berny2435

okay, perfect speed in, accelerates out like a bat out of hell = Viper and the Z/28's power to weight ratio just simply can't match.. .
pretty simple concept

Scot

okay, perfect speed in, accelerates out like a bat out of hell = Viper and the Z/28's power to weight ratio just simply can't match.. .
pretty simple concept
[/quote]


I agree... but how the hell does the Z28 only lose by 1 second in a 4 mile race around VIR Grand Course?

cdelena

We are talking about a difference in lap time less than 2%... I have had that variance in the same car on the same day simply because of track conditions. While significant enough to win or lose a race it is not enough in a single test to compare cars. IMO just another geewhiz test number.

billios996

Viper is ~400 lb lighter than the Z28.

berny2435

okay, perfect speed in, accelerates out like a bat out of hell = Viper and the Z/28's power to weight ratio just simply can't match.. .
pretty simple concept
[/quote]


I agree... but how the hell does the Z28 only lose by 1 second in a 4 mile race around VIR Grand Course?
[/quote]

I mentioned the Aero thing, but also these are the so-called marketing cars that get beat to shit for testing and magazine articles. Some people like smokey drifts. Who knows how many heat cycles the tires have on them. There could simply be a pucker factor with the Viper around certain corners though where it's just not worth it for a driver to go 10/10ths or they'd rather not hit that curb which give a better corner exit which gives another 3mph down the straight.. .

zdave87

okay, perfect speed in, accelerates out like a bat out of hell = Viper and the Z/28's power to weight ratio just simply can't match.. .
pretty simple concept
[/quote]


I agree... but how the hell does the Z28 only lose by 1 second in a 4 mile race around VIR Grand Course?
[/quote]

Time of day, temps, driver change, other cars on track, C_Units' ass in the passenger seat, etc etc.

Mr.E.G.

Think of it like this, Scot. If we took your Viper and my Vette and we drag raced from 0-10, then 0-20, then 0-30 all the way up to 0-100, and then did the same experiment from 5-10, then 5-20, then 5-30, all the way up to 100, and then did the same experiment from 10-20, then 10-30, then 10-40, all the way up to 100, etc., etc. we would eventually see where from some particular X speed to some particular Y speed, my car which is slower on the average will actually eek out an advantage in that particular rarified acceleration scenario. Perhaps when accelerating from 50-100, you have a gear change that I don't have to contend with, and that gives me a half second advantage. Well, if we would design a track wherein we both exit every single corner at exactly 50 mph, and we always have to brake on the next straight at 100 mph, I would theoretically always out accelerate you on that track.

Now, consider that we do the exact same experiment for braking or for corner speed or for transitioning through a slalom, and we find the sweet spots where my car (which is slower on the average in all of these categories) is faster than yours. We could then build a track where every corner exit speed is exactly in my car's sweet spot, and where every slalom has the spacing, entry speed, and geometry such that it's my ideal slalom, and every braking zone requires me to brake in the way that most favors my car. If we did all that, then you could imagine how I would be able to beat your car by a significant margin. Heck, I could mop the floor with your car, yet the results would tell us very little about the relative performance of our respective vehicles on ANY OTHER TRACK. The only thing we'd learn is that my car is better for that particular track.

Now, imagine that we simply acknowledge that these ideal scenarios can exist yet we don't specifically try to build a track to cater to my car's advantages. Well, somewhere there will be a track that accidentally does, to some extent or another. That could very well be what happened here. On the average, the z28 may not really compete with the Viper, but that particular track where they were really close could just be the ideal configuration to highlight the Camaro's strong points and/ or showcase the Viper's weak points.

Or the Viper had a bad alignment because someone hit a curb, or the moisture in the air that day confused the Viper's air metering sensors yet the Camaro's sensors understood exactly what was going on, so on and so forth, ad infinitum.

In short, variables.

jeffbrig

Damn...good post EG!

rob-2

It might also be inconsistent testing. You are bringing a level accuracy to something not so accurate. The delta between two test.

luder_5555

I would guess the biggest variables are the suspension on the Z28 and difference in weather and tire conditions if the tests are done on different days. The Z28 suspension is probably one of the most adjustable suspension setups to come on a production car. A little bit of tinkering will make a huge difference for better or worse. Who knows what tests Chevy either guessed right or sent an engineer to dial the car in for the testing, and what tests they just handed over the keys and let the magazine monkeys play with the suspension. Anyone who races knows ambient and track temps can easily mean a couple seconds.

Finally the one that gets me the most is when you see the magazine testers spend the first half of the day doing burnouts and power slides, only to decide to end the day with hot-laps. Obviously most of us have no idea if an extra set of tires is put on for the timed laps, but if they're using the same rubber they just ruined hooning around the entire day, there goes any relevancy of the resulting lap times.

As many are saying, there are far too many variables to take too much stock in lap times published by most magazines.