M4 vs 04' SL600

[buildbright]

Originally Posted by bm323

??? the link above shows otherwise (9/12 tracks, the F10 M5 is faster excluding the topgear track, since one is dry "d" and the other is very wet "vw"). But I agree the M4 will whip the F10 M5 on tracks.

To be honest they're about even from all the track tests I have seen. But to be honest I could care less about "lap times". A CTS-V may beat an M5 but to me its not even in the same league.

The M3 never has been about crazy lap times. Its about the visceral feeling of the car. I am worried the M3/M4 will be fast around a track but will lose that feeling that people just love.

[bm323]

Originally Posted by buildbright

To be honest they're about even from all the track tests I have seen. But to be honest I could care less about "lap times". A CTS-V may beat an M5 but to me its not even in the same league.

The M3 never has been about crazy lap times. Its about the visceral feeling of the car. I am worried the M3/M4 will be fast around a track but will lose that feeling that people just love.

http://fastestlaps.com/comparisons/b...mw_m5_f10.html the link provided above, showing the F10 M5 faster than the M3, 9/12 tracks

[buildbright]

Originally Posted by bm323

http://fastestlaps.com/comparisons/b...mw_m5_f10.html the link provided above, showing the F10 M5 faster than the M3, 9/12 tracks

Ok you do relize there are unconfirmed times on that chart? Also some of those times are within a couple tenths of each other. Are any of those times done on the same day by the same driver?

What I can tell you is I have drove both on a racetrack and talked to the guys that race these daily. TheY are almost equal stock and with R compounds the M3 is faster. If you don't believe me shoot an email to the BMW Performance Center.

To be honest you shouldn't care about Phantom lap times I have drove a lot of fast cars on the track and street. The M5 is special.

[Wolf]

swamp how much do you think the M4 might trap 1/4mile speed?

[bm323]

Originally Posted by buildbright

Ok you do relize there are unconfirmed times on that chart? Also some of those times are within a couple tenths of each other. Are any of those times done on the same day by the same driver?

What I can tell you is I have drove both on a racetrack and talked to the guys that race these daily. TheY are almost equal stock and with R compounds the M3 is faster. If you don't believe me shoot an email to the BMW Performance Center.

To be honest you shouldn't care about Phantom lap times I have drove a lot of fast cars on the track and street. The M5 is special.

Referring to Nurburgring again? Sorry, I rely on lap times more, and yes lap times may be within couple of tenths of each other. The point about lap times, is the best that can be achieved (which may be on different days and drivers) with the car and submitted with some proof. You can have the same driver but he may not drive the same, even with the same car and on the same day.

ps likewise, you may drive the M5 and M3 on the same day, and the M3 is faster with you driving. Another driver on the same day gets quicker time with the M5. The point then is the quickest time is compared. We are comparing cars not drivers. Yes, we don't get accurate results with 1 submission

pps one more point, phantom lap times? Why don't you try submitting in your lap time without any proof to fastest laps and see whether it's posted. Check the rules for submission of lap times and having them posted.

[buildbright]

Originally Posted by bm323

Referring to Nurburgring again? Sorry, I rely on lap times more, and yes lap times may be within couple of tenths of each other. The point about lap times, is the best that can be achieved (which may be on different days and drivers) with the car and submitted with some proof. You can have the same driver but he may not drive the same, even with the same car and on the same day.

ps likewise, you may drive the M5 and M3 on the same day, and the M3 is faster with you driving. Another driver on the same day gets quicker time with the M5. The point then is the quickest time is compared. We are comparing cars not drivers. Yes, we don't get accurate results with 1 submission

pps one more point, phantom lap times? Why don't you try submitting in your lap time without any proof to fastest laps and see whether it's posted. Check the rules for submission of lap times and having them posted.

I am telling you the Lap times you are referring to are flawed. The ring time you posted for the M5 is not even confirmed. The ring times are on a Wikipedia page which can be changed by almost anyone.

You are right you can run the same car on the same day with the same driver and get different results but it's more of a control then you are comparing. Your times are silly because they have no control what's so ever. Not to mention the drivers are armatures.

I am telling you professionals that race the M5 and M3 at three of the tracks you posted will tell you they are equal. I am sorry but professional drivers results and things I have done in "real" life are going to trump something you read online.

[bm323]

Originally Posted by buildbright

I am telling you the Lap times you are referring to are flawed. The ring time you posted for the M5 is not even confirmed. The ring times are on a Wikipedia page which can be changed by almost anyone.

You are right you can run the same car on the same day with the same driver and get different results but it's more of a control then you are comparing. Your times are silly because they have no control what's so ever. Not to mention the drivers are armatures.

I am telling you professionals that race the M5 and M3 at three of the tracks you posted will tell you they are equal. I am sorry but professional drivers results and things I have done in "real" life are going to trump something you read online.

I quoted FastestLaps, not Wiki. Since you say they are phantom and are silly, name a track right now and give us your obviously flawed phantom time before having it posted, then tell us when it's posted, Talk is easy, do it and show us. And you're right, I rely on FastestLaps more than what you say "online": I'd really be silly if I do otherwise

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by Wolf

swamp how much do you think the M4 might trap 1/4mile speed?

In short since weight and power (underrating) are still a bit hazy, it only makes sense to provide a range of values. Those are:

115-119 mph

Detailed post on this topic and my methodology are here and here. The first is the newest but the second older one has much more detail.

[buildbright]

Originally Posted by bm323

I quoted FastestLaps, not Wiki. Since you say they are phantom and are silly, name a track right now and give us your obviously flawed phantom time before having it posted, then tell us when it's posted, Talk is easy, do it and show us. And you're right, I rely on FastestLaps more than what you say "online": I'd really be silly if I do otherwise

FastestLaps doesn't even cite sources. Right now I just submitted a fake time to see if gets submitted to prove my point.

The F10 M5 Ring time of 7:55 is a phantom time. Not confirmed.

Question have you drove your car on the track? Or the M3?

[paddy335]

I think a better way to think about 'phantom times' is how they were set. A lot of the manufacturers take little liberties, like using non-production parts, tuning, tyres etc to set their times. Nissan has been accused of it frequently in regard to the GTR.

Perhaps 'unverified' is a better term.

[turbolag]

Originally Posted by paddy335

I think a better way to think about 'phantom times' is how they were set. A lot of the manufacturers take little liberties, like using non-production parts, tuning, tyres etc to set their times. Nissan has been accused of it frequently in regard to the GTR.

Perhaps 'unverified' is a better term.

http://jalopnik.com/5760248/how-ferrari-spins
http://jalopnik.com/pagani-admits-th...gear-450547430

[bm323]

Originally Posted by buildbright

FastestLaps doesn't even cite sources. Right now I just submitted a fake time to see if gets submitted to prove my point.

The F10 M5 Ring time of 7:55 is a phantom time. Not confirmed.

Question have you drove your car on the track? Or the M3?

Good, I'm interested to hear you say that your point is proven
----------------------------------------
For the F10 M5 7:55

BMW M5 (F10) @ Nordschleife

Lap time ID: 508e9ed78ba22
Car: 2011 BMW M5 (F10) (412 kw)
Track: Nordschleife
Lap time: 7:55.000
Conditions: Normal
Driven by:
Submitter IP: 208.254.***.***
Date & time of submission: 03/02/13, 12:31:27
---------------------------------------------
And FastestLaps rules, info for some of the guys here:

"Fastestlaps.com site rules

By submitting information to fastestlaps.com (www.fastestlaps.com) you agree to be legally bound by the following rules. If you do not agree to rules defined in this document, do not submit any content to fastestlaps.com

1.1 Submission of invalid/fake/fabricated laptimes or cars is strictly forbidden and will lead to ban **.

1.2 Abusive, obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful, threatening, sexually-orientated or any other material in your comments and/or forum posts that may violate any laws of your country or International Law is forbidden and will be removed.

1.3 Use of multiple screen names that may confuse other users is forbidden.

Submission of laptimes

2.1 All laptimes in fastestlaps.com database must be valid and provided with quality background information (hereinafter "reference") *

2.2 fastestlaps.com administrators hold the right to without notification remove laptimes you have submitted if they do not comply with the rules defined in this document. ...

Definitions

* Reference - an Internet link (URL) that points to an article clearly stating the lap time/record and the conditions. The web site must belong to a reputable recognized organization, like the car manufacturer, a major car magazine or a major TV show. It is up to FastestLaps.com administrators to recognize the source or not, also the lap time/record. The article must show clearly:

When the record was done, at least the year must be mentioned
Who did it (driver or organization)
Make, year and model of the car
Track conditions and car trim, optional
If there is no online article and only a published paper article, then we need an image scan of the paper page from the publication with details (like CarMagazine March 2007 page 13, not just CarMagazine). FastestLaps.com can host the image if needed.

** Ban - prohibition from adding any content to fastestlaps.com."

http://fastestlaps.com/rules.html

-------------------------------
ps In reply to your last irrelevant query, say, I have driven my F10 M5 on a track 10 times and my friend's M3 on the same track, is it relevant? Is it relevant if you don't own a M5 and a M3? And also is it relevant if you have driven your M3 around the track but didn't get to drive the M5 around the same track? Let's push it further, if my M5's track time is faster than your M3's track time, is this also relevant?

[buildbright]

Originally Posted by bm323

Good, I'm interested to hear you say that your point is proven
----------------------------------------
For the F10 M5 7:55

BMW M5 (F10) @ Nordschleife

Lap time ID: 508e9ed78ba22
Car: 2011 BMW M5 (F10) (412 kw)
Track: Nordschleife
Lap time: 7:55.000
Conditions: Normal
Driven by:
Submitter IP: 208.254.***.***
Date & time of submission: 03/02/13, 12:31:27
---------------------------------------------
And FastestLaps rules, info for some of the guys here:

"Fastestlaps.com site rules

By submitting information to fastestlaps.com (www.fastestlaps.com) you agree to be legally bound by the following rules. If you do not agree to rules defined in this document, do not submit any content to fastestlaps.com

1.1 Submission of invalid/fake/fabricated laptimes or cars is strictly forbidden and will lead to ban **.

1.2 Abusive, obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful, threatening, sexually-orientated or any other material in your comments and/or forum posts that may violate any laws of your country or International Law is forbidden and will be removed.

1.3 Use of multiple screen names that may confuse other users is forbidden.

Submission of laptimes

2.1 All laptimes in fastestlaps.com database must be valid and provided with quality background information (hereinafter "reference") *

2.2 fastestlaps.com administrators hold the right to without notification remove laptimes you have submitted if they do not comply with the rules defined in this document. ...

Definitions

* Reference - an Internet link (URL) that points to an article clearly stating the lap time/record and the conditions. The web site must belong to a reputable recognized organization, like the car manufacturer, a major car magazine or a major TV show. It is up to FastestLaps.com administrators to recognize the source or not, also the lap time/record. The article must show clearly:

When the record was done, at least the year must be mentioned
Who did it (driver or organization)
Make, year and model of the car
Track conditions and car trim, optional
If there is no online article and only a published paper article, then we need an image scan of the paper page from the publication with details (like CarMagazine March 2007 page 13, not just CarMagazine). FastestLaps.com can host the image if needed.

** Ban - prohibition from adding any content to fastestlaps.com."

http://fastestlaps.com/rules.html

-------------------------------
ps In reply to your last irrelevant query, say, I have driven my F10 M5 on a track 10 times and my friend's M3 on the same track, is it relevant? Is it relevant if you don't own a M5 and a M3? And also is it relevant if you have driven your M3 around the track but didn't get to drive the M5 around the same track? Let's push it further, if my M5's track time is faster than your M3's track time, is this also relevant?

That time is confirmed by an IP address? Come on your better then that. That time is all over the internet as unconfirmed, even wiki won't add it. Fastestlaps.com is not a realible source.

Owning an M5 and racing one on the track are two different things. I have raced the M3 and M5 at Road Atlanta, VIR, and the Ring. I have about 20 hours of seat time in both. So yes it is relevent that I have more track experience in both cars and work with professional drivers that have forgotten more then you and I will ever know.

It basic science you can't compare statistics when you change all the variables. You are comparing laptimes you read. I am comparing laptimes I know. I recommend some drivers eduction to get you in the car so you can learn more about the craft that is racing. But don't take my word email the BMW Performance Center and ask them. Ask any professional driver if you can compare laptimes of the ring.

[bm323]

Originally Posted by buildbright

That time is confirmed by an IP address? Come on your better then that. That time is all over the internet as unconfirmed, even wiki won't add it. Fastestlaps.com is not a realible source.

Owning an M5 and racing one on the track are two different things. I have raced the M3 and M5 at Road Atlanta, VIR, and the Ring. I have about 20 hours of seat time in both. So yes it is relevent that I have more track experience in both cars and work with professional drivers that have forgotten more then you and I will ever know.

It basic science you can't compare statistics when you change all the variables. You are comparing laptimes you read. I am comparing laptimes I know. I recommend some drivers eduction to get you in the car so you can learn more about the craft that is racing. But don't take my word email the BMW Performance Center and ask them. Ask any professional driver if you can compare laptimes of the ring.

No point debating further with someone who refuses to understand (ie read the rules listed above) or is illogical. You just wait for your 7:55 time to be posted, and I presume that this is for the E92 M3. And I presume you didn't read the rules although I pointed them out to you, and you're pissed with the foolishness of attempting to have your phantom fraudulent track time posted on FastestLaps.

Try understanding, if you can:

"Fastestlaps.com site rules

By submitting information to fastestlaps.com (www.fastestlaps.com) you agree to be legally bound by the following rules. If you do not agree to rules defined in this document, do not submit any content to fastestlaps.com

1.1 Submission of invalid/fake/fabricated laptimes or cars is strictly forbidden and will lead to ban **. (See meaning of ** in case, you don't understand its significance)

1.2 Abusive, obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful, threatening, sexually-orientated or any other material in your comments and/or forum posts that may violate any laws of your country or International Law is forbidden and will be removed.

1.3 Use of multiple screen names that may confuse other users is forbidden.

Submission of laptimes

2.1 All laptimes in fastestlaps.com database must be valid and provided with quality background information (hereinafter "reference") * (See significance of * below)

2.2 fastestlaps.com administrators hold the right to without notification remove laptimes you have submitted if they do not comply with the rules defined in this document. ...

Definitions

* Reference - an Internet link (URL) that points to an article clearly stating the lap time/record and the conditions. The web site must belong to a reputable recognized organization, like the car manufacturer, a major car magazine or a major TV show. It is up to FastestLaps.com administrators to recognize the source or not, also the lap time/record. The article must show clearly:

When the record was done, at least the year must be mentioned
Who did it (driver or organization)
Make, year and model of the car
Track conditions and car trim, optional
If there is no online article and only a published paper article, then we need an image scan of the paper page from the publication with details (like CarMagazine March 2007 page 13, not just CarMagazine). FastestLaps.com can host the image if needed.

** Ban - prohibition from adding any content to fastestlaps.com."

http://fastestlaps.com/rules.html

M5's 7:55 time has been objected to plenty in FastestLaps, but remains posted. You are implying that FastestLaps admin is stupid or conspired to cheat.

[buildbright]

Originally Posted by bm323

No point debating further with someone who refuses to understand (ie read the rules listed above) or is illogical. You just wait for your 7:55 time to be posted, and I presume that this is for the E92 M3. And I presume you didn't read the rules although I pointed them out to you, and you're pissed with the foolishness of attempting to have your phantom fraudulent track time posted on FastestLaps.

Try understanding, if you can:

"Fastestlaps.com site rules

By submitting information to fastestlaps.com (www.fastestlaps.com) you agree to be legally bound by the following rules. If you do not agree to rules defined in this document, do not submit any content to fastestlaps.com

1.1 Submission of invalid/fake/fabricated laptimes or cars is strictly forbidden and will lead to ban **. (See meaning of ** in case, you don't understand its significance)

1.2 Abusive, obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful, threatening, sexually-orientated or any other material in your comments and/or forum posts that may violate any laws of your country or International Law is forbidden and will be removed.

1.3 Use of multiple screen names that may confuse other users is forbidden.

Submission of laptimes

2.1 All laptimes in fastestlaps.com database must be valid and provided with quality background information (hereinafter "reference") * (See significance of * below)

2.2 fastestlaps.com administrators hold the right to without notification remove laptimes you have submitted if they do not comply with the rules defined in this document. ...

Definitions

* Reference - an Internet link (URL) that points to an article clearly stating the lap time/record and the conditions. The web site must belong to a reputable recognized organization, like the car manufacturer, a major car magazine or a major TV show. It is up to FastestLaps.com administrators to recognize the source or not, also the lap time/record. The article must show clearly:

When the record was done, at least the year must be mentioned
Who did it (driver or organization)
Make, year and model of the car
Track conditions and car trim, optional
If there is no online article and only a published paper article, then we need an image scan of the paper page from the publication with details (like CarMagazine March 2007 page 13, not just CarMagazine). FastestLaps.com can host the image if needed.

** Ban - prohibition from adding any content to fastestlaps.com."

http://fastestlaps.com/rules.html

M5's 7:55 time has been objected to plenty in FastestLaps, but remains posted. You are implying that FastestLaps admin is stupid or conspired to cheat.

i feel like I am trying to teach a three year old. Good Night.

[murrfan]

Originally Posted by swamp2

Incorrect.

http://fastestlaps.com/comparisons/b...mw_m5_f10.html

9/13 tracks here show the M5 (F10) faster than the M3 (E92).

Of course that being said, there still are many tracks where the M3 can best the M5.

No, you are incorrect. The E92 is the comparable gen to the E60. The F10 and F30/80 are the proper comparables.

[murrfan]

Originally Posted by buildbright

i feel like I am trying to teach a three year old. Good Night.

Ha: I hear you. The worst thing that happens for incorrect times is a "ban", hardly the electric chair.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by murrfan

No, you are incorrect. The E92 is the comparable gen to the E60. The F10 and F30/80 are the proper comparables.

I covered that typo many posts back!

[buildbright]

Originally Posted by murrfan

Ha: I hear you. The worst thing that happens for incorrect times is a "ban", hardly the electric chair.

I just hate these lap time pissing contests. Listen a car is more then some unrealistic lap time. The M3 and M5 are amazing cars this lap comparison thing is BS.

People buy cars based on these "lap times" and then never track their car or go to DE events and get passed by Miatas. I love the comments of "why do I need to track my car I know it's faster" "if I knew how to drive no one could touch my car on the track"

[Boss330]

Originally Posted by buildbright

i feel like I am trying to teach a three year old. Good Night.

Originally Posted by murrfan

Ha: I hear you. The worst thing that happens for incorrect times is a "ban", hardly the electric chair.

I don't think that the point was what kind of punishment false lap times would incur. But, that you just couldn't post a undocumented lap time.

Who cares about how severe a ban from a website might be, the point is that undocumented times/violation of rules not only leads to a ban, but that the times will not be accepted... Meaning that posted lap times has to have been verified according to the rules he posted.

Yes, agree that lap times cannot be uncritically compared. But it seems like both of you completely missed the point he was making regarding the rules regulating the process of accepting lap times posted.

I mean, after he posted the rules, the reply he got was: "Verified by a IP address"... The rules he had posted clearly stated what was needed as verification and that certainly wasn't a IP address.

I'm pretty sure he also feels like he's trying to teach a three year old

[buildbright]

Originally Posted by Boss330

I don't think that the point was what kind of punishment false lap times would incur. But, that you just couldn't post a undocumented lap time.

Who cares about how severe a ban from a website might be, the point is that undocumented times/violation of rules not only leads to a ban, but that the times will not be accepted... Meaning that posted lap times has to have been verified according to the rules he posted.

Yes, agree that lap times cannot be uncritically compared. But it seems like both of you completely missed the point he was making regarding the rules regulating the process of accepting lap times posted.

I mean, after he posted the rules, the reply he got was: "Verified by a IP address"... The rules he had posted clearly stated what was needed as verification and that certainly wasn't a IP address.

I'm pretty sure he also feels like he's trying to teach a three year old

Its a small website making money off Adsense. Posting there "rules" means very little most of that is likely copied of another website. To claim legitimacy by a websites terms and conditions makes me laugh because I know they are just a cut and paste job from another site.

I said "verified by ip address" because that was the only source info. When you post a statistic/fact you cite a source or reference. If not it is just a worthless data point and considered Plagerism. Saying its true because they ban you is not a source. This is elementary school knowledge.

He most likely does feel frustrated as well trying to convince me with facts my 8 year old would laugh at. Still doesn't change he is wrong.

[Boss330]

Originally Posted by buildbright

I said "verified by ip address" because that was the only source info. When you post a statistic/fact you cite a source or reference. If not it is just a worthless data point and considered Plagerism. Saying its true because they ban you is not a source. This is elementary school knowledge.

He most likely does feel frustrated as well trying to convince me with facts my 8 year old would laugh at. Still doesn't change he is wrong.

Not saying either of you are right or wrong, but...

First you said he posted a time that he took from Wikipedia, then in a later post you claim the same time is unverified and that even Wikipedia won't publish it...

You also state your own opinions on lap times and how similar the M3/M5 are, based on own experiences etc. But you provide no source or reference, apart from your own opinion... But didn't you just say that "when you post a fact/statistic you cite a source or reference"?

He has provided a source (unlike you), but that source is dismissed because that's "elementary school knowledge"...

It seems a bit contradictory and double standards that his source is dismissed but you don't need a source for your claims, don't you think? My 5 year old would laugh at your "facts" and "logic"...

I have no idea about who's "right or wrong" with regards to the relative speed of the M3 vs M5. But I would prefer a more empirical/scientific approach from someone coming out so strong and attacking his source and claiming he's wrong.

OK, he might be wrong. But where is YOUR source that can substantiate that claim. And just your own experience doesn't cut it, after all we have no way of verifying any of your claims here...