is done by two professional racing drivers.

The old man Tiff Needle is also a bloody good racing driver. Once race in F1 and very active in Le Mans and GT Championship.

He is also a long time Top Gear host alongside Jeremy Clarkson until 2000. And not surprisingly, he is also one of the eight White Stigs in the latest "Stig Identity" rumour.

Check out these:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiff_Needell

Drifting stock Z06 @ 100mph:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L729eQpudKk

 

"With a 0 to 62mph (100 km/h) time of 7.1 secs."

An indirect reference: EVO magazine (UK) lapped their lap time challenge circuit with the same driver, but on a different day (cond/temp varies): R56 JCW Stage 1 + Stock Suspension is 2.5 secs a lap faster than a GTI MK V manual.

 

Ahh, figures - I should pay more attention next time.

Ok another question, I have noticed this 0 to 62 trend, instead of 60. What's up with that?

 

09 Scirocco(and most likely 2010 MK VI GTI) is considerably faster than outgoing MK V GTI.

 

How does that relate to the question that you quoted?

And talking about them being faster, I hope they are - if the article that I posted is correct (and I do not know if it is or not) I hope to god its faster. For high 30's I could buy a '10 Camaro SS, I doubt those two would go toe to toe with one of those..

 

As the instructor said at the last track day I was at, the passenger seat goes 15 miles an hour faster than the driver's seat.

0.07 seconds is well within their margin of errors, so you can't say one goes faster than the other. With Tiff's comments about wheel spin I wonder if the MINI has LSD. Throw in LSD and some better tires and it'd be going a bit faster.

Tiff is the guy I wanted to name our first MINI after, but the wife thought it sounded too much like a girl's name.

 

Tiff did a nice how-to video of FWD stunts:

 

I love the Corvette video. Hummmmm, I wish some of those folks who badmounth american cars and engineering would take look at that video. I guess for 60K that's all you get eh?? I will give up the interior for performance like that for 60K.

Regards,

Pat

 

In the counties that use the metric system, they measure time from 0-100
100kph is roughly 62mph.

 

If that MCS wouldve had a DSG gearbox (or something similar) the results would've been the opposite.

 

I've heard the "cannablize GTi sales" as a reason not to bring the Scirroco here before, but I'm not sure why that applies to the US,but not the rest of the world

 

I don't think they needed sticky tires for that video

 

I got to see one in London last month and got to say it looks Hot in person. Ten times better than in pics

 

I'm sure there's a lot of hamming it up for the camera, but it should be noted that they are both very well trained racing drivers. I'm sure they do actual fast-laps that don't necessarily get edited onto the air

 

Yep - weight isn't really the determining factor in braking distances, because added weight both hurts *and* helps braking in equal measure.

You're more likely to see a difference from different temperatures, different road compositions, and different tread compounds between two car tests.

 

All that would mean is higher production costs to get data that they don't share. I'd bet it's more like what they show, and the off camera discussions are like "0.07 sec different in that lap? Pretty much a tie I'd say".... "yeah, that's less time than a short farrt! If they'd spend some money on real timing equipement, we' have known for at least that test. As it is, who knows which one was faster... A freakin' stopwatch? What are they kidding?"..."Really, I was surprised that it was so close... I thought the Scirocco would eat the Mini for lunch"... "Guess that a good chassis tune counts more than the looks and the HP"... "Pretty much... Wonder how it would have come out with a 5 lap race or a best of 5?"

Matt

 

No, added weight does not, in and of itself, help braking. A heavier car, moving at the same speed as a lighter car, will always require more force to stop in the same distance than the lighter car. It's basic physics -- weight is always an important factor is momentum (and hence, braking).

Perhaps the heavier car comes with better brakes, stickier tires, what have you... but as an absolute, the smaller mass is easier to stop than the greater mass.

 

Yes, but the braking force available at the tire/road interface is determined by the vehicle weight multiplied by the coefficient of friction between the tire and the road. So the relationship between vehicle weight and braking force is linear.

While a heavier car requires that the brakes bleed off more kinetic energy to slow down from any particular speed, it will also provide more braking force at the tires. And in both the kinetic energy and braking force calculations, mass is a linear term.

EDIT - Here's a braking chart of about 300 different cars. Sporty cars, sedate cars, expensive cars, cheap cars, heavy cars, light cars, American cars, foreign cars - the whole gamut.

Notice how virtually all of the stopping distances are right around 40 meters, plus or minus about 3 meters? That's no coincidence. When you're calculating stopping distances, mass drops out of the equations completely. The remaining small variances are from the brakes, tires, road conditions, driver skill, etcetera.

 

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/crstp.html

grumble, grumble, grumble...

 

That's what I love about physics - sometimes the right answers are just plain counterintuitive!

Although, this has gotten me curious about why so many of the real-world braking tests are showing stopping distances that are shorter than the calculated theoretical stopping distances, even using a "perfect" friction coefficient of 1.0.

The only thing I can think of is that the movement of the car's suspension might cause the equivalent weight on the car's tires to exceed the actual weight of the car during braking, providing more braking force than the calculations would indicate.

 

A glance at the chart linked above; showed no MINI.

The rear engine cars seemed to do best.

 

Aero effects can increase the downforce, so increase the braking force, without changing the mass in the equation.

Though I wouldn't expect the speed used in typical braking tests to make much difference.