# Vmax today



## clived (May 6, 2002)

Nice day out 

http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topi ... &f=133&h=0

Managed a 170 (well, several!) - apparently the 20mph headwind was costing "regulars" 10-15mph today - which I thought was a bit rich when one person said to me, but then a few did, so fair enough. I'd be very surprised if the RS4 would have gained as much as 10 or 15mph without the strong breeze in the wrong direction, but I'll be hoping for mid 170s next time (prevailing northerly permitting!).


----------



## vlastan (May 6, 2002)

So you have about 150 bhp more than a Cayman S and you still can't go any faster than one?

Hmmm...maybe the weight factor I was telling you last time?


----------



## genocidalduck (May 19, 2005)

Great Clive rub it in...I spent the day with my mum...Which isnt bad...Except all my other family turned up for her birthday...All very exciting stuff....... :roll:...Prefered to have been your pasenger at 170mph wooo hooooo.


----------



## clived (May 6, 2002)

vlastan said:


> So you have about 150 bhp more than a Cayman S and you still can't go any faster than one?
> 
> Hmmm...maybe the weight factor I was telling you last time?


Nick, sorry, do you have the trap speed for a Cayman S over the set distance at Brunters today? Exactly. As I mentioned in the other thread (that you went *very* quiet on) if you even tried to get the facts straight occasionally you'd have a lot more credibility.

I reached the same speed as a 996GT3. I was 7mph faster than a 997C2S. Is a Cayman S faster than a 996 GT3 and a 997C2S?

Just because you have a Cayman S on order, doesn't make it any cooler ;-)


----------



## PaulRS3 (May 7, 2002)

Nice going Clive.

If you ever fancy a passenger, ill be happy to oblige. 

fastest ive been down there as a passengern was in Dazrens 996 x50 twin turbo porker (450bhp) lasered 179mph

181 on the dash.


----------



## caney (Feb 5, 2004)

nice going clive,i think paul managed 177mph in his 550bhp rs6 so 170mph is good going! emailed v-max btw :wink:


----------



## scoTTy (May 6, 2002)

Clive - how did Craig get on in his?

Last time he and I both got stuck on 164mph.


----------



## vlastan (May 6, 2002)

clived said:


> vlastan said:
> 
> 
> > So you have about 150 bhp more than a Cayman S and you still can't go any faster than one?
> ...


This has nothing to do with what car I have on order. I do get my facts right and keep talking about credibility starts getting boring. There is no need to talk to me at personal level like you do now. That is the reason why I didn't respond to the other thread. And this is the personal level that people use when they talk here in this forum and it is not right. If you don't agree with what I say, please say it, but there is no need to lecture me.

I don't know anything about the GT3 but the 997 is meant to be a few miles faster than the Cayman S.

I do understand your point that in order to make a comparison meaningfull all cars must be tested with the same benchmark. So Dean's recorded top speed cannot be used here. I was simply referring to the manufacturer's data that indicate that top speed for the Cayman S is 171 mph. I think the 997 has a 177 mph top speed. I can't give you a reason why the 997 didn't record 177mph, but maybe his car was broken. :lol: Having said that your car has still more power than the 997 so would expect it to be faster than it and over 177mph.


----------



## clived (May 6, 2002)

scoTTy said:


> Clive - how did Craig get on in his?
> 
> Last time he and I both got stuck on 164mph.


159 ScoTTy - damn wind! ;-)



vlastan said:


> clived said:
> 
> 
> > vlastan said:
> ...


Nick, I'm sorry if you're taking my comments as being "personal" - the only reason they sound "personal" is that you're the person choosing to ignore the facts to which I have to respond.

Let me take you through some of the statements I have issues with:

1) *"So you have about 150 bhp more than a Cayman S and you still can't go any faster than one?"*

This is a totally unsubstatiated statement. Firstly, there was no Cayman S at Vmax. Secondly, my speed through the laser trap was not the top speed my car would have acheived in those conditions (it was still accelerating) only in those conditions in that distance. Based on these facts, I'd be curious to know on what data you've based your statement.

2) *"I was simply referring to the manufacturer's data that indicate that top speed for the Cayman S is 171 mph."*

Given that you're using this data to compare to my results from Vmax, this statement is a perfect example of why I don't personally think your post has any credibility as it shows a complete lack of understanding how how Vmax operates. Many cars will not achieve their absolute maximum possible speed at a Vmax - at those speeds you are simply eating runway too quickly to have room to reach top speed in the distance. The fact that in your original statement you chose to compare manufacturer's top speed data with real world speed data over a set distance means you either really didn't understand what I was saying or you were deliberately obsifcating the facts to try to make them match your world view.

3) *"I can't give you a reason why the 997 didn't record 177mph, but maybe his car was broken.*

So, now we clearly see that you're not reading the posts you are responding to - which, again, in my opinion, does not lend credence to your responses. If you had either read my post fully, or visited the link I supplied, you would have understood that the 20mph headwind was slowing all vehicles yesterday. The 997 was not broken. Of course, acknowledging this data would have weakened your own "argument" (for want of a better word) so I'm not sure if you didn't read the post properly or just chose to ignore it.

4) *"Hmmm...maybe the weight factor I was telling you last time?"* and *Having said that your car has still more power than the 997 so would expect it to be faster than it and over 177mph.*

Here it would seem that you have still not grasped the relationship between power, drag and gearing, and the lack of effect that weight has on top speed, but that it does have on acceleration. Rather than have me lecture you, I'll leave it to you to do your own research if you wish.


----------



## che6mw (Nov 13, 2003)

my cars better than your car, anyone?


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

Clive,

Weight is, indeed, a fair point given the circumstances. Faster acceleration would possibly enable you to achieve a higher Vmax, even though it won't alter the theoretical maximum for the car.

As you were still accelerating when the speed was measured, it is fair to say that, had you accelerated faster, you could have been travelling at a higher speed at that given point.


----------



## clived (May 6, 2002)

If that had been Nick's point Tim, yes, but it isn't. His point is that my RS4 can't go faster" than a Cayman S. In this context "go faster than" must mean absolute top speed, as there was not a Cayman S at Vmax....

Let's not confuse "Vmax" the term, with "Vmax" the event.


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

clived said:


> If that had been Nick's point Tim, yes, but it isn't. His point is "and you still can't go faster than one" - "go faster than" having to be absolute top speed, as there was not a Cayman at Vmax....


No, I know that... but thought it added to the discussion anyway


----------



## W7 PMC (May 6, 2002)

caney said:


> nice going clive,i think paul managed 177mph in his 550bhp rs6 so 170mph is good going! emailed v-max btw :wink:


Close, but my best at Novembers VMAX was 181MPH & scoTTy attended that one. If you check the speed list for the last VMAX you'll see the cars i beat (nice list  ) Twas at the same event that i raced DMS's re-mapped E60 M5 with Rob at the wheel & we drew every run & all stats (that was pleasing).

Good figures though Clive. You took out some exotic motors with your 170MPH.

Novembers VMAX was far better for my RS6, as the air temp was almost freezing & we had very little headwind. Yesterdays their was a stiff breeze by all accounts & that will kill faster runs for those cars that could manage it. I guess you could break 175MPH but those extra few mph's after 165-170 take an absolute age.


----------



## W7 PMC (May 6, 2002)

vlastan said:


> clived said:
> 
> 
> > vlastan said:
> ...


Nick,

Please stop talking bollox, whilst heading off to actually learn something about performance cars & Physics.

Firstly the VMAX trap will not allow most cars to reach their true VMAX speed. Just over 1 3/4, miles is not enough of a distance for almost any car to reach it's actual VMAX, so Cayman, 997 or RS4/6 would not crack their max speeds at this VMAX event.

Aerodynamics is where the bigger advantages are to be had, which kinda throws cars like the RS4 & RS6 & new M5 a bit of curve ball, even though they have the power. Clives RS4 & my RS6 would always beat a Cayman S at a VMAX event, even if their was a hurricane. Just look at the cars i took out at Novembers VMAX.

The fastest cars that are regular VMAX events are a Kleeman CL65 with 650BHP & the RUF turbos, which again have well over 550BHP & are geared for top speed. At Novembers event, a RUF that had often only managed in the mid 190's decided to remove his rather large rear wing for the event & cracked 202MPH, so i think you can see that aerodynamics is the biggest factor at higher speeds.

I hope that helps you a little.


----------



## clived (May 6, 2002)

W7 PMC said:


> Good figures though Clive. You took out some exotic motors with your 170MPH.
> 
> Novembers VMAX was far better for my RS6, as the air temp was almost freezing & we had very little headwind.


Hadn't really thought about the ambient temps Paul - although I'm not sure how much difference they would make - if it was hovering around 1degC when you where there, yesterday was only between 6 and 10 deg warmer depending on the time of day - does anyone know if there is a reliable way to see how temps effect power output on turbocharged cars? I know we all talk about being able to feel it, but very hard to quantify - surely it can't be more than 1 or 2% for say a 10degC increase?

And yes, not a bad "take out" list - equalled the GT3, and mullered the Esprit, 997C2S, 360 spider, M3CSL etc. etc. etc. Actually, most fun moment was leaving my childhood Lotus Esprit dream car in a big way off the line


----------



## W7 PMC (May 6, 2002)

jampott said:


> Clive,
> 
> Weight is, indeed, a fair point given the circumstances. Faster acceleration would possibly enable you to achieve a higher Vmax, even though it won't alter the theoretical maximum for the car.
> 
> As you were still accelerating when the speed was measured, it is fair to say that, had you accelerated faster, you could have been travelling at a higher speed at that given point.


Tim,

Although logic would lead you to think that it's not in fact a major factor, aerodynamics at higher speeds is.

Example: At Novembers VMAX i raced head to head with DMS's tuned new M5 & we did a handful of tests, one of which being a side by side start point at the bottom of the main runway. Now we'd both been managing high 170's & low 180's all day, starting from the opposite side of the runway with a drag down to the bottom 180 degree bend & could carry a max speed of about 65ish MPH onto the main runway & achieve a VMAX of 180-180MPH. A standing start from the bottom of the runway gave a VMAX through the same timing beem of 176MPH, so a difference of only 5MPH, yet from a start point on the opposite runway, we were hitting the main straight at say 70MPH against a 0MPH start.


----------



## Carlos (May 6, 2002)

Yes, air resistance much more of a factor at high speeds than weight. Weight might be an issue at lower speeds, but by the time you get close to vmax speed will be added so much slower that a few kilos less would make hardly any, if any at all, difference to the top speed achieved over a set distance.

As for you Vlastan, I liked this forum much more when you weren't on it. Either you are doing it on purpose to wind people up (in which case, well done for achieving your goal) or you are one of the most clueless people I have ever come across. I'm sure you're a perfectly fine chap in real life, I don't understand why you have to be so provocative on here.


----------



## PaulS (Jun 15, 2002)

Excellent result Clive, well done.

Some great debate on here, as usual :lol: what a return :wink:

I must have a go at one of these events. I achieved an 'indicated' 165 mph quite easily on the Autobahn after the Nurburg trip. And I'm led to believe that the Monaro speedo is very accurate - confirmed by many owners who have gps/sat nav. It's also quite an aerodynamic car .... but it's *relatively* heavy :? Guess I short runway might not be the best place for true vmax. It really needs several miles of autobahn 

What do you think it'll do ?


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

W7 PMC said:


> jampott said:
> 
> 
> > Clive,
> ...


I wasn't talking about aerodynamics. Of course they are important... :roll:


----------



## W7 PMC (May 6, 2002)

jampott said:


> W7 PMC said:
> 
> 
> > jampott said:
> ...


You missed the point my dear boy. I stated aerodynamics as being a far bigger factor that weight & your point was relating to weight & acceleration.

My fact was from a rolling start of 70MPH, my RS6 & a new M5 could only manage 181MPH as a VMAX at Brunters. From a standing start over the exact same distance give or take a couple of metres, our VMAX speeds were 176MPH, so with a starting differential in speed of 70MPH the end difference in speed was only 6MPH, that's due to aerodynamics, not weight causing slower acceleration.


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

W7 PMC said:


> jampott said:
> 
> 
> > W7 PMC said:
> ...


But aerodynamics are "fixed" for any given car... (by "fixed", I mean they will apply themselves in the same way for any given speed)

I was merely pointing out that, as clived was still accelerating, weight would still be playing a part. Nothing whatsoever to do with acceleration, and I fear YOU have missed the point I was making.

I wasn't actually comparing 2 cars (where different aerodynamics would play a part).


----------



## W7 PMC (May 6, 2002)

PaulS said:


> Excellent result Clive, well done.
> 
> Some great debate on here, as usual :lol: what a return :wink:
> 
> ...


Paul,

Unless i'd hazard a guess that you'd acheive around 10-15MPH below your cars quoted top speed. Not knowing what that is (i'm sure you'll know) i'd say 160-165 would be about the mark. As you'll see from the results, that puts you up with some far more exotic (expensive) machinery. VMAX is not just about the speeds although that's a major part, it's as much about the event itself, the like minded petrolheads, seeing & hearing some amazing machinery & going out in these same cars to experience them 1st hand. No other events give you all of this for Â£150.

Give it a go. I'll possibly attend the next one just to see what i can get out of mine, although i'll not be pushing it as hard as the RS6, but i'm curious as i reckon it would just crack 160MPH.


----------



## PaulS (Jun 15, 2002)

W7 PMC said:


> PaulS said:
> 
> 
> > Excellent result Clive, well done.
> ...


Sounds an ideal event - i'm up for the next one :wink:

Re the Monaro top speed - the Vauxhall brochure quotes "160+" thats for the standard 330 bhp engine. I have an extra 100 bhp ... so .... I'd better find out then :wink:


----------



## clived (May 6, 2002)

W7 PMC said:


> Give it a go. I'll possibly attend the next one just to see what i can get out of mine, although i'll not be pushing it as hard as the RS6, but i'm curious as i reckon it would just crack 160MPH.


The 535d was something of a conversation over breakfast. One had overtaken someone who was on the way to breakfast on a private test track they both happened to be on at 170. They reached 190 to catch and pass him. Seemed everyone in the room had either owned one, had a mate who owned one, or were considering adding on to their stable, quite often instead of an M5...


----------



## W7 PMC (May 6, 2002)

jampott said:


> W7 PMC said:
> 
> 
> > jampott said:
> ...


Weight is a factor but your point is flawed based on the fact i posted before.

Accelerating from 0MPH gave a 5MPH slower VMAX than accelerating from 70MPH over the same distance. The rate of acceleration is far greater at lower speeds for any car, so the deciding factor is how quick a 180MPH+ car can accelerate from say 160MPH & the major factor then is not weight but aerodynamics as per Carlos's post & mine.

So back to the orginal Vlastan point about Cayman S vs RS4, the power is greater in the RS4, the weight is greater in the RS4 & the RS4 is not as aerodynamic as a Cayman S, however even then the RS4 would win by a fair margin as it can still accelerate quicker & therefore get to the timing beam 1st & at a greater speed, although the Cayman S would possibly be only 10MPH slower (roughly). As someone else pointed out, the RS4 happily beat far better sports cars than a Cayman S. It's expected though that in a true cross country longer distance event, the Cayman S would possibly beat the RS4, even my old RS6, due to it's handling advantages, but as Nick may one day understand Clive's RS4 would always beat one at a VMAX event.


----------



## omen666 (Oct 10, 2004)

So how do you get on to a VMAX event?

Would really love the opportunity to try the 6 on such a run. Looking forward to Nurburgring trip in May to experience it the Autobahns


----------



## scoTTy (May 6, 2002)

[1] You have to know someone who knows someone. You obviously know the wrong people! :-* 

[2] Don't count on it. The route to the 'ring doesn't include any derestricted sections. :?


----------



## omen666 (Oct 10, 2004)

[2] coming from Rotterdam?


----------



## W7 PMC (May 6, 2002)

scoTTy said:


> [1] You have to know someone who knows someone. You obviously know the wrong people! :-*
> 
> [2] Don't count on it. The route to the 'ring doesn't include any derestricted sections. :?


 :roll:  :lol: :lol: :-*


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

omen666 said:


> [2] coming from Rotterdam?


It could be Rotterdam, or anywhere.


----------



## W7 PMC (May 6, 2002)

jampott said:


> omen666 said:
> 
> 
> > [2] coming from Rotterdam?
> ...


Are you just in one of those pain in the ar$e modes today?? :lol: :lol:

Is it a typical Monday? :lol: :wink:


----------



## PaulS (Jun 15, 2002)

scoTTy said:


> [1] You have to know someone who knows someone. You obviously know the wrong people! :-*
> 
> [2] Don't count on it. The route to the 'ring doesn't include any derestricted sections. :?


I always think once you're over the water you might as well do the ring for a couple of days then take an extra couple of days to do some fast autobahn touring :wink:


----------



## PaulS (Jun 15, 2002)

> it could be Rotterdam, or anywhere


No, it was Amsterdam :lol:


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

PaulS said:


> > it could be Rotterdam, or anywhere
> 
> 
> No, it was Amsterdam :lol:


Liverpool or Rome?


----------



## PaulS (Jun 15, 2002)

> And everyone is blonde
> And everyone is beautiful
> and when blondes and beautiful are multiple
> they become so dull and dutiful


V Max anyone


----------



## vlastan (May 6, 2002)

> Firstly the VMAX trap will not allow most cars to reach their true VMAX speed. Just over 1 3/4, miles is not enough of a distance for almost any car to reach it's actual VMAX, so Cayman, 997 or RS4/6 would not crack their max speeds at this VMAX event.


This is interesting then. You don't really measure what is the max speed for your car, but what your car can achieve within the given stretch of road/tarmac.

But how would you then know which car has the highest top speed if you never achieve it?


----------



## clived (May 6, 2002)

So, you didn't actually understand the event you were talking about then? ;-) 

I think it's actually a very difficult question to answer - of course, real, final, top speed is normally pretty academic anyway, but I guess you'd need a VERY long VERY quiet bit of autobahn....


----------



## paulb (May 6, 2002)

Remember that it has to be flat to count too Clive. Maybe Nick can find us a section of road 5 miles long, flat and derestricted?


----------



## vlastan (May 6, 2002)

Dean found the M4 to test his Cayman S. Have you tried this yet?  It meets two of the three requirements that Paul have just listed. :wink:


----------



## W7 PMC (May 6, 2002)

vlastan said:


> > Firstly the VMAX trap will not allow most cars to reach their true VMAX speed. Just over 1 3/4, miles is not enough of a distance for almost any car to reach it's actual VMAX, so Cayman, 997 or RS4/6 would not crack their max speeds at this VMAX event.
> 
> 
> This is interesting then. You don't really measure what is the max speed for your car, but what your car can achieve within the given stretch of road/tarmac.
> ...


I think you'll find it's all relative as common sense would indicate.

The fastest car through the timing beam is likely to be the fastest car overall, excluding a small handful of cars that are geared for specifics, such as top speed, quickest 0-60 & say quickest 0-150. Some of the Ultimas score badly at top speed/VMAX, but can hit 60 in under 3 seconds if you see my point.

But for your more standard fast cars, if one can only manage a consistent 165MPH down the runway, then that car is hardly likely to have a higher ultimate top speed than a car that's always managing 180MPH or 200MPH.

That's where Tim's earlier point holds water :lol: it's usually relative, taking out the extremes.

The main reason for this style if event is of course their are no roads in the UK that i or anyone could safely & legally drive my RS6 or any car at speeds over 180MPH & i live a very long way from Germany. It's worth every penny to hoon around legally & safely at silly speeds.


----------



## clived (May 6, 2002)

vlastan said:


> Dean found the M4 to test his Cayman S. Have you tried this yet?  It meets two of the three requirements that Paul have just listed. :wink:


It's certainly more than 5 miles long. But it's not flat and it's not desrestricted.

And it isn't empty and it doesn't have laser timing traps 

However Nick, let us know when you're testing the Cayman S and we'll set up the best timing we can!


----------



## W7 PMC (May 6, 2002)

It just makes me chuckle imagining V driving round in a Porsche :lol:

Is he really getting one???

How to devalue a brand image  :lol:


----------



## kmpowell (May 6, 2002)

Carlos said:


> As for you Vlastan, I liked this forum much more when you weren't on it. Either you are doing it on purpose to wind people up (in which case, well done for achieving your goal) or you are one of the most clueless people I have ever come across. I'm sure you're a perfectly fine chap in real life, I don't understand why you have to be so provocative on here.


Ignore it mate, he did exactly the same on a thread the other day about investment advice. He waded in with his inaccurate size 12's, rambled for a bit, and then dissappeared from the thread when he realised he was spouting shite.

Once he realises he is talking shite he either leaves the thread for good, or tries to be funny in it with one liners and wink smilies. It has happened time and time and time again, and is so predictable now, it's boring.

There is a old saying that applies to him... "You Can't Educate Pork".


----------



## vlastan (May 6, 2002)

It has flat spots, it can be empty if you drive late at night and you can use GPS to measure your actual speed.

I would test mine in Germany, although the top speed I have been now is only 140mph and this was fairly fast in a TT.


----------



## PaulS (Jun 15, 2002)

vlastan said:


> It has flat spots, it can be empty if you drive late at night and you can use GPS to measure your actual speed.


So what? Totally irrelevant to the subject being discussed. Just in case you'd forgotten - it's vmax at Brunters :wink: :wink: not a race along the M4.



> I would test mine in Germany, although the top speed I have been now is only 140mph and this was fairly fast in a TT.


Sod all then :lol:

I thought in your big departure speech a while back you'd made a pledge never to come back here. So why are you back? Like others I prefer it as it has been - Lord V bollox free.


----------



## vlastan (May 6, 2002)

kmpowell said:


> Carlos said:
> 
> 
> > As for you Vlastan, I liked this forum much more when you weren't on it. Either you are doing it on purpose to wind people up (in which case, well done for achieving your goal) or you are one of the most clueless people I have ever come across. I'm sure you're a perfectly fine chap in real life, I don't understand why you have to be so provocative on here.
> ...


You are so damn clever....you got me! I will be more careful in the future then. Thank God you are here to correct me. :lol:


----------



## jedi_quaTTro (Sep 29, 2003)

clived said:


> scoTTy said:
> 
> 
> > Clive - how did Craig get on in his?
> ...


you are rather full of yourself to some people :?


----------



## clived (May 6, 2002)

jedi_quaTTro said:


> you are rather full of yourself to some people :?


Don't be shy. Name names. Do you have a list? Are they all people who post about things they're not knowledgeable about and then run around in circles trying to justify their arguments when the facts are first pointed out to them and then need to be painstakingly explained because they don't get it, either on purpose or by accident?

Or are you trying to point out some error in my facts, as you've reposted a huge part of the thread?


----------



## PaulS (Jun 15, 2002)

> you are rather full of yourself to some people :?


Maybe - but factual when it counts, and lets face it, thats what you need at events such as vmax. Unlike some of the daft comments spouted by some clowns [smiley=clown.gif] on here :roll:


----------



## b3ves (May 6, 2002)

Another pi$$ing competition [smiley=zzz.gif]

Honestly, I can't see the point if the majority of cars aren't able to get to their VMAX within the confines of the Brunters runway.

Whatever floats your boat, I suppose :?


----------



## jedi_quaTTro (Sep 29, 2003)

b3ves said:


> Another pi$$ing competition [smiley=zzz.gif]
> 
> Honestly, I can't see the point if the majority of cars aren't able to get to their VMAX within the confines of the Brunters runway.
> 
> Whatever floats your boat, I suppose :?


exactly ! :-*


----------



## clived (May 6, 2002)

jedi_quaTTro said:


> exactly ! :-*


:roll:

Rob, I'm surprised on your view of Vmax - it's just a fun day out, lots of very friendly people (I knew there were some somewhere ;-) ) and some awesome machines to watch, listen to, be driven in and drive. On the day, although people are interested in what other cars reach, there is no "pissing contest" element - quite the reverse in fact. I'd have thought you'd quite enjoy it (you do get to use the Brunters twisties too ;-) ) - anyone with petrol running round their body would, IMO.

Of course, if we go back to my original post, we see that I didn't include any element of comparison to other results - comparision surely being an essential element of a "pissing contest". V did that, and ironically not even with a car that was there :roll:


----------



## W7 PMC (May 6, 2002)

b3ves said:


> Another pi$$ing competition [smiley=zzz.gif]
> 
> Honestly, I can't see the point if the majority of cars aren't able to get to their VMAX within the confines of the Brunters runway.
> 
> Whatever floats your boat, I suppose :?


Rob,

As Clive said above & i said earlier, where in the UK can you legally & safely drive your car at close to maximum speeds down a near 2 mile straight, enjoy some quite interesting twisty sections & spend a day in the company of like minded petrol-heads driving the most exotic of cars??

No-where that i know of. On top of this, you're invited to passenger rides in those very cars & are expected to give passenger rides when asked (within reason) & on top of that chat/discuss car topics with very friendly like minded people. These events are few & far between & it's a far more social event than any track day i've been to, even the TTOC events.

Of course it's horses for courses, but don't knock it till you've tried it. I guarantee you'd enjoy it.


----------



## che6mw (Nov 13, 2003)

b3ves said:


> Another pi$$ing competition [smiley=zzz.gif]
> 
> Honestly, I can't see the point if the majority of cars aren't able to get to their VMAX within the confines of the Brunters runway.


Completely. Surely it should be called VnearlyMax ?

Trade Description act anyone?


----------



## W7 PMC (May 6, 2002)

jedi_quaTTro said:


> b3ves said:
> 
> 
> > Another pi$$ing competition [smiley=zzz.gif]
> ...


I'm not aware of any track day where some element of pissing contests take place. If you're gunning round Combe or Donnington, you see a car ahead & try to pass & then feel good that you've passed them. You also try like hell to reduce your lap times & get faster & faster runs in. That's only the same as VMAX but it's speed their rather than times.


----------



## clived (May 6, 2002)

che6mw said:


> b3ves said:
> 
> 
> > Another pi$$ing competition [smiley=zzz.gif]
> ...


It's ok, if you don't want to go, you don't have to!


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

W7 PMC said:


> jedi_quaTTro said:
> 
> 
> > b3ves said:
> ...


Possibly the skill levels required differ a tad too. :wink:

A Fun day out is best the descriptor of VMax. Nothing wrong with that. It is the only safe place to do that stuff. If it floats your boat...

Would be funny to see Vlastan lapping a circuit in his Cayman faster than some of the heavyweight straight-line tin, but that would of course require him to be equipped with the necessary skills.


----------



## W7 PMC (May 6, 2002)

garyc said:


> W7 PMC said:
> 
> 
> > jedi_quaTTro said:
> ...


Can't argue with that, skill levels do differ somewhat, however the runway is only 60% of the track layout & their are 2 hairpins plus 3 sweeping left handers & 2 sweeping right handers. So some racing does take place off the runway. Also their are now a few owners who have taken to drift contests round some of the hairpins. As i said earlier in the thread, pretty much somethign for everyone & that's why you get Elises, CSL's, VX's & the such attending. they have no chance of competing for the VMAX crowns, but are still happy to pay their Â£150 & have some fun.

As a side, does anyone know if V is actually getting a Cayman S? as i've not seen any confirmation of this.


----------



## vlastan (May 6, 2002)

W7 PMC said:


> As a side, does anyone know if V is actually getting a Cayman S? as i've not seen any confirmation of this.


But you said I would devalue the brand, so perhaps I should now cancel my order? Please give me further instructions as I am totally lost now.


----------



## W7 PMC (May 6, 2002)

vlastan said:


> W7 PMC said:
> 
> 
> > As a side, does anyone know if V is actually getting a Cayman S? as i've not seen any confirmation of this.
> ...


Do whatever you want, it's your money so their's no instructions from me as i'm sure Porsche's good reputation & image can just about handle having you as an owner. I'm just unsure if you've actually stated/confirmed anywhere that you're getting a Cayman S or if due to some of your stranger postings, people have assumed you're getting a Cayman.

Care to confirm either way??


----------



## vlastan (May 6, 2002)

I did confirm this, in the Ceramic disks thread!

I have ordered one and have paid the deposit. I did all this in February and the car is for September/October delivery.


----------



## W7 PMC (May 6, 2002)

vlastan said:


> I did confirm this, in the Ceramic disks thread!
> 
> I have ordered one and have paid the deposit. I did all this in February and the car is for September/October delivery.


Good on you. Can't say i recall seeing that thread but if you did confirm your purchase then i missed it. Enjoy


----------



## vlastan (May 6, 2002)

Thanks Paul


----------



## b3ves (May 6, 2002)

garyc said:


> Would be funny to see Vlastan lapping a circuit in his Cayman faster than some of the heavyweight straight-line tin, but that would of course require him to be equipped with the necessary skills.


LOL @ the heavyweight straight-line tin bit 

Scratching my head about the skill bit though - does it require any? That might be where I'm misunderstanding how it works..

My point about the pi$$ing competition was about you guys seemingly getting worked up over whose car is faster.

As I said guys, whatever floats your boat, but for me I'd only be interested if I could find out what my tuned car would max out at. Seeing as I have no speed-enhancing mods and Brunters isn't long enough to get to max speed anyway, it holds no appeal.

Rob


----------



## Carlos (May 6, 2002)

I think there is a twisty section as well Rob. Getting the car off the line quickly and changing through the gears as quickly as possible clearly involves some skill. This only applies if you have a manual car though.

I would quite fancy seeing what my car can do in a straight line, but after doing it once I can't see how it would be interesting to do it again, plus I would be concerned that the scoop would be ripped off.


----------



## clived (May 6, 2002)

I wasn't worked up over what was fastest Rob - just over the lack of understanding about both the event and the physics!

I think the CSL that ran on Sunday may have been maxed out given the wind - 161 - what do you think Rob? I'm guessing that would equate to a "non-windy" Vmax around 166-169?

Carlos is right - there is a twisty section - both the big long wide drift-tastic bend at the start of the long straight where lots of people were having a lot of fun from a car control point of view, and then the twisties between the end of the straight and getting back to the start point.

I can certainly see that it isn't an event for everyone, but as a day out to meet some great people, see some very interesting and exotic cars, have some fun round a variety of bends and reach speeds it might not be safe or possible to reach on either the road or indeed a normal track and therefore get a feel for how your car behaves at those speeds, it is a rare combination.


----------



## clived (May 6, 2002)

Carlos said:


> II would quite fancy seeing what my car can do in a straight line, but after doing it once I can't see how it would be interesting to do it again, plus I would be concerned that the scoop would be ripped off.


It took me a few goes to get it "right". The launch isn't really an issue, but nailing the first corner - just before the straight - is.


----------



## scoTTy (May 6, 2002)

clived said:


> I think the CSL that ran on Sunday may have been maxed out given the wind - 161 - what do you think Rob? I'm guessing that would equate to a "non-windy" Vmax around 166-169?


I doubt it. When I was there I beat both CSLs there as they were banging into their limiters.


----------



## clived (May 6, 2002)

scoTTy said:


> clived said:
> 
> 
> > I think the CSL that ran on Sunday may have been maxed out given the wind - 161 - what do you think Rob? I'm guessing that would equate to a "non-windy" Vmax around 166-169?
> ...


So 161 might be the max... so Rob, you COULD reach your Vmax if you came 

Or you could have the limiter removed and see what she'll do?


----------



## scoTTy (May 6, 2002)

My the day I went :

160 Gyrock - M3 CSL (limiter) 
158 Ibroker - M3 CSL (limiter)


----------



## vlastan (May 6, 2002)

clived said:


> I wasn't worked up over what was fastest Rob - just over the lack of understanding about both the event and the physics!


Now it is all clear then. You went to the event so you can tell us (me) what the event is about, how long the track is etc and teach us (me) physics??

Was it just me thinking that you went there to see how fast your car was? :wink:


----------

