What is the Nurburgring record for Enzo?

[dons5]

hey guys i cant remmeber where i read this from but please tell me its total bullshit

"When stopping with conventional steel brakes, you want to apply hard pressure at first, then ease off as the ABS activates. But with the ceramic brakes, you brake lightly at first--then, after the ABS jiggles, you brake harder--but, compared with steel brakes, you are braking for a shorter overall amount of time"

easing off doesnt that mess up the abs? dont u want it planted? brake lightley at first then after abs activates u press harder?? lol what the fuck

[Vansquish]

It depends on what you're trying to do. If you pump the brakes like people were/are trained to do when their cars aren't ABS equipped, you can "fool" the ABS into not kicking in at all. I very nearly had an accident because of this phenomenon, though I wasn't intentionally pumping the brakes, it was just because the guy pulling out of the parking lot in front of me couldn't figure out what the hell he wanted to do. All the same, I don't know that easing off would have the same effect, I think actually releasing the brakes is the only way that it can entirely be defeated.

If you want the brakes to function optimally with ABS, you just hit them and keep your foot planted when the ABS kicks in...works much better that way.

[dons5]

ya exactly, and all this pumping with non abs i think is bs too, i think its jus made for ppl that dont know what there doin to not lock up. I remmeber i was flying down this street one day in my dad junk car and when i went over the crest of the lil hill ( i know stupid of me) there was a car parked, i smoothely but quickly applied brakes really hard i heard them lock for lil a millisecond quickly relases brakes (not all the way) and reapplied. Stooped so quickly. lol if i would of pumped, the only thing pumping now would be a machine pumping my heart in a coma lol

[RC45]

Originally Posted by dons5 i smoothely but quickly applied brakes really hard i heard them lock for lil a millisecond quickly relases brakes (not all the way) and reapplied.

that is what the 'pumping' method is trying to ask you to do..

[dons5]

no, i think when they tell ppl to pump he brakes they dont mean press th brakes as hard as possible and if u hear a lockup slightly lift and then reaplly, most ppl arent skilld enough doin that, i jus think it means pump then like on off on off on off, they dont mean brake as hard and long as possible and if u lockup then lift slightly

[deth]

^^^may we all bow down to your infinite knowledge and wisdom. we 'commoners' happen to know nothing. please enlighten us with your 'super-awesome braking skills'. you are clearly the master of all things automobile related.

Originally Posted by dons5 3. "but the Mclaren F1 had low downforce for a reason. It was designed as a low drag car and that has its disadvantages when it comes to downforce." - Exactly cause all they wanted to do was beat the top speed record

odd how mclaren with their apparently infinite budget could barely best a g35 in terms of Cd, 0.32 and 0.35 respectively.

[dons5]

ok what the hell was the point of that? what is ur problem

[red bullet]

OMG, why does there have to be fighting between tifosi and the rest in F1 and now also in other stuff? :shock:

The F1 was, when it was created, a beast. Nothing came close. Murray had a dream of making the perfect supercar: great downforce, great suspension, great engine, and combining that with the ability of being roomy for tranporting goods and/or people. This last is maybe brilliant, but I find it excessory. A supercar doesn't need that. It's the total opposite of a supercar. Nevertheless, Murray succeeded and made a car, with all the technology Mclaren then had, and since there were the best in F1 then, it was a freakin fast car. It was a glory for Mclaren and a shame for all the other supercar constructors, even Ferrari. It was the beginning of a period when more and more F1technology was used in road cars. Other companies did it too at the moment, but to a far lesser extent than Mclaren. That explains the succes in normal tests. Murray was an F1guy, and had that knowledge. (in other companies, like Ferrari, road cars and F1 were very much seperated) And once they made a raceversion of it, it blew everybody away on the track too. Although I'm a Ferrari fan, that is why I love the F1, it' so damn fast and very good looking too.

The competitors struggled for years to make something like a Mclaren F1. And since they weren't used to using F1tech in roadcars that much, it took them years.
And now, they finally reached a stage where they can beat the F1 in some aspects. Nor Ferrari nor Porsche never intend tot have much luggage room in such cars (why should it), but they could do it. Getting the performance of an F1 into the Enzo or CGT is something else. Problem is that somehow their approach is wrong. If they did it the Mclaren-way (putting a F1designer that wanted to make a dreamcar, onto it), the cars would be even better. Would they beat the F1? Probably not. Murray is still one of the best F1designers in history, although he wasn't a very pleasant man.

Hails to all three of the cars, since they are damn nice and fast supercars, no matter who's fastest. I don't like only because they're fast, they must also have some aura around it, it must have some 'history' and off course beauty. They should be special cars, not average joe cars.

[dons5]

i agree with some pf ur points. but the Mac F1 didnt have great downforce, actually it was known for its lack of downforce (talkin bout the regular version), and second, why is the Mac the fastest car because its top speed is higher? that doesnt mean its "the fastest car". some cars are faster then others at 0-100, or 0-200 or 100-200, or through the "so and so" turn, or under braking from 200-100, or under braking from 100-0, but just because a car can hit a higher top speed doesnt make it the fastest car. Look at F1 in 01, 02 and probably 03 and 04 also, Williams-BMW had the potential to be the car with the highest top speed, but did that mean it was the fastest car no, it got slaugtered. And other way around with renault defenetely not the car with highest top speed in a stragiht line but they were defenetely still competitive. Im not dogging the Mac down here as i love racing cars in general so i love all supercars, but the Mac defenetely wouldnt be my choice around a track Even if the Enzo and CGT were never made i still wouldnt choose the Mac for a track. And lets face it, these are supercars so there supposed to be there best on a track, not on a public road or long straightaway.

[red bullet]

Originally Posted by dons5 i agree with some pf ur points. but the Mac F1 didnt have great downforce, actually it was known for its lack of downforce (talkin bout the regular version), and second, why is the Mac the fastest car because its top speed is higher? that doesnt mean its "the fastest car". some cars are faster then others at 0-100, or 0-200 or 100-200, or through the "so and so" turn, or under braking from 200-100, or under braking from 100-0, but just because a car can hit a higher top speed doesnt make it the fastest car. Look at F1 in 01, 02 and probably 03 and 04 also, Williams-BMW had the potential to be the car with the highest top speed, but did that mean it was the fastest car no, it got slaugtered. And other way around with renault defenetely not the car with highest top speed in a stragiht line but they were defenetely still competitive. Im not dogging the Mac down here as i love racing cars in general so i love all supercars, but the Mac defenetely wouldnt be my choice around a track Even if the Enzo and CGT were never made i still wouldnt choose the Mac for a track. And lets face it, these are supercars so there supposed to be there best on a track, not on a public road or long straightaway.

The victories in Le Mans prove it's a fast car, especially in straight line. But the downforce should have been good too, since no matter how long the straights are in Le Mans cornering is important, besides the F1 was also good in other GTraces, where more downforce is required. I don't say the F1 is the best in terms of downforce, but it is a sort of low subtop.

And you're that one single aspect of the car, that no other car can match, doesn't make it a great racecar. The total package is important. Look at Formula 1, Ferrari is in every aspect very good. They have one of the best engines, best chassis', best tyres (although that's not entirely correct, Michelin is in fact better)... Only when the whole puzzle fits, you have a great racecar. A great engine doesn't make it a good racer, nor does a great chassis, but all the bits and pieces together can.

[dons5]

exactly ur right about the last paragraph, but about the first paragraph just because a car was extremely succesfull in a race version doesnt mean the road version has tons of downforce too, the downforce of a race car with its front,side and rear body kit, rear wing, and if it had a diffuser which it probably did would all give it wayyyy more downforce/stability then the road car. Look at a Ferrari 360 not a whole lot of downforce as a road car probably less then 200 pounds of downforce but as a race car its making like 2000 pounds of downforce, same thing with the 550/575M which probably has even less downforce then a 360 but as a race version has over 4000 pounds of downforce simply because thats what the rules allow.