|
What kind of tests were you talking about? I'm not necessarily defending the GTR or R8 but I think it's fair to state that the Audi weighs a good bit less than the GTR and on a small tight course where power doesn't come into play it'll be very close in performance. Power doesn't necessarily have a great influence on the outcome in a tiny course.
The GTR is impressive. Like I said in my other post, in handling tests where power and handling come into play, the GTR was right up near the top. The only cars that competed were cars like the 100k+ R8, the 100k plus Viper ACR, the who knows how expensive Gallardo LP560-4 and the over 200k Aston DB9. The ACR is probably the closest in price, but it has a lot more power and aero aids and weighs about 500 pounds less. The R8 weighs about two or three hundred pounds less and costs about 25 to 40k more depending on options. The Aston and Lamborghini are both priced astronomically and the thing still competes with them. Granted it's not as luxurious as they are... It's impressive.
The thing everyone seems to be missing is what any person who really drives these cars can tell you that the GTR, while making you look like Michael Schumacher, is boring to drive. There's no satisfaction of throwing it out to the edge and then doing your best to reel it back in. For lack of a better term, there's no soul. The numbers are rightly impressive given that it's a near 2 ton car with only 480hp that can compete with cars that cost exponentially more and weigh hundreds of pounds less. But engineering and computers can do that, but to make the car entertaining to drive is another story.
I have a quote that sums up how I feel about cars like the GTR
Do you want to drive the machine? Or do you want the machine to drive you?
It seems for the car to be fun, the computer aids would have to be in the background where you don't feel them working. It seems like they control the car just as much as the driver in the GTR.
|