yeah, highly interesting format, slightly flawed also. but i suppose the best you can do with 25 different cars. it's for a print magazine, so not the end of the world.
i fully understand that modern day performance cars are made with very model specific tires, not much to be done about that. a spec tire for such a test, may benefit one vehicle and hinder another, but it's the closest thing to setting a baseline and removing that performance variable from the equation. i wouldn't imagine putting Trofeos on each car would be a negative for any of them.
i'm still baffled however if they don't have the fastest driver of all testers present making his fastest lap in each car, at around the same time of day with the same relative weather conditions. that's the biggest factor of them all.
i'm not surprised to see the 570S and 488 faster than the NSX. but i am surprised by how much. and i'm very surprised to see the Vette faster, and the R8 so much slower. there's definitely something more to tell with the R8. i'd expect it to be faster than the NSX, not 6 seconds a lap slower. honestly, i'd expect all three of the Supercars to be within 2, maybe 3 seconds of each other. not 11 seconds apart, that's ludicrous.
to me i would see the NSX having good traction and thrust off slow speed corners on a slow to medium speed track, that's where i'd see it's acceleration advantage with it's super low gearing to offset it's pretty hefty weight. but VIR is a (relatively) high speed flowing track where i don't see those puny 36 horsepower e-motors doing much when the car is already at speed. i'll have to read the entire article. is it at the news stand yet?
- - - Updated - - -
It comes down to tires. The R8 had regular P Zeros, not the Trofeos that the NSX had or the Pilot Sport Cup 2s that most of the other Supercars had.
Chances are that the NSX would post similar times if it was equipped with the Contis.
PS. According to the article, the track tires are a dealer-installed option, not a factory option. Also, this test was done over 3 days, driving 21 vehicles. Due to the power train setup, getting the most out of the NSX had a learning curve to it. It is possible that more seat time in the NSX could have yielded a better time.
i thought the purpose of the NSX's SH-AWD powertrain was it's seamless and superior ease of use. that's what Saddle keeps saying...
Thanks, @
Olyar15. Good color. The whole tire thing is a bit silly. Audi and Acura both dropped ball here, I think. Especially for the "Plus" R8 variant, I would think it a no-brainer to offer a max-performance tires as as option-- if only too "play the game" of having the car reviewed in "stock" trim. OTOH, I continue to feel that Acura is cheating by delivering testing cars with Trofeos that I cannot buy with my car. Of course my dealer can order up some from Tire Rack and install them--- but i get no credit for the stock tires. That is not an "option" in the conventional sense.
Finally, I really don't think you can explain six seconds of delta (on a ~3:00 lap) solely on tires. I would think three (maybe four) seconds more realistic (given that the "slow" tire is not *that* bad). I think the only fair conclusion is that the NSX is faster around this track than the R8 V10 Plus-- even though not fair to say six seconds faster given the tires and other random variables.
tires aren't cheating. anyone can go down to the local tire shop and get anything you want. or if you're lazy, you can sit on your fat arse and do it on the computer. so no cheating there, this has been covered before.
as far as the R8 Plus being 6 seconds down on the NSX when it is usually up? it typically laps as fast or faster than the Huracan, so there's more to that story...
