Re: GPL Benchmark Times

The obvious benchmark that we all have is the time of the included replays. You've beaten one, now go for the rest. They were, and still are a major motivator for me. I'm under five of them, but now that I'm concentrating on the BRM it could be a long time before I get under the others. [email hidden] (Phil Lee) wrote in <w7IP4.5620$[email hidden]>:

Quoted text (16 lines)

>Having broken 1:30 at Monza for the first time over the weekend I >was wondering what the equivalent benchmark times for the other >original circuits are so that I can have something to aim for. Do >any of you have any suggestions? > >Cheers > >Phil > >-- >http://www.youpies.co.uk > > > > >

-- Don Scurlock Vancouver,B.C.

Having broken 1:30 at Monza for the first time over the weekend I was wondering what the equivalent benchmark times for the other original circuits are so that I can have something to aim for. Do any of you have any suggestions? Cheers Phil -- http://www.youpies.co.uk

I use the real times from the 1967 season as my benchmark. Breaking 1:30 at Monza may not seem too great when people here are posting 1:27's, but in comparison to the real times, it's pretty damn good. You'd be in the top ten on the real '67 grid. I first try to get in the top 10, then the top 5, then I go for pole. They are all attainable (eventually) goals, and you won't get pissed off trying to beat an impossible time. Cheers, ...Colin Phil Lee <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:w7IP4.5620$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (15 lines)

> Having broken 1:30 at Monza for the first time over the weekend I was > wondering what the equivalent benchmark times for the other original > circuits are so that I can have something to aim for. Do any of you have > any suggestions? > > Cheers > > Phil > > -- > http://www.youpies.co.uk > > > >

I don't know about benchmarks but these are my best times and the cars in which I set them. I consider myself about average in GPL but I'm pretty good at Monza and Watkins Glen. Track PB Car Kyalami 1:19.92 Ferrari Mexico City 1:47.94 Ferrari Monaco 1:26.76 Ferrari Monza 1:27.84 Eagle Mosport 1:21.71 Ferrari Nurburgring 8:18.09 Ferrari Rouen 1:56.46 Ferrari Silverstone 1:27.91 Ferrari Spa 3:15.24 Lotus Watkins Glen 1:04.14 Lotus Zandvoort 1:25.40 Ferrari My normal car is Ferrari, I do run the other cars occasionally but not enough to be really quick in them which is why most times are set with the Ferrari. Ian Parker Phil Lee <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:w7IP4.5620$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (15 lines)

> Having broken 1:30 at Monza for the first time over the weekend I was > wondering what the equivalent benchmark times for the other original > circuits are so that I can have something to aim for. Do any of you have > any suggestions? > > Cheers > > Phil > > -- > http://www.youpies.co.uk > > > >

You're just showing off.. :)

You're just showing off.. :)

I'd have said quite the opposite, I'm way off the fast boys at most places ;) -- Ian Parker == Simon Brown <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:LeMP4.1108$[email hidden]... > You're just showing off.. :) > >

Ho ho ho!, In 1967 a 3:20 at spa would be so good you'd probably be reported to the scruitineers for cheating: I picked up these pole-setting times for each track: Track Kyalami J.Brabham 1:28.3 Monaco J.Brabham 1:27.6 Zandvoort G.Hill 1:24.6 SPA J.Clark 3:28.1 Silverstone J.Clark 1:25.3 The Ring J.Clark 8:04. Mosport J.Clark 1.22.4 Monza J.Clark 1:28.5 Watkins Glen G.Hill 1:05.48 Mexico J.Clark 1:47.56 Rouen ('68) J. Rindt 1:56.1 While, for some circuits, the real times were good benchmarks, there's no way most of us will do an 8:04 at the ring (ok, I might not), while 1.28 at kyalami is possible at Sunday-driver pace Colin <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:8eppkp$4ce$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (10 lines)

> I use the real times from the 1967 season as my benchmark. > Breaking 1:30 at Monza may not seem too great when people here are posting > 1:27's, but in comparison to the real times, it's pretty damn good. You'd > be in the top ten on the real '67 grid. > I first try to get in the top 10, then the top 5, then I go for pole. > They are all attainable (eventually) goals, and you won't get pissed off > trying to beat an impossible time. > Cheers, > ...Colin >

In addition (don't know whether this has been mentioned before) you can get the complete '67 race reports, as published in 'Motor Sport' magazine, from http://www.isanski.freeserve.co.uk/ which has prelude, practice and race reports, and overall results for each GP. The report for mexico includes the classic line "Hulme is about to pass Surtees but at the same time he was attempting not to get into any close racing which might damage his car." Tell us about it! Ace <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:8eq503$ma5$[email hidden]... > Ho ho ho!, In 1967 a 3:20 at spa would be so good you'd probably bereported

Quoted text (17 lines)

> to the scruitineers for cheating: > I picked up these pole-setting times for each track: > Track > Kyalami J.Brabham 1:28.3 > Monaco J.Brabham 1:27.6 > Zandvoort G.Hill 1:24.6 > SPA J.Clark 3:28.1 > Silverstone J.Clark 1:25.3 > The Ring J.Clark 8:04. > Mosport J.Clark 1.22.4 > Monza J.Clark 1:28.5 > Watkins Glen G.Hill 1:05.48 > Mexico J.Clark 1:47.56 > Rouen ('68) J. Rindt 1:56.1 > > While, for some circuits, the real times were good benchmarks, there's no > way most of us will do an 8:04 at the ring (ok, I might not), while 1.28

at > kyalami is possible at Sunday-driver pace >

You obviously have a very unreliable source of information as they make no mention of Clarks 9.56 pole position lap at the Pants Ring '67. Chris In article <8eq503$ma5$[email hidden]>, "Ace" <[email hidden]> wrote: >Ho ho ho!, In 1967 a 3:20 at spa would be so good you'dprobably be reported

Quoted text (16 lines)

>to the scruitineers for cheating: >I picked up these pole-setting times for each track: >Track >Kyalami J.Brabham 1:28.3 >Monaco J.Brabham 1:27.6 >Zandvoort G.Hill 1:24.6 >SPA J.Clark 3:28.1 >Silverstone J.Clark 1:25.3 >The Ring J.Clark 8:04. >Mosport J.Clark 1.22.4 >Monza J.Clark 1:28.5 >Watkins Glen G.Hill 1:05.48 >Mexico J.Clark 1:47.56 >Rouen ('68) J. Rindt 1:56.1 > >While, for some circuits, the real times were good benchmarks,

there's no >way most of us will do an 8:04 at the ring (ok, I might not),while 1.28 at >kyalami is possible at Sunday-driver pace > >Colin <[email hidden]> wrote in message >news:8eppkp$4ce$[email hidden]... >> I use the real times from the 1967 season as my benchmark. >> Breaking 1:30 at Monza may not seem too great when peoplehere are posting >> 1:27's, but in comparison to the real times, it's pretty damngood. You'd >> be in the top ten on the real '67 grid. >> I first try to get in the top 10, then the top 5, then I gofor pole. >> They are all attainable (eventually) goals, and you won't getpissed off

Quoted text (9 lines)

>> trying to beat an impossible time. >> Cheers, >> ...Colin >> > > > > >

* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network * The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!

On Wed, 3 May 2000 22:15:56 +0100 Ace <[email hidden]> wrote: % Monaco J.Brabham 1:27.6 % Zandvoort G.Hill 1:24.6 % Silverstone J.Clark 1:25.3 % The Ring J.Clark 8:04. % Mexico J.Clark 1:47.56 I thought chasing Greger's and Wolfang's times was tough.... I am a long way from these times..... % While, for some circuits, the real times were good benchmarks, there's no % way most of us will do an 8:04 at the ring (ok, I might not), while 1.28 at % kyalami is possible at Sunday-driver pace Keep in mind that they were basically using 1966 cars for the 1st race of the season. -- **************************** Michael E. Carver ************************* Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town. [email hidden] http://www.teleport.com/~mcarver =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./. [- < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

>>While, for some circuits, the real times were good benchmarks, >there's no >>way most of us will do an 8:04 at the ring (ok, I might not), >while 1.28 at >>kyalami is possible at Sunday-driver pace That had something to do with the high altitude of the Mexico track. Because of the high altitude, engines wouldn't run as fast as they would on other tracks. Since this effect is not simulated in GPL, Kyalami laps in GPL are quicker than the real times. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Andre

In article <8eq503$ma5$[email hidden]>, "Ace" <[email hidden]> writes:

Quoted text (19 lines)

>Ho ho ho!, In 1967 a 3:20 at spa would be so good you'd probably be reported >to the scruitineers for cheating: >I picked up these pole-setting times for each track: >Track >Kyalami J.Brabham 1:28.3 >Monaco J.Brabham 1:27.6 >Zandvoort G.Hill 1:24.6 >SPA J.Clark 3:28.1 >Silverstone J.Clark 1:25.3 >The Ring J.Clark 8:04. >Mosport J.Clark 1.22.4 >Monza J.Clark 1:28.5 >Watkins Glen G.Hill 1:05.48 >Mexico J.Clark 1:47.56 >Rouen ('68) J. Rindt 1:56.1 > >While, for some circuits, the real times were good benchmarks, there's no >way most of us will do an 8:04 at the ring (ok, I might not), while 1.28 at >kyalami is possible at Sunday-driver pace

Well, whaddya know - I beat one!<g> I have a 3.26.83 at Spa. I also beat Kyalami, but apparently that's easy? On the other hand, I'm about 7 seconds off at Zandvoort and Silverstone(can't find any more there), 9 seconds off at Rouen, and almost 3 MINUTES off at the Ring... The 2 or 3 seconds at Monza and Watkins might as well be an *eternity*, as I've done the most laps at those two tracks... Oh well - I just have to settle for mediocrity... Eldred -- Tiger Stadium R.I.P. 1912-1999 Own Grand Prix Legends? Goto http://gpl.gamestats.com/vroc Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you with experience... Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

Damn that track. I can never get the braking points right there. MS "Chris Bloom" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (56 lines)

> You obviously have a very unreliable source of information as > they make no mention of Clarks 9.56 pole position lap at the > Pants Ring '67. > > Chris > > > In article <8eq503$ma5$[email hidden]>, "Ace" > <[email hidden]> wrote: > >Ho ho ho!, In 1967 a 3:20 at spa would be so good you'd > probably be reported > >to the scruitineers for cheating: > >I picked up these pole-setting times for each track: > >Track > >Kyalami J.Brabham 1:28.3 > >Monaco J.Brabham 1:27.6 > >Zandvoort G.Hill 1:24.6 > >SPA J.Clark 3:28.1 > >Silverstone J.Clark 1:25.3 > >The Ring J.Clark 8:04. > >Mosport J.Clark 1.22.4 > >Monza J.Clark 1:28.5 > >Watkins Glen G.Hill 1:05.48 > >Mexico J.Clark 1:47.56 > >Rouen ('68) J. Rindt 1:56.1 > > > >While, for some circuits, the real times were good benchmarks, > there's no > >way most of us will do an 8:04 at the ring (ok, I might not), > while 1.28 at > >kyalami is possible at Sunday-driver pace > > > >Colin <[email hidden]> wrote in message > >news:8eppkp$4ce$[email hidden]... > >> I use the real times from the 1967 season as my benchmark. > >> Breaking 1:30 at Monza may not seem too great when people > here are posting > >> 1:27's, but in comparison to the real times, it's pretty damn > good. You'd > >> be in the top ten on the real '67 grid. > >> I first try to get in the top 10, then the top 5, then I go > for pole. > >> They are all attainable (eventually) goals, and you won't get > pissed off > >> trying to beat an impossible time. > >> Cheers, > >> ...Colin > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network

* > The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free! >

Dont worry I wasn't being serious :) Either way you're way faster than me! Nice times...

I wouldn't have replied if I thought you were serious, I hate confrontations ;) -- Ian Parker == Simon Brown <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:TT2Q4.833$[email hidden]... > Dont worry I wasn't being serious :) > Either way you're way faster than me! > Nice times... > >

Bzzzt...... Wrong answer (at least I think so) ;) The Kyalami race being so early in the season meant that the teams didn't have the 67 cars ready so were running the smaller engined cars from 66. It was a few races in before the new cars were ready. -- Ian Parker == Andre Warringa <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > >>While, for some circuits, the real times were good benchmarks, > >there's no > >>way most of us will do an 8:04 at the ring (ok, I might not), > >while 1.28 at > >>kyalami is possible at Sunday-driver pace > > That had something to do with the high altitude of the Mexico track. > Because of the high altitude, engines wouldn't run as fast as they > would on other tracks. Since this effect is not simulated in GPL, > Kyalami laps in GPL are quicker than the real times. > Please correct me if I'm wrong. > > Andre

Ah!! that explains it - I must have a version of GPL using the 66 engines Tony "Ian P" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:%KgQ4.7736$[email hidden]... > Bzzzt...... Wrong answer (at least I think so) ;) > > The Kyalami race being so early in the season meant that the teams didn't > have the 67 cars ready so were running the smaller engined cars from 66.It > was a few races in before the new cars were ready. > > -- > Ian Parker >

It was a combination of the two factors, I certainly don't think air density and ambient temperature are modelled in GPL, but they certainly would affect top speed. Ian P is correct as well, Nobody had a 67 spec car ready: Eagle and Brabhams used a climax engine, while Lotus used BRM engines Tony Rickard <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:mWhQ4.1557$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (9 lines)

> Ah!! that explains it - I must have a version of GPL using the 66 engines > > Tony > > "Ian P" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:%KgQ4.7736$[email hidden]... > > Bzzzt...... Wrong answer (at least I think so) ;) > > > > The Kyalami race being so early in the season meant that the teams

didn't

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > have the 67 cars ready so were running the smaller engined cars from 66. > It > > was a few races in before the new cars were ready. > > > > -- > > Ian Parker > > > > >

Kyalami is indeed at altitude. About 6000 ft I think. Those of us who remember the early 80's will probarbly recall the 1982 South African GP which was also the season opener. The Turbo Ferrari's, Renaults & Brabhams were much faster than the DFV powered cars as they could suck in much more air in the thinner atmosphere. A few weeks later in Brazil the normally aspirated cars were back at the front. This was the last season that the non-turbos would be able to compete against the turbos, indeed Keke Rosberg won the championship. Who got me rambling on about GP racing in the early 80's? Oh! I really must stop! Please someone help me stop!! Where are you Alan Jones? Chris In article <%KgQ4.7736$[email hidden]>, "Ian P" <[email hidden]> wrote: >Bzzzt...... Wrong answer (at least I think so) ;) > >The Kyalami race being so early in the season meant that theteams didn't >have the 67 cars ready so were running the smaller engined carsfrom 66. It >was a few races in before the new cars were ready. > >-- >Ian Parker > >== * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network * The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!

LOL :) -- Ian Parker == Tony Rickard <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:mWhQ4.1557$[email hidden]... > Ah!! that explains it - I must have a version of GPL using the 66 engines > > Tony > > "Ian P" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:%KgQ4.7736$[email hidden]... > > Bzzzt...... Wrong answer (at least I think so) ;) > > > > The Kyalami race being so early in the season meant that the teams didn't > > have the 67 cars ready so were running the smaller engined cars from 66. > It > > was a few races in before the new cars were ready. > > > > -- > > Ian Parker > > > > >

LOL :) -- Ian Parker == > Ah!! that explains it - I must have a version of GPL using the 66 engines > Tony > > Bzzzt...... Wrong answer (at least I think so) ;) > > The Kyalami race being so early in the season meant that the teams didn't > > have the 67 cars ready so were running the smaller engined cars from 66. > It > > was a few races in before the new cars were ready. > > -- > > Ian Parker