didn't you say you didn't know about the 1/3 sticky compound difference? if in fact the tire was 1/3 R compound, would you not consider that "that different". your primary argument is contact patches dictate braking (i'm well away that turning, accelerating, and braking all take from a max 100% grip available from the contact patches). if they are stickier on 1/3 of the tire, doesn't that suggest they should aid in achieving "staggering" braking power?


To be honest, I think if we went back and looked you will find me making a comment about the brakes being "staggering" without referrence to ANY other car. Without even a reference to another car (that was brought in by others to negate my experience with "staggering" brakes - for why I don't exactly know - the testosterone deal again I guess), how could I have made a statement about a "staggering difference"? Even if I were to compare it to other sports cars, I wouldn't argue the "difference" would is "staggering"; however, that wouldn't mean the CGT's brakes aren't "staggering", would it? Do you see the difference? It's always "mine is better than yours" around here. That wasn't my intent. Rather, my intent was merely to note how "staggering" the brakes are - especially to an unbelted passenger as was in the video. For some reason, the "comparors" came out of the woodwork in a failed attempt to negate my statement. Why did they feel the need to do that or even have the desire? That's the part I don't get, but do get peeved about sometimes.

If true, that's very interesting.

Hey, like I said, I only drive them, I sure don't make them. It wouldn't be too hard to school me on the technical side for sure and I've no doubt you probably can. Thanks re: the comments about my car but truth is I had nothing to do with how great or not great it is. I'm just some a-hole who bought one, loves it, and is sharing my experience here with it.

 

According to Tim's argument, this is impossible. Did Arling not change any other dynamics and leave the same contact patches on the car? If so, it would seem there is no point in changing the brakes since you can hit lock up on the ABS (ie: exceed contact patch adhesion limit) with the stock brakes. Maybe Arling could tell us how his improved deceleration was achieved within the confines of Tim's argument.

 

A change in suspension can attribute to better braking even more than increasing rotor and caliper size.

 

Well I tried to make that point, but Tim is claiming "This is marginal at best.". What are your technical explainations for your comment re: suspension improving braking?

 

OMG does it really matter what the cars do 0-60? This is one of the most idiotic arguments I've ever heard aside from Colorchange's rant on the Rennlist when he got laughed off that forum by drivers that actually know what they are doing. Give it a rest already....

Tyson,
Do you have to hijack every thread and pitch the GT2 to everybody? Yes, it is a great car but it is no CGT or GT3RS.....

 

Kiby Kiby with the little doll?
Please send me the video as soon as you smack his head to the windshield!

 

NIce... what a rare experience.

 

I don't have any logged technical data, outside of me recording some stuff with some friends on his coil overed car before and after. We had data that said a 60-0 before was around 115-118 ft and after was around 106-109 ft. With nothing changed except for coil overs and a few other suspension mods. The biggest difference we felt was the car had WAY less nose dive which we attributed to the better braking.

PS, can I have a ride in your CGT? Please!

 

I have also seen recorded data that shows a brake upgrade providing similar, but not as good of gains on the same type of car. I believe the went from 116 to 109, but it was much more consistant on the track.

 

And that's why the rear weight biased 911 platform brakes so well compared to other front biased or 50/50 distributed cars. At least that's the theory

 

Tim used 60-0 on the GT3 vs. the CGT to support his point, so I can't imagine he'd have a problem with your "reasoning", but he may want to know more about how scientific your measurement was.

PM me next time you're going to be down here and I'd be happy to go for a drive.

 

I like the brake theory of Tim's, but I just don't see it in the real world. Cars with larger tires and brakes, don't brake as well as the 996tt from 100mph. There was an article on this in Road&Track. And yes, I do not believe the TT had a weight advantage, most of the others as I recall were RWD.

Edit: I found this old report, but the bar graphs are poor.0-100-0

 

we were on the same road, same weather, same time of day, using a line in the road to stop from and measurering with a tape measurer and a Gtech pro. Surprisingly the gtech pro is very accurate. within 1-2 feet of the actual data.

 

I just took my car in to the OKC dealer today and was completely shocked to find an '05 CGT on the show room floor, absolutely beautiful! It sure does sit low. I would be afraid to drive it on a lot of the roads around here due to how low it sits. My friend the GM told me that they had a guy take a rock on the wind shield recently and it cost him 9K to replace it! Also, the battery apparently is somewhere up underneath the car with a warning in the manual not to even try to access it unless you're the dealer. The carbon fiber throughout the car and engine compartment is out of control, never seen anything like it. Boy, it's cool though.

Thanks,
Ted.

 

Must be Bob Moore, eh? I think they had theirs on Ebay a couple weeks ago. That's pretty ugly news re: the windshield, and I've been wondering how painful that would be (already have some chips).