1. Nissan and Dunlop claims incredibly high grip and improvmet every year
2. sport auto supertest 2009 GT-R 7m38s: incredibly fast on cornering, but so modest results when wet (despite the AWD). there'd be just ONE reason: extreme tyres. full stop. there's something wrong in it, means that Nissan and Dunlop have worked aswell for dry conditions, but you have always denied.
contradictions? you are the king of contradictions. how you contradicted 100,000 times the MediaManipulations (ex: 0-200 kph: 458 9.8s ...scandal, 997 TurboS 9.8s: good form and weather), you will contradict here too. You will always contradicting because you always want to be right on everything, and bring forward your obsessions, speaking for absolutes.
the contradiction is inevitable.
you seem confused about the LF-A, you're not in a position to ask me questions: You said that the Lexus was aiming about feelings, and you have been contradicted by the same lexus, with a triumphal announcement,, where they talk about numbers
1) So if they claim improvements in grip each year, that means the tire is the same as an R-compound? LOL, how did you arrive at that?? They also claim power and launch software improvements. That means it must be as fast as a Veyron?
2) Supertest wet weather performance was already answered by the Autocar test: Weight becomes a major issue in the wet. It affected both the GT-R and the Audi, both AWD cars. How do you know wet weather performance was not a function of invasive stability control systems? How do you know it's not related to alignment? How do you know it's not due to the stiff suspension of the GT-R, combined with unyielding runflat sidewalls? mafalda, you cannot even begin to understand the dynamics at play here, that go far, FAR beyond mere tire issues. You are quite convinced the MPSC on the GT2 RS is much more extreme than the standard GT2's tires? That is the only conclusion that
YOU can draw about that.
Wrong again, mafalda. The media manipulations with regard to Ferrari were established through numerous sources (Evo, Autocar, C&D) all citing massive control by Ferrari. We have already been over this, and you have still yet to give me the name of a single manufacturer that has been accused by reputable sources of
all the infractions levied against Ferrari.
What we have since not gone over is that those "laptops" seen being used by Ferrari are not laptops at all, but sophisticated equipment designed to "map" the transmissions to more aggressive launch strategies. Not only are they not merely diagnostic equipment, they can be used to "fix" faults (and probably "adjust" other ECU parameters depending on what the user wishes). These are procedures that are apparently not stock, not covered under warranty, and can be accurately construed as "non-standard."
As for Lexus's time, it was just a bonus for those attending this event for media and customers, who will be receiving private instruction on the 'Ring as well as a full year's pass on the circuit. This is quite different from a manufacturer that cites internal benchmark times (Ferrari for Fiorano) or Nissan, who continue to develop the car for faster and faster times every year. That a manufacturer reveals a time in this manner does not mean "they care a lot."
Can you even point me to any official 'Ring times cited by Lexus for the standard LFA? That car has been in the hands of journalists for nearly 2 years now.
Quite obviously, Lexus do care only
somewhat about numbers. After all, I don't think anyone in their right mind would think Lexus benchmarked a Miata's performance. Were you under some strange impression that I thought they had benchmarked a baby stroller? Any sensible person would understand this. The issue at debate has been: To what
degree and what emphasis did Lexus put on numbers? Apparently not a great deal when you look at the equipment chosen. You are still arguing from the point of view that Lexus specifically aimed at Ferrari 458 levels of performance. Well, where's your evidence? The front-engined layout? The relatively old-tech tires? The lackadaisical approach with regard to launch control? Lack of DCT? You're arguing over meaningless differences in performance that most supercar owners will never, ever realize on public roads.
Since you continue to refuse to understand the point of this car, and can't even tell me what 'LFA' stands for, I'll tell you: Lexus Fuji Apex
It's not 'Lexus Fuji Lap Time' or 'Lexus Fuji Apex Speed.' All it is is to invoke the name of its spiritual hometrack in Japan, and the feeling of taking corners. Not straight line performance. Not the pure outright grip that a true R-compound tire would deliver. It's about the approach to, the feeling into, during, and out of corners.
Fuji, like the 'Ring, is over 500m above sea level. If they had wanted a really objectively fast car, and for not much investment, they would have taken the forced induction route that Nissan and McLaren have taken. Massive power and torque through turbocharging, plus DCT, are great for laptimes at high altitude tracks.
Damn, this trolling seriously needs to stop. It's pretty obvious you've come to GermanCarForum, a site ostensibly designed for "enthusiasts," with only one agenda: to speak of and clear the name of your beloved marque, Ferrari. Tell me you've come here for another purpose. Thanks for fouling up another thread (about the LFA, coincidence?) with your unfounded innuendo and plain bizarre obsession with numbers. I'd think most 10-year-olds would have outgrown their Top Trumps phase. Guess not.
, we know how a standard tire that can compete against R-compunds.
