Corvette Z06 Forum banner

1 - 20 of 85 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
139 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Per a thread post on "the other forum",
Dave Hill on Sat., July 16 says it's real, 7:43 by Jan Magnussen.

My post in a thread on "the other forum" started last May is shown below.
I know I saw some "7:43" guesses on this forum. :cheers:

I think a low 7:40's is possible with a really clean lap, experienced driver, GOOD tires.
Under 7:40 and I will be TOTALLY AMAZED.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,744 Posts
Good I guess :thumb: :thumb:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
296 Posts
7:43 is a heck of good time at the Ring. However, considering the C5Z's 7:56, it is only 13 second difference. I just thought it could be more. I was hoping for a 7:35~7:38. However, 7:43 is damn impressive.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
561 Posts
novetteyet said:
Makes me wonder what it could have done without runflats.

Did Dave Hill confirm on that other website that the time was done on factory runflats? It wouldn't be the first time that a car manufacturer put non-oem tires on a car just to generate better times for PR. Not at all suggesting that they swapped tires, but one would think that he would have made that point clear to show that the time really is amazing, e.g., "put our tires on some of the "faster" cars and see how they do."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
971 Posts
Put on a 140 wear rating tire like the Ferrari or CGT, instead of a 280 wear rating tire like the run crap and see what it will do.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,276 Posts
Retired GM Engr said:
I think a low 7:40's is possible with a really clean lap, experienced driver, GOOD tires.
Under 7:40 and I will be TOTALLY AMAZED.
But it was a clean lap, with a very experienced driver :p heheh - and if the tyres are the weak link why are they on the car to begin with?

I am very doubtful someone dropping $80,000+ on a car wants the tyres to be a compromise... ;)


Zlicious said:
RC45, I think we are in trouble..:lol:
Not really ;) - supposedly Dave Hill this time accredited the C6 with a 7m59s instead of the 7m56s that he told everyone last time round.

Interesting how both the cars are "exactly 3s slower" than the originally "rumoured times". :p

So which is it? 7m56s or 7m59s? For the C6? Perhaps they ratcheted the time back to 7m59s to be closer to reality based time the Sport Auto guys set? ;) I would love to know what GM does to slow a car down by 3s after a year of "refining" :p

Maybe my this time next year GM will have the C6 lapping at 8m02s ;) - that would mean the Blue Devil would only need to hit 7m40s to satisfy... even though by then the competition would be lapping 7m30s with a flat tyre and 3 misfiring cylinders :p

What is amazing though, is that the time of 7m40s was actually reported and overheard on the day - by witnesses, so maybe their timing equipment is off? ;) and they just randomly chose a number that is slightly slower than what they recorded :)

Oh well - so 7m43s is all the car could manage after all then. Rather dissapointing - especially if it turns out that Jan Magnussen really had to scare himself setting up that time.

That still doesn't put the car in the class that GM supposedly wanted it - it's just kinda hanging there with no real competitor again ;)

Better luck next time I guess, :p
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
996 Posts
andym said:
:ity:

Maybe next time people will listen
Well Andy, looks like you were right :) :cheers:

But PLEASE make your posts more believable next time around, by putting some sort of reference, or else it just looks like any "I know all but can't tell you" posts out there!!!

Not a flame, I'm just saying :)

:z:
Geoff
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
603 Posts
I'd be curious to see what the 'Ring ace, Hans Stuck could pull off--7:30's for certain--absolutely amazing for a $65k car, on a compromised(runflat) street tire.

My hat's off to team Corvette... ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
139 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 ·
GTB/ZR-1 said:
I'd be curious to see what the 'Ring ace, Hans Stuck could pull off--7:30's for certain--absolutely amazing for a $65k car, on a compromised(runflat) street tire...
Yes, Hans is the "Production Porsche Master".

But, Jan M. ain't chopped liver. Look at the seat time racing C6-R's. Look at his record for endurance racing at the north "real" 'Ring. Which is still going strong. Prototype ride in LeMans European Series this year, including the 'Ring this Sept. And this bio. from the Corvette Racing site on "why they chose him in 2004".
Career Highlights
FIA/CIK Junior World Karting Champion 1987
FIA/CIK Junior World Karting Champion 1988
FIA/CIK Formula K World Champion 1990
Formula Ford Brands Hatch Festival Champion 1992
British Formula 3 Champion 1994, 14 wins
DTM Vice Champion 1995 (Mercedes)
International Touring Championship 1996 (Mercedes)
CART Championship 1996, 1999
Stewart Formula 1 driver 1997-98
American Le Mans Series 1999-2003 (Panoz, Ferrari), 8 wins
Danish Touring Car Champion 2003 (Peugeot)
American Le Mans Series 2004 (Corvette)


Leaves out a lot of nifty details too (McLaren F1 test driver, etc).
Probably a "little better" than many "careers".

I propose a two day "runoff" between Hans and Jan.
First Day: Porsche Carrera GT. Five individual laps each driver. Rest between.
Second Day: Same, with C6 Z06 on production tires. :D

We all know the Carrera is faster.
I would NOT bet on the driver outcome either day.
But I would PAY to be there.

And then we would know the real difference between the two cars.
Let's see how much Coroporate GUTS Porsche and GM can muster.
Ain't gonna happen. :cheers:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,957 Posts
7.43's and some are disappointed?

Holly crap! :lol: thats a hell of a quick time as far as I'm concerned.

Name another evolution of an automobile from the factory where the time drops by 13 seconds...?

Way to go GM ! Thats kickin @ss as far as I can see!

JMO

Rah...rah..sis boom ba! :lol:

Its a 66 thousand dollar AMERICAN BUILT SUPERCAR!
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,276 Posts
JBsZ06 said:
7.43's and some are disappointed?

Holly crap! :lol: thats a hell of a quick time as far as I'm concerned.
Well - 3 years ago 7m43s would have taken you to super car territory - but considering all the "super cars" used as benchmarks are 3 years old - let's keep everything in perspective - the C6 Z06 is an awesome car but if only now getting to 3 year old performance standards is still gonna be "off the ubercar pace".

But at least poor (literally) slobs such as myself can aspire to parking a C6 Z06 next to our doublewide while the other contenders will only be dog-eared posters on the outhouse door. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,957 Posts
An interesting perspective.

I look forward to the comparisions with many exotics like the new 200K Ferrari F430/ the Lamborghini Gallardo/Aston Martin lineup/ the new and upcoming replacement for the ferrari 575 and any other new sports car.

Should be interesting to see how the 66 grand C6 Z06 compares
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
215 Posts
RC45 said:
Not really ;) - supposedly Dave Hill this time accredited the C6 with a 7m59s instead of the 7m56s that he told everyone last time round.

Interesting how both the cars are "exactly 3s slower" than the originally "rumoured times". :p

So which is it? 7m56s or 7m59s? For the C6? Perhaps they ratcheted the time back to 7m59s to be closer to reality based time the Sport Auto guys set? ;) I would love to know what GM does to slow a car down by 3s after a year of "refining" :p
The 7m 59s was the C6 and the 7m 56s was the C5 Z06 if I remember correctly....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,567 Posts
Another Yellow said:
Listen to what??? You were wrong. :D You said it was the "Blue Devil" in your posts. Here's the thread. Your post # 58 and # 61.
To be fair, he did say quite consistently that 7m43 was the Z06 time, and 7m40 was the BD time. (When almost everyone else insisted 7:40 was for the Z06, and there was no 7:43 time. He got a lot of flack for it, too). So at least half his claim was correct. The other half remains to be seen.
 
1 - 20 of 85 Posts
Top