[McLaren720s]

Originally Posted by mfarrzhp

Does the heavier weight of the car increase the measured lateral G's? If the STO and the M4 theoretically take the corner at the same speed, would the M4 be higher? It's been a long time since I had a physics class.

My instructors race car pulls 2g and it only weighs like 2800 lbs

[mfarrzhp]

Originally Posted by McLaren720s

My instructors race car pulls 2g and it only weighs like 2800 lbs

That's my point, you'd have to take a corner a lot faster in a 2,800lb car than a 3800lb car to get the same lateral g?

Force = Mass * Acceleration ?

Edit* I'm not knocking how impressive the M4 is at handling, just trying to figure out if that's how the measurement works.

[HeelToeShift]

Originally Posted by mfarrzhp

Does the heavier weight of the car increase the measured lateral G's? If the STO and the M4 theoretically take the corner at the same speed, would the M4 be higher? It's been a long time since I had a physics class.

If my recollection of physics serves me correctly then yes. If you notice, the 911 took turn 11 at almost 15 mph faster than the M4 and pulled 1.81 yet the M4 did 2.05 with much lower speed. Same goes for the AMG, much higher speed (but still lower speed than the GT3) and just a little less g. Weight definitely plays a factor.

[Mac Daddy]

Originally Posted by mfarrzhp

That's my point, you'd have to take a corner a lot faster in a 2,800lb car than a 3800lb car to get the same lateral g?

Force = Mass * Acceleration ?

Edit* I'm not knocking how impressive the M4 is at handling, just trying to figure out if that's how the measurement works.

You are confusing force and acceleration. The "g" that is quoted is acceleration, measured using gravity as a base.

A 2800 lb car doesn't have to take a corner faster that a 3800 lb car, but has to exert less force to achieve the same lateral acceleration as the heavier car. F = ma, or:

a ("g") = F/m

[M2PDX]

Amazingly quick ...

This observation is concerning:

"On paper it’s a triumph. But much of the character from older M3s is still missing—the tactility, focus, and charisma."

This was my impression when I drove one lately as well. Faster, and better than my old F80, but still numb.

Holding out hope for the G87.

[Hawkdog]

Originally Posted by HeelToeShift

If my recollection of physics serves me correctly then yes. If you notice, the 911 took turn 11 at almost 15 mph faster than the M4 and pulled 1.81 yet the M4 did 2.05 with much lower speed. Same goes for the AMG, much higher speed (but still lower speed than the GT3) and just a little less g. Weight definitely plays a factor.

No.

https://science.howstuffworks.com/science-vs-myth/everyday-myths/question633.htm

Lateral acceleration (G’s) = velocity^2/radius of the turn. Totally independent of mass.

And this is why I think R&T’s measurements in this story are horse shit. Maybe they broke the back end loose and momentarily hit 2g, but there’s no way in hell the car sustained that through a corner.

[floating.spirit]

Originally Posted by Vic55

Its the grilles... they clearly keep the car planted with force.

Yeah, from the weight of all those incredulous stares…

[signes]

Interesting data but some of those are misleading or inaccurate, starting with that braking g number.

[chris719]

Originally Posted by F82KPowers

2.05 G cornering??? My God

Impressive, but the table would also lead you to believe the GTI brakes harder than every other car in the world. I think there are some problems with the data here...

The only way a GTI is out-braking a 911 GT3 is if the GTI is driven into a brick wall.

[kjx]

Originally Posted by mfarrzhp

Does the heavier weight of the car increase the measured lateral G's? If the STO and the M4 theoretically take the corner at the same speed, would the M4 be higher? It's been a long time since I had a physics class.

Gravity, for the purposes of what we're discussing, has no relationship with weight. It is a force. Higher the speed, higher the force. Higher the angle of the turn (without losing traction), the higher the force.

[yousefnjr]

Gravity is not a force and none of the women I’ve tried to explain this to at parties seem to care

[supralex]

I'm more impressed by the time of the gt3 for a manual gearbox but I can't understand the g-forces maybe their device was not correctly setted up

[wtwo3]

All of the max figures quoted are completely useless pieces of data. Average figures throughout the length of the course would have been a much better indicator of performance and a MUCH better comparison point. Especially things like 2.05g braking in a GTI or 2.05g lateral acceleration for the G82... those are anomalies and not regular, sustainable numbers.

[frankiebones]

Originally Posted by Bumpinjeep

Was that in the base G80 or the F80CS? I'm wondering if a RWD auto would be faster than X-Drive, all things being equal.

Haven't tracked the G80 yet. Had shoulder surgery last summer and it's a manual (so I don't expect it to do that well).

It was in an M2Comp with a stage 2 tune (obviously steel brakes) and an F82 Comp with a stage 1 tune and CCB.

[frankiebones]

Originally Posted by mfarrzhp

Does the heavier weight of the car increase the measured lateral G's? If the STO and the M4 theoretically take the corner at the same speed, would the M4 be higher? It's been a long time since I had a physics class.

People far more physics minded than me seem to be debating this question. I will sit on the sidelines for this one.

[beachBmmr]

I suspect the high G's on the corner were from cornering under braking. You always pull more lateral G's when you're braking as you turn, as the car is using mechanical grip from the two front tires instead of just the outboard tires.

If you look at skidpad G's you can see the M4 doesnt pull close to the Lamb..

https://www.caranddriver.com/bmw/m4
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 1.03 g

https://www.caranddriver.com/lamborghini/huracan
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 1.10 g

The lambo just doesnt need to slow down as much to take the corner, so a truer measurement would be max mid corner speed which of course the p-car took handily and the M4 took 5th place.

That caddie was impressive, and again, would like to understand the tires and sizes, as the extra weight of the caddie would need to be compensated for with more rubber.

I believe these cars are undersized for tires at all 4 corners for the weight and power to be a real track weapon. Even with my own experience on Cup2s

[SickGTR]

Just drive your new G X as fast as you can to the sharpest turn and you will be fine. Prove it to yourself 🤣🙃

[ashmostro]

Originally Posted by mckman

Yes, interesting, although the max/min information isn't terribly useful. Do we really believe the GTi had 2g of braking for any meaningful amount of time? It would be much better to have 5th and 95 percentiles for example.

Completely agree. It's likely the highlighted figures are the result of dynamic peaks, as a bit of slippage then re-grip can result in max values like these. If so, it's misleading.

[M4Tejas]

Originally Posted by WATCHMY6

This is killing me now… my G82 is sitting at the port in Germany waiting to get on the boat… unlike most people it seems, I love the new grill… to me it is the perfect car.

My M4 Comp xDrive in Bremerhaven now. M4 built in Dingolfing, M3 Munich. Many articles reference Regensburg. No.

[MilehighM3]

Originally Posted by Game

No M5 CS?

Porsche probably paid to keep it out of the test

[BEAR-AvHistory]

The 2:05 was a mistake its 1:81. If its too good to be true it most likely is not true.

[kjx]

Originally Posted by BEAR-AvHistory

The 2:05 was a mistake its 1:81. If its too good to be true it most likely is not true.

Did they issue a correction?