Lightning Lap 2018

[12,000 RPM]

https://www.caranddriver.com/features/lightning-lap-2018

https://www.caranddriver.com/features/lightning-lap-times-historical-data

Sidebar, VIR is fucking awful. They put it in Forza and everyone hates it. Not a cubist Tilke amoeba, but I would describe the typical VIR corner as a "blind wart". Feels like driving too fast on a public road more than attacking a nice flowing race track. But they made their bed.

[cawimmer430]

Stupid GDPR. 

They've geo-blocked Europe because of the idiotic, totally retarded GDPR crap. I loved reading C&D articles. Their writers had a way with words. By contrast Motor Trend and Road & Track feel a little dry and more serious.

[MX793]

Wow.  Pretty surprised that the PP2 Mustang was a fair bit quicker than the current  Camaro SS 1LE.  I guess that goes to show that putting correctly sized tires on a car can make a huge difference in performance.

[MexicoCityM3]

I remember how when I put a square 275/35-18 R Compound setup on my E90M3 I immediately started humiliating 997 turbos. Modded. At altitude. Just tires.

[68_427]

Wow.  Pretty surprised that the PP2 Mustang was a fair bit quicker than the current  Camaro SS 1LE.  I guess that goes to show that putting correctly sized tires on a car can make a huge difference in performance.

Is 1 second really that large?  I wonder if the Camaro had wider front tires if it would close the gap a bit, but in all honesty I think 1 second is small enough of a gap that even weather or track temps could account for much of the difference. 

I would still take the Mustang however

[r0tor]

The gt2rs was pushing 2gs most of the corners... Holy shit

[MX793]

Is 1 second really that large?  I wonder if the Camaro had wider front tires if it would close the gap a bit, but in all honesty I think 1 second is small enough of a gap that even weather or track temps could account for much of the difference. 

I would still take the Mustang however

The Mustang is chronically under-tired.

The regular SS has 245 front and 275 rear.  The Camaro SS 1LE has 285 Front and 305 rears.

The regular Mustang GT gets 235 square with the base wheel and 255 square if you get the optional 19" wheels.  PP1 increases that to 255 front, 275 rear.  That was the widest rubber you could get until this year (yes, a 1LE's front tires are wider than the rears on the PP1).  PP2 gives it 305 square, which gives it a fighting chance against the Camaro.

The PP2 ran 12 seconds faster than the PP1 they previously tested a couple of years ago.  The extra HP for 2018 helped a bit, I'm sure, as did the firmer suspension (and magneride), but I'm going to chalk most of that up to the difference in tires.

[Gotta-Qik-C7]

I declare the ZR1 the winner........ 

[Xer0]

I love that they included the Accord this year and it put on a hell of a showing.

[FoMoJo]

Wow.  Pretty surprised that the PP2 Mustang was a fair bit quicker than the current  Camaro SS 1LE.  I guess that goes to show that putting correctly sized tires on a car can make a huge difference in performance.

Definitely punching above its weight.

[CaminoRacer]

The Mustang is chronically under-tired.

The regular SS has 245 front and 275 rear.  The Camaro SS 1LE has 285 Front and 305 rears.

The regular Mustang GT gets 235 square with the base wheel and 255 square if you get the optional 19" wheels.  PP1 increases that to 255 front, 275 rear.  That was the widest rubber you could get until this year (yes, a 1LE's front tires are wider than the rears on the PP1).  PP2 gives it 305 square, which gives it a fighting chance against the Camaro.

The PP2 ran 12 seconds faster than the PP1 they previously tested a couple of years ago.  The extra HP for 2018 helped a bit, I'm sure, as did the firmer suspension (and magneride), but I'm going to chalk most of that up to the difference in tires.

If the tires helped it gain 12 seconds, the difference between 285s on the front of the Camaro and 305s on the front of the Mustang might explain the 1 second gap.

[CaminoRacer]

I declare the ZR1 the winner........ 

Yup!

The Ford GT is a bit disappointing here. I'd think it could lap faster than the Lambo.

[MX793]

If the tires helped it gain 12 seconds, the difference between 285s on the front of the Camaro and 305s on the front of the Mustang might explain the 1 second gap.

Mustang is also a heavier car (and IIRC, more front heavy to boot).

[CaminoRacer]

Mustang is also a heavier car (and IIRC, more front heavy to boot).

From what I've seen of modern performance cars, weight no longer matters and physics is relative.

[MX793]

From what I've seen of modern performance cars, weight no longer matters and physics is relative.

Weight matters when it comes to the amount of shear load put into the tires under a give G load.  And more tire means less stress at a given load, so it can support more force before is starts to slide.

[Laconian]

Stupid GDPR. 

They've geo-blocked Europe because of the idiotic, totally retarded GDPR crap. I loved reading C&D articles. Their writers had a way with words. By contrast Motor Trend and Road & Track feel a little dry and more serious.

Sorry dude, might be good to use Tor or some other kind of proxy? GPDR carries much too big of a stick.

[CALL_911]

Didn't get to the GT2 RS video yet, but goddamn that ZR1 is incredible

[Galaxy]

It is interesting that the city publication Road&Track has no issues.

[GoCougs]

I remember how when I put a square 275/35-18 R Compound setup on my E90M3 I immediately started humiliating 997 turbos. Modded. At altitude. Just tires.

Very subjective - if it were only about tires any performance car worth anything would come from the factory with huge sticky tires, yet, very few do.

Here's an illustrative story:  https://www.motortrend.com/cars/chevrolet/camaro/2014/on-chevrolet-camaro-do-the-tires-make-the-car/

Motor Trend took the then-stickiest tires available on a production car at the time (Pirelli Trofeo R) in ginormous 305 width both F&R from the 5th gen Camaro Z/28 and put them on a 5th gen SS 1LE. In Motor Trend's sorta-goofy figure eight handling test, the SS 1LE scored the exact same time (but the SS 1LE did accelerate and brake better). Tires mean something, but they're typically not a deal breaker/maker (ergo, factory tires that typically aren't huge and sticky).

[GoCougs]

Wow.  Pretty surprised that the PP2 Mustang was a fair bit quicker than the current  Camaro SS 1LE.  I guess that goes to show that putting correctly sized tires on a car can make a huge difference in performance.

1 second differential, separated by two years, I would say is definitely in the noise, esp. on a long track like VIR - look at the ~2.5 second differential noted for the Ford GT.

[GoCougs]

Yup!

The Ford GT is a bit disappointing here. I'd think it could lap faster than the Lambo.

The GT is much more about show and legacy than street performance (curiously, like the GT350 ). It's a race car first and was compromised to a fair extent to be sellable.

[GoCougs]

Definitely punching above its weight.

No, not really - the SS 1LE was there two years ago so the Mustang is finally pulling even, or maybe not quite, if one is not generous and notes the overheating differential.

Now the ZR1, that redefines the phrase.

[12,000 RPM]

Tires are def the real hero in this story (and LL in general). I'd wager there are plenty of cars from the past that could lop a couple seconds off their time with modern compounds. And the fastest cars have HP that can only be deployed on wide near-race compound rubber. But you don't need a GT2 RS to see how far rubber has come. A ~$23K Civic Si twirls a skidpad at 0.93g. I think a run of the mill Mazda3 can do it at 0.9g.

[MX793]

Very subjective - if it were only about tires any performance car worth anything would come from the factory with huge sticky tires, yet, very few do.

Here's an illustrative story:  https://www.motortrend.com/cars/chevrolet/camaro/2014/on-chevrolet-camaro-do-the-tires-make-the-car/

Motor Trend took the then-stickiest tires available on a production car at the time (Pirelli Trofeo R) in ginormous 305 width both F&R from the 5th gen Camaro Z/28 and put them on a 5th gen SS 1LE. In Motor Trend's sorta-goofy figure eight handling test, the SS 1LE scored the exact same time (but the SS 1LE did accelerate and brake better). Tires mean something, but they're typically not a deal breaker/maker (ergo, factory tires that typically aren't huge and sticky).

Spoken like someone who's never driven a car hard on a race course.

Performance cars built for street use by and large don't use the biggest and best tires for a number of reasons.  Wide, super sticky, extreme performance tires suck on the street.  They're noisy, they wear out fast, they're expensive to replace, they hurt fuel mileage, they hurt ride comfort, they tramline pretty noticeably, grip noticeably falls off in cooler temperatures (like around 50F, and noticeable at street speeds), and they pick up and throw little stones that will do a number on your paint.  A vehicle intended to live on the street will pretty much never be driven to the limits of an extreme performance tires, so why saddle it with all of those compromises that will be viewed negatively by 98% of prospective buyers?

In the auto-x community, the adage is that tires, per dollar, are the single most transformative modification you can make to a street car.  As with most anything, you do reach a point where you start seeing diminishing returns if you're already starting with a very aggressive tire setup.  You reach a point where going wider just adds more unsprung, rotating mass and isn't really giving you more grip.  A Camaro 1LE is already near the pointy end from the factory as far as wheels and tires go, both in terms of compound and width.  If GM has demonstrated anything over the past decade or more, it's that their handling group knows how to get it right.  You can still make some improvements (at the expense of some streetability), but they left far less on the table than most manufacturers do with sports/sporty/performance cars.

[MexicoCityM3]

From what I've seen of modern performance cars, weight no longer matters and physics is relative.

And as proof we have the GLS 63 on this test. And the Jeep. And the M5.

[MexicoCityM3]

Very subjective - if it were only about tires any performance car worth anything would come from the factory with huge sticky tires, yet, very few do.

Here's an illustrative story:  https://www.motortrend.com/cars/chevrolet/camaro/2014/on-chevrolet-camaro-do-the-tires-make-the-car/

Motor Trend took the then-stickiest tires available on a production car at the time (Pirelli Trofeo R) in ginormous 305 width both F&R from the 5th gen Camaro Z/28 and put them on a 5th gen SS 1LE. In Motor Trend's sorta-goofy figure eight handling test, the SS 1LE scored the exact same time (but the SS 1LE did accelerate and brake better). Tires mean something, but they're typically not a deal breaker/maker (ergo, factory tires that typically aren't huge and sticky).

Spoken like someone who's never driven a car hard on a race course.

Performance cars built for street use by and large don't use the biggest and best tires for a number of reasons.  Wide, super sticky, extreme performance tires suck on the street.  They're noisy, they wear out fast, they're expensive to replace, they hurt fuel mileage, they hurt ride comfort, they tramline pretty noticeably, grip noticeably falls off in cooler temperatures (like around 50F, and noticeable at street speeds), and they pick up and throw little stones that will do a number on your paint.  A vehicle intended to live on the street will pretty much never be driven to the limits of an extreme performance tires, so why saddle it with all of those compromises that will be viewed negatively by 98% of prospective buyers?

In the auto-x community, the adage is that tires, per dollar, are the single most transformative modification you can make to a street car.  As with most anything, you do reach a point where you start seeing diminishing returns if you're already starting with a very aggressive tire setup.  You reach a point where going wider just adds more unsprung, rotating mass and isn't really giving you more grip.  A Camaro 1LE is already near the pointy end from the factory as far as wheels and tires go, both in terms of compound and width.  If GM has demonstrated anything over the past decade or more, it's that their handling group knows how to get it right.  You can still make some improvements (at the expense of some streetability), but they left far less on the table than most manufacturers do with sports/sporty/performance cars.

+1. MX is right here Cougs. Tires are the single best price/performance upgrade for the occasional track driver - just after the driver himself.

One thing that has changed over the past few years is that advances in tire tech have reduced the usual tradeoffs of going for stickier compounds enabling street driven cars to come stock with rubber that a few years ago would be undriveable for example in the wet.

The E46 M3 CSL came with first generation Pilot Sport Cups and the car came with a disclaimer that you had to sign about the risks of driving it in the rain. For the current generation of those tires that has been mitigated a lot.

[GoCougs]

+1. MX is right here Cougs. Tires are the single best price/performance upgrade for the occasional track driver - just after the driver himself.

One thing that has changed over the past few years is that advances in tire tech have reduced the usual tradeoffs of going for stickier compounds enabling street driven cars to come stock with rubber that a few years ago would be undriveable for example in the wet.

The E46 M3 CSL came with first generation Pilot Sport Cups and the car came with a disclaimer that you had to sign about the risks of driving it in the rain. For the current generation of those tires that has been mitigated a lot.

No, not really; well, that is, right in proving that data and unshakable premises makes people cranky, esp. when their fanyboyism is at stake.

Tires are a subset; like springs, dampers, chassis, etc.; of the whole. Sure, they matter, but so do a lot of other things.

[FoMoJo]

No, not really; well, that is, right in proving that data and unshakable premises makes people cranky, esp. when their fanyboyism is at stake.

Tires are a subset; like springs, dampers, chassis, etc.; of the whole. Sure, they matter, but so do a lot of other things.

It's okay, Camaro will just stick on bigger tires next time, and you won't have to feel threatened again; for a while .

[CaminoRacer]

Sorry dude, might be good to use Tor or some other kind of proxy? GPDR carries much too big of a stick.

https://www.privateinternetaccess.com

[MX793]

No, not really; well, that is, right in proving that data and unshakable premises makes people cranky, esp. when their fanyboyism is at stake.

Tires are a subset; like springs, dampers, chassis, etc.; of the whole. Sure, they matter, but so do a lot of other things.

And I can show you plenty of data that says otherwise, and that your Camaro 1LE on Z28 tires example is an exception, not the rule.

2009 C&D Lightning lap:  Their 2010 Mustang GT PP came with the wrong tires.  They ran a few laps on whatever the car came with while waiting for Ford to show up with the correct Pirelli PZero performance tires for the car.  From the article:

The quickest entry in LL1 proved once again just how large a role tires play in performance. Our Mustang GT showed up wearing the wrong tires, so while we waited for a set of Pirelli P Zeros (part of the $1530 Track pack) to arrive, we turned a couple of educational practice laps. The Mustang was noncommittal on turn-in and floppy and floaty through the esses. Great, we thought, another flaccid pony car that doesn't know how to turn.

Once the P Zeros arrived, though, we would have believed that the entire suspension had been overhauled. There was noticeably more grip everywhere, leading to lap times that were worlds—more than five seconds—quicker.

As an additional data point, the following year, C&D ran the new 5.0L Mustang GTPP.  97 more horespower and 65 lbs-ft more torque and an extra ratio in the transmission (same chassis, tires, suspension, brakes...).  That lapped just under 5 seconds faster than the 2010 model.  So tires alone had as much of an effect as adding a lot more power.  Which do you think would cost more:  Adding 30%+ more power to a car or replacing the tires?

From my own experience actually participating in sanctioned auto competitions and playing around with different tires in my first few seasons of auto-x...

2012 I was competing with my '11 Mustang.  The car was showroom stock, right down to the OEM wheels and tires (17x7" rims with 235 wide all-seasons).  That year, I ran against a guy with an '04 WRX.  He had some very light modification that pushed him out of the stock class (I think maybe lowering springs).  I beat his raw times by 2-3% (e.g. 1-1.5 second faster on a 50 second course), consistently, all season.

In the off season, I invested ~$1200 in a set of 18x8 Pony Package wheels and some 255 wide summer performance tires (budget tires, a tier below something like a Pilot SuperSport and 2 tiers below the Rivals or Star Specs that the fast guys ran).  My competitor showed up having sunk probably twice that into suspension and engine mods (a fully adjustable set of coilovers, swaybars, and a Cobb Stage I kit netting ~20-25% more power), but the same tires he'd been running on the year before.  At the first event, I beat him by a larger margin than I'd beat him all the previous season.  At the next event, his car was wearing a set of sticky summer tires (at least 1 tier up on mine in terms of performance class and a much lower TR rating).  I didn't beat him again the rest of the season.  His average margin of victory through the rest of the season was 2%.  Another meter stick would be one of the more seasoned competitors (runs the Pro class) who was running the exact same car and tire setup both years.  The year I was on my OE tires, he beat me by an average of 1.5%.  After changing my tires, I beat him by an average margin of 1%.  That's a 1.75 second swing assuming a 50 second course just from upgrading tires.  In this sport, that's huge.  To put it into perspective, if the runner up in this year's championship had run an average of just .226 seconds faster per event, he'd have won the title.  If you're not already at the pointy end of the tire performance spectrum, a tire upgrade can yield an improvement of an order of magnitude on that, as I've both seen and personally experienced.