Does fastest mean best

[obi_waynne]

When comparing cars on the track from a drivers point of view does fastest always mean the best?

What factors do you think are more important than just getting a good lap time?

Or is getting a good lap time the best indicator as it takes into account braking, cornering and accelerating?

 

[old-git]

Surely, when racing, the lap time is the ONLY thing that is important. Top speed, cornering, braking and reliabiliity are just the ingredients that make up the lap time and have to be in the right proportions in order to achieve the desired lap time.

The Ferrari GP car back in the 80s (I think) was known as a mobile chicane. It didn't corner very well but was faster than the other cars in a straight line so it was very difficult to pass. Once they sorted the handling and reliability out it became the car to beat.

 

[stamford]

I'm with OG on this one. A fast lap is the benchmark, no matter if you are slow through one particular part of the track, it's where you make it up that defines a fast lap. Set-up is according to the cars strengths for that track, there is always compromise with suspension set-up and level of downforce (where appropriate) by means of spoilers and splitters etc. Consistency is also key, not just fast.

 

[Jakeymd]

I'd say no. I think the reason anyone races is to have fun. So i think whichever car is the most fun to drive for you is the best. For many people this will be the fastest, but for some i suspect not.

 

[turbonutter69]

A good setup is more important than power.

 

[old-git]

I'd say no. I think the reason anyone races is to have fun. So i think whichever car is the most fun to drive for you is the best. For many people this will be the fastest, but for some i suspect not.

My experience is that people RACE to go as quick as possible and try to win. People who go to track days do it either for fun or to set up their cars for racing.

There is no fun in being the fastest on the straight only to be passed on the bends by a 'slower' car

 

[obi_waynne]

By that note OG, a car that is extremely fast in the bends could be slow on the straights or vice versa. A car can make up for it's deficiencies in one area by overperforming in another. It can still turn in a quick lap time without being stunning in all areas. But does this matter?

Does the final lap time tell the full story?

 

[stamford]

I'd say no. I think the reason anyone races is to have fun. So i think whichever car is the most fun to drive for you is the best. For many people this will be the fastest, but for some i suspect not.

Adrenalin takes control when the flag drops and when racing or sprinting around a track no-one likes to be overtaken. Fun is not a word I would associate with any form of racing as the competitive instinct takes over and so does the red mist!

Fun is having a blast around a kart track with your mates but that is still competitive as no-one likes to lose.

In my experience fun turns in obession.

 

[old-git]

By that note OG, a car that is extremely fast in the bends could be slow on the straights or vice versa. A car can make up for it's deficiencies in one area by overperforming in another. It can still turn in a quick lap time without being stunning in all areas. But does this matter?

Does the final lap time tell the full story?

Agreed, and this can be due to the set up of the car. A lot of wing will give good grip in the fast corners but slow you down on the long straights. This is why cars have to be set up for each track they race at. If the track has long straights but slow corners less wing will be required. With short straights but a lot of fast corners more wing will be used. What you don't want is slow on the straights AND the corners

It is not the be all and end all, but corner exit speed is important as this is the speed at wich you start to accelerate down the next straight. So, although you may not have the straight line speed of another car, if you can exit the corner at a faster speed then you can reduce their straight line speed advantage.

No car is stunning an all areas, the trick is minimising the effect of the car's shortcomings and taking advantage of its strengths.

A car doesn't have to be stunning in all areas. But in order to win, it has to be the best overall on the day and cross the line first.

 

[bigbadjoe]

No, but it does seem to make racing more interesting.

Lets take Moto GP for example. The Yams and are quicker around the corners, but when the honda's get onto the straight, they motor past them, then it is a fight through the corners.

Its not so obvious in F1 these days. But back when BMW were with Williams, they had the fastest car, and it was fun watching them overtake the Mercs and the Ferraris on the long straights, only to be beaten in the breaking and exit of the corner.

 

[charger69]

the lotus exige proved that this is wrong.

 

[HDi fun]

If by fastest you mean the car which you can get round the track in less time than another car then surely fastest is best??

 

[carnutter]

I would rather set a slower lap time in a RWD car that helped me improve my throttle and steering control, corner entry, gear changes, and power out, as opposed to being fast in a powerful, AWD with DSG and all the electronic nannies.

It's for the same reason why I like a manual more than a DSG. Yes, the DSG will always shift faster than me, but that's not the point.

I race against myself, not the clock.

 

[kain35m]

It's a mix between which car can get around the track in the shortest amount of time, and which car is the most fun and easiest to drive, And easiest to maintain in a breakdown.

Think of it. you're having agreat time and killing on the track and your radiator springs a leak. Do you want to spend the rest of the race pulling apart the front of the car to get to it? or would you rather spend 10 minutes replacing it and get back to the race?

(I'm assuming we're spending a whole day lapping a nice track in a home-built race car)

and the "fun" part: I'd rather have fun and be a few seconds behind the winning car(s) rather than win the day, but spend the entire time fighting the car around the track and go home angry and sore.

I also don't want to be the slowest one.. but that's obvious.

 

[MADRod]

Fastest can be measured im afraid Best is subjective. Depends what you want the car for. Track cars are just that & a road car cant compete only wallow around on track days thinking they are going fast. Drag is another discipline again road cars cant compete against the stripped out correctly geared cars built for that purpose. However im into Topspeed events & here its only about one thing Power. Weight ceases to be a factor over the 1/2 mile point so road cars can compete & the UK record of 240mph in the 1.4 miles is a road car. Im sorry but these are the Fastest cars in the UK . Are they the best that's subjective & a personal opinion they wont be quickest around a track that's for sure but not too many road cars hitting 240 around a track or down the 1/4. Go to the States & its 286mph in that distance now that is fast. BUT IS IT THE BEST . I leave you to ponder.

 

[obi_waynne]

Good answer Rod, and leaving it wide open for more debate.

 

[FourD]

My two cents.
There are so many factors to take into account, any form of racing demonstrates this very clearly.
First and foremost is the driver. It doesn't matter what car you're in if you don't know how to control it and use the strengths and weaknesses to your advantage.
Then there is tyre choice, power (and even skill) is useless if it you're wheels are spinning and slipping (unless you're drifting )
Suspension, lots of power, check. Great tyres, check. And then you oversteer.
Weather. Fitness. Even your mental state!

So all I'm saying is that Sebastien Loeb can probably annihilate you in a Tata