Gen V ACR Extreme will beat Performante lap times

[Scott_in_fl]

I had a close look on Saturday at the Performante and there is no way.... and I mean no way.... that the aero on that car is responsible for the Ring lap time.

1) The aero surface area is way too small -- aerodynamics, whether active or passive, is a function of the application of wind force against a surface area. As shown in the photos below, the rear wing on the Performante is probably 1/3 the size of the wing on the ACR-E. The photo has my empty Gatorade bottle next to it for scale. It really is diminutive compared to the ACR-E.

2) The ALA system seems gimmicky -- I won't quibble with the theory that an air tube within a vehicle that modulates the escaping air can result in changing aero forces. In fact, that theory seems sound to me as the air tube is essentially more surface area for the wind force (air pressure) to work against. But take a close look at the Performante photos and you'll see that the intakes are very small (about half the footprint of your cell phone). As we know from trying to cool radiators, force feed air boxes, and cool brakes, you need large openings to "catch" significant amounts of air volume (and be located in a high pressure area). But more importantly, the exit is absolutely miniature. It is so diminutive that I question how much air can actually move through it. If the air is simply piling up within the air tube because it cannot efficiently escape, then you're left with basically the same thing as no air tube.

Take a look a the second photo below and you'll see what is about a 1/8" slit that is supposedly the exit for the active air. IMO, there is no way that a lot of volume is moving through the system at average corner speeds of 60mph to 100mph. I was expecting to see large flaps underneath the wing that could move around a significant amount of airflow and there is almost nothing.

The front is even more ridiculous. The distance from the intake to the exit slit is non-existent. Yes, I said that correctly... it is non-existent. The same 1/8" exit slit is probably 5 inches from the nose of the car and there is no intake at all, and thus no air tube for the air to travel within.

Again, for aero to work, you need surface area. There is no way around this fundamental concept of physics. That is why heavy airplanes need large wings and large control surfaces. Smaller planes can use smaller wings, etc. No known technology has changed the laws of physics.

With the Performante and its supposed Ring lap time of 6:52, I expected to see either a very large wing or very significant internal ducting, with large flaps that can modulate the intake and release of large amounts of air volume/pressure. It has neither. Yet, when you watch the videos of the Ring run, the car is absolutely glued to the track.

All of this, for me, absolutely cements the rumor that the Performante was running with full race slicks. As most of us track junkies know, slicks can mean a 3-5 second differential per lap on a normal road course compared to a DOT "track" tire. Around the 12 mile Ring, that differential must be 10-15 seconds, which would put a production Performante at around a 7:02-7:07 lap -- a time that seems much more in line with reality (compared to other times, set by other cars).

But, don't take my word for it. The customer cars will be here soon enough and we'll see just how quickly it can get around places like Laguna, VIR, etc.

277582775927760

[ZeeViper]

I took a look at that video about the active aero and thought the same thing....Gimicky. No doubt its clever and the principles are sound, but i agree that given the viscosity of air surface area is the determining factor. If the ring time they posted is real i believe its a function of these three things:
1. Active suspension
2. Slicks
3. DCT

I mean look at the other active aero stuff - P1 - huge wing that deploys tips at different angle and literally becomes a wall under hard braking. If they could have gotten away with a whispy little trail of wind creating a negative pocket i think they would have just tipped the wing in differently to do the same.

we shall see when they hit the other tracks. cool car and concepts though. im sure this tech will prove useful in the future.

[ViperJon]

I But, don't take my word for it. The customer cars will be here soon enough and we'll see just how quickly it can get around places like Laguna, VIR, etc.


In my mind this is all that matters. The Viper times are there in black and white waiting to be beaten. So lets see someone do it.

[Bossing]

VIR, RA, MRLS to name a few of the top tracks... c'mon Performante, bring it on (bone stock from the showroom; no cheating). ALA is welcome to beat all these times...

27786

[texasram]

I dont think anyone here has even driven a performante because if you were able to put it to the test then you would clearly see why this is the fastest thus far. Its all driver confidence, doesnt matter if any gimmics are involved because the acr extreme uses trick tires and a wing also. The performante has set the bar for aero going forward, sad to say.

[serpent]

It doesnt matter if the ACR uses trick tires.
If the performante used slicks and was advertised as a bone stock car/stock tires straight from the dealer, then they deserved to be exposed.
Fuck cheats!

[ACRucrazy]

I sure think that Aero is sexy though. It reminds me of the Bowers & Wilkins Signature speakers with Tigers Eye finish.

As far as slicks and time, for comparison the 600hp Gen IV time of 7:12 on Sport Cups and the 640hp gutted ACR-X race car ran 7:03 on slicks. That's 9 seconds between two comparable cars. The one with slicks happens to have more HP, less weight, and better suspension and brakes.

[TrackAire]

I don't think the Lambo's time is a fair comparison of the actual production car. Was it a fast time (if real and not spliced), yes. Will the production car be able to get within 5 seconds?...I doubt it.

Aero doesn't need huge wings if designed using active aero. Look at the Ferrari 599XX that did a lap of around 6:58 seven years ago. Agreed that the 599XX is not a production car and was on slicks but the rear wing was on par with the Lambos....tiny in comparison to the ACR-E. But, the car had air fans to pulsate air out the back to re-introduce the airflow, special flaps and air inlets to keep the flow where it is suppose to be. The 9000 rpm and DCT shifts were also a big help in getting under 7 minutes.

I've only driven in one Lambo and it was a friends Gallardo LP570-4 Performante Spyder. Although he couldn't match my speed in my slightly modded Hoosier tired Viper on the track, I couldn't believe how easy that car was to drive and how confidence inspiring it was bone stock. I can only imagine the improvements that a Huracan can deliver, not to mention this new Performante.

I'm pretty confident if the weather, head winds and track conditions are in our favor, the ACR-E will run a 6:57 or better lap.

[Snakebit10]

After considering all the info we have, the Viper or any car for that matter, won't beat a "cheating" time if it won't return the favor by um....cheating. We will see the real deal when production Performante's hit Laguna etc.

[stradman]

Guys....the GT2 RS is the car to beat not the Performante(I also believe the Lambo was not a completely stock car). I believe the 2RS posted a 6:53 on Michelin Cup Sports(tbc). That will be the quickest production (and of course rear wheel drive) car around the Ring, whilst the ACR will be the quickest manually driven car. With the best will in the world however I just can't see the ACR improving 10 seconds on its admirable first lap. Probably a 6:57. Still mighty impressive. Of course I would love to eat my words but just can't see how it can.
And that'll be it.....

[timberwolf]

guys....the gt2 rs is the car to beat not the performante(i also believe the lambo was not a completely stock car). I believe the 2rs posted a 6:53 on michelin cup sports(tbc). That will be the quickest production (and of course rear wheel drive) car around the ring, whilst the acr will be the quickest manually driven car. With the best will in the world however i just can't see the acr improving 10 seconds on its admirable first lap. Probably a 6:57. Still mighty impressive. Of course i would love to eat my words but just can't see how it can.
And that'll be it.....

this^

[Snorman]

Guys....the GT2 RS is the car to beat not the Performante(I also believe the Lambo was not a completely stock car). I believe the 2RS posted a 6:53 on Michelin Cup Sports(tbc). That will be the quickest production (and of course rear wheel drive) car around the Ring, whilst the ACR will be the quickest manually driven car. With the best will in the world however I just can't see the ACR improving 10 seconds on its admirable first lap. Probably a 6:57. Still mighty impressive. Of course I would love to eat my words but just can't see how it can.
And that'll be it.....
There is nothing to support that claimed GT2 RS other than a member with ~20 posts on Rennlist. No video, no announcement from Porsche. Nothing.
S.

[ironpeddler]

Guys....the GT2 RS is the car to beat not the Performante(I also believe the Lambo was not a completely stock car). I believe the 2RS posted a 6:53 on Michelin Cup Sports(tbc). That will be the quickest production (and of course rear wheel drive) car around the Ring, whilst the ACR will be the quickest manually driven car. With the best will in the world however I just can't see the ACR improving 10 seconds on its admirable first lap. Probably a 6:57. Still mighty impressive. Of course I would love to eat my words but just can't see how it can.
And that'll be it.....

So let me get this straight, you will believe this Porsche time, blindly, with no video evidence or any type of evidence at all. There is no evidence out there, at all, to support a GT 2 RS ring time of 6:53. But when lambo presents you with all kinds of evidence about their ring time you cry foul. Hahaha...sounds about right.

I am not sure how people can refuse to accept the lambo car that ran the ring time but they somehow will accept a 918 or gt2rs cars that has run or will run the ring. I don't get the difference. If you say the lambo wasn't a stock car, guess what you might be right, but you have to also say that the Porsche wasn't a completely stock car either. I mean it makes no sense. If the lambo "cheated" so did the porshce lol. If Porsche didn't "cheat" neither did the lambo. I dont really see how you can accept one but decline the other. Either you accept both 918 and performante times or you do not accept both. They are both owned by the same parent company, they have the same-type goals and IMHO they are doing the exact same things at the ring.

[512BB]

Porsche has always been famous for bending the rules for their ring time. Up until the 918, to my knowledge they never published a continuous video with the speed and the time imbedded. What Porsche does is set-up 4 different versions of the car for 4 sections of the Nurburgring, they take the time of the car set-up for that section and add them up for a let's say "theoretical" ring time that they publish as their official time. As for the 918, even though they published a full lap, there was no speed or time imbedded in the video. Also, the 918 had a laptop connected to it as it ran. Given the phenomenal amount of aero items, suspension, power mix, etc. that can be changed on that car, they could have potentially changed the parameters of the car every millisecond to match the section of the track the car was in or even make it predictive and dynamic (I contacted Porsche about this but never got a response). For these reasons I take the Porsche numbers with a grain of salt.

As for the Lamborghini, so far they have officially claimed that it is real and that they have all the numbers/telemetry to prove it. I'll hold final judgement till those numbers/telemetry are published for scrutiny. Their active aero is very clever in my opinion and best as I can determine it works quite well with the videos and information that I have gathered. For that reason I am leaning on believing their 6:52 number as accurate, however, I am not sure about the tires and when watching the laptime the steering wheel was so well implanted. I have never seen than even in race cars on race tries, there is always some movement, some under/over steer at some point or jittery under brakes. For that reason, even thought I trust that it did a 6:52, I am not convinced that it did it on stock tires!

The only true ring time that I will vouch for is the 7:03 on the Viper and the numbers that GM puts out on the Corvettes (I do not intend this thread to be hijacked by the Corvette comment).

I am looking forward to getting the Vipers to go in the 6's.

[stradman]

So let me get this straight, you will believe this Porsche time, blindly, with no video evidence or any type of evidence at all. There is no evidence out there, at all, to support a GT 2 RS ring time of 6:53. But when lambo presents you with all kinds of evidence about their ring time you cry foul. Hahaha...sounds about right.

I am not sure how people can refuse to accept the lambo car that ran the ring time but they somehow will accept a 918 or gt2rs cars that has run or will run the ring. I don't get the difference. If you say the lambo wasn't a stock car, guess what you might be right, but you have to also say that the Porsche wasn't a completely stock car either. I mean it makes no sense. If the lambo "cheated" so did the porshce lol. If Porsche didn't "cheat" neither did the lambo. I dont really see how you can accept one but decline the other. Either you accept both 918 and performante times or you do not accept both. They are both owned by the same parent company, they have the same-type goals and IMHO they are doing the exact same things at the ring.

Well without going into anymore details about the the 2RS time-which will become evident in the next few weeks anyway- I can accept an above time for the 2RS much more than the Huracan time. All you need is some common sense that's all. The jump in the Huracan's time was so huge compared to its predecessor, that it caused a furore in the community in general. And even if you don't want to accept my view on this, you can't ignore the thousands of other people who also do not believe this and are looking on in disbelief either. If you use common sense though, you can however believe the Porsches time. If the new 991.2 GT3(not RS) does a 7:12 around the Ring, then you don't need to try hard to believe or accept that the 2RS with over 200 horsepower more could do it 19 seconds quicker can you? The Porsche computes, the Lambo(at least a production Performante) doesn't plain and simple. I don't understand why that's so hard for you to understand.

[13COBRA]

Well without going into anymore details about the the 2RS time-which will become evident in the next few weeks anyway- I can accept an above time for the 2RS much more than the Huracan time. All you need is some common sense that's all. The jump in the Huracan's time was so huge compared to its predecessor, that it caused a furore in the community in general. And even if you don't want to accept my view on this, you can't ignore the thousands of other people who also do not believe this and are looking on in disbelief either. If you use common sense though, you can however believe the Porsches time. If the new 991.2 GT3(not RS) does a 7:12 around the Ring, then you don't need to try hard to believe or accept that the 2RS with over 200 horsepower more could do it 19 seconds quicker can you? The Porsche computes, the Lambo(at least a production Performante) doesn't plain and simple. I don't understand why that's so hard for you to understand.

Besides the fact that there's video of the Lamborghini and none of the Porsche.

[ViperJon]

Whatever time the Viper ends up with at least will be fully documented by impartial unbiased witnesses who can attest to the cars lack of modifications and aids. Truly an off the showroom floor example. Don't know about the Porsche run but the Lambo is highly questionable and will always be regarding the tires. Speaks volumes when a car manufacturer is afraid to have time attempts documented by outside observers.

[Snakebit10]

/\ /\ Agreed 100%.

As regards the ACR there is no way its going to beat a cheating time by being as transparent and straight-up as Team Viper is being on this run. Only way to beat a cheater is to be a bigger cheater than them. I'm glad Team Viper is being straight up and truthful instead of cheating.

As for the Porsche GT2 RS I believe its more likely that it ran that time in production spec than the Lambo. But you do have to wonder since the Huracan claims to have beaten the 918's time so Porsche did have an incentive to beat the Huracans claimed time. I hope Porsche puts out a real unadulterated lap vid with proofs unlike the last GT2 RS time they floated to the public. No shenanigans please.

[dmann]

Hopefully we will get a 6:5x time while there.

For those that think the Lambo's time was on slicks (I don't know or care)...but would it be cool for the team to put in their best time bone stock and record their time....then put on slicks and see what the time looks like for comparison? :)

[13COBRA]

then put on slicks and see what the time looks like for comparison? :)

YES!

On a track that long, I would believe slicks would EASILY drop the lap time 8-10 seconds.

[512BB]

As an addition I hope team Viper runs two, three or four consecutive laps (of which the fastest will be the official one lap time). Let's not forget that the hybrids and some other cars are truly one lap specials the hybrids because of the battery regeneration requirements and expenditure to set a one lap record and let's say GM products that fall apart or are heat soaked after one lap!

[ironpeddler]

Well without going into anymore details about the the 2RS time-which will become evident in the next few weeks anyway- I can accept an above time for the 2RS much more than the Huracan time. All you need is some common sense that's all. The jump in the Huracan's time was so huge compared to its predecessor, that it caused a furore in the community in general. And even if you don't want to accept my view on this, you can't ignore the thousands of other people who also do not believe this and are looking on in disbelief either. If you use common sense though, you can however believe the Porsches time. If the new 991.2 GT3(not RS) does a 7:12 around the Ring, then you don't need to try hard to believe or accept that the 2RS with over 200 horsepower more could do it 19 seconds quicker can you? The Porsche computes, the Lambo(at least a production Performante) doesn't plain and simple. I don't understand why that's so hard for you to understand.

So you basically are speaking in hypotheticals here with a Porsche model going this time so this Porsche model with much more HP should go this time. Bench racing to the fullest. Good stuff. We are all free to believe what we want even if it doesn't make sense.

But I would say it takes more "common sense" to believe a lambo time, with vid supporting that time, with a 3rd party verifying that vid or vbox time etc. than it does to believe a pre-production Porsche model time with no vid whatsoever, or any evidence for that matter, other than your "common sense" opinion of what it should go. I don't understand why that's so hard for you to understand. Maybe I am not the one who needs some common sense here.

I mean if you have some leaked, inside info on the Porsche time of 6:53, as you elude to then by all means, please fill us plebs in. Do you have pics of the Michelin tires? How do you know they were Michelins? They could have been slicks....Did you hire an independent 3rd party to verify the tires for you?? Why do you believe something Porsche says/does but when lambo does the same things you cry foul about it and say they are lying?? We need an independent third party to verify the tires for us else it is bullcrap and doesn't count. Lol... /sarcasm off

[Russ Oasis]

I just caught this thread for the first time. For me, the entire discussion is fairly simple. What manufacturer would spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to set a world record and NOT have a third party witness of any kind? It makes no sense. This exact point is why we invited "Road & Track." If you want ANY kind of credibility, you can't do your run in complete secrecy. For me, I think the Lambo time of 6:52 is complete BS.

[ironpeddler]

I just caught this thread for the first time. For me, the entire discussion is fairly simple. What manufacturer would spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to set a world record and NOT have a third party witness of any kind? It makes no sense. This exact point is why we invited "Road & Track." If you want ANY kind of credibility, you can't do your run in complete secrecy. For me, I think the Lambo time of 6:52 is complete BS.

Then you are also talking about every manufacturer that has set the record before lambo right??...to my knowledge no manufacturer has ever hired a 3rd party witness, correct me if I am wrong. So then you don't believe the Porsche time either? Cause they didn't hire a 3rd party witness and their vid evidence pails in comparison to the lambo vids with vbox verification.

[SSGNRDZ_28]

It is pretty simple. We will never know what the others are doing or have done. These things can be argued to no end. There will always be conspiracy theories. We know what the Viper team is doing, and some will still question if it is legit. It doesn't matter if other manufacturer that has ever ran cheated or was 100% honest, the Viper is still near the top. That's about as good as it gets for runs completed over a number of years, conditions, drivers, level of cheating, etc. Other than this the results can be found at your local track.

[stradman]

As an addition I hope team Viper runs two, three or four consecutive laps (of which the fastest will be the official one lap time). Let's not forget that the hybrids and some other cars are truly one lap specials the hybrids because of the battery regeneration requirements and expenditure to set a one lap record and let's say GM products that fall apart or are heat soaked after one lap!

I fear the front Kumho's simply will not withstand the herculean amount of abuse Dominik will be throwing at the car for nearly half an hour if its 4 laps. I'm sure they will be toast long before the end of 4 laps! LOL

[stradman]

Then you are also talking about every manufacturer that has set the record before lambo right??...to my knowledge no manufacturer has ever hired a 3rd party witness, correct me if I am wrong. So then you don't believe the Porsche time either? Cause they didn't hire a 3rd party witness and their vid evidence pails in comparison to the lambo vids with vbox verification.

Wrong buddy. Many manufacturers do have 3rd party witness. Just pull up Wiki Ring lap times.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_N%C3%BCrburgring_Nordschleife_lap_times
In fact the 918 time was observed by Sport Auto...

[stradman]

What the ACR is about to do will never be replicated again. Going under 7 minutes around the ring with a manual gearbox.....

[sadil]

What the ACR is about to do will never be replicated again. Going under 7 minutes around the ring with a manual gearbox.....

This is the real win at the end of the day.

[ironpeddler]

Wrong buddy. Many manufacturers do have 3rd party witness. Just pull up Wiki Ring lap times.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_N%C3%BCrburgring_Nordschleife_lap_times
In fact the 918 time was observed by Sport Auto...

using this logic then you would have to also negate the ACR 2010 run as no 3rd party witness is listed.

[512BB]

I fear the front Kumho's simply will not withstand the herculean amount of abuse Dominik will be throwing at the car for nearly half an hour if its 4 laps. I'm sure they will be toast long before the end of 4 laps! LOL

Don't destroy my simple dreams with Kumho facts.......... LOL, but I do agree that the front's won't last!

[ClayR]

I fear the front Kumho's simply will not withstand the herculean amount of abuse Dominik will be throwing at the car for nearly half an hour if its 4 laps. I'm sure they will be toast long before the end of 4 laps! LOL

4 laps? They have all the Kumho's they want. Fresh tires each flying lap.

[stradman]

using this logic then you would have to also negate the ACR 2010 run as no 3rd party witness is listed.

Makes no difference today to me what happened 7 years ago on a previous model with a time we are not particularly bothered about today whether it happened or not. That's just history. In todays context, and in this particular thread however we are scrutinising the relevant top production car contenders for the lap record. And seeing its just currently(at the moment at least) the 918 and the Performante and the Aventador, only the 918 has independant 3rd party witness to their lap attempt. So go figure what you consider valid then....

[ACR Extreme]

Porsche has always been famous for bending the rules for their ring time. Up until the 918, to my knowledge they never published a continuous video with the speed and the time imbedded. What Porsche does is set-up 4 different versions of the car for 4 sections of the Nurburgring, they take the time of the car set-up for that section and add them up for a let's say "theoretical" ring time that they publish as their official time. As for the 918, even though they published a full lap, there was no speed or time imbedded in the video. Also, the 918 had a laptop connected to it as it ran. Given the phenomenal amount of aero items, suspension, power mix, etc. that can be changed on that car, they could have potentially changed the parameters of the car every millisecond to match the section of the track the car was in or even make it predictive and dynamic (I contacted Porsche about this but never got a response). For these reasons I take the Porsche numbers with a grain of salt.

As for the Lamborghini, so far they have officially claimed that it is real and that they have all the numbers/telemetry to prove it. I'll hold final judgement till those numbers/telemetry are published for scrutiny. Their active aero is very clever in my opinion and best as I can determine it works quite well with the videos and information that I have gathered. For that reason I am leaning on believing their 6:52 number as accurate, however, I am not sure about the tires and when watching the laptime the steering wheel was so well implanted. I have never seen than even in race cars on race tries, there is always some movement, some under/over steer at some point or jittery under brakes. For that reason, even thought I trust that it did a 6:52, I am not convinced that it did it on stock tires!

The only true ring time that I will vouch for is the 7:03 on the Viper and the numbers that GM puts out on the Corvettes (I do not intend this thread to be hijacked by the Corvette comment).

I am looking forward to getting the Vipers to go in the 6's.

918 - mind sharing why there was a stack of computers on the passenger seat during the run ... my guess is they added juice and programmed the car as it traveled. That being said the track is now faster and so is the 918 it's been tweaked and factory updated.

Performante - I went to the debut in Miami have an aventador sv roadster there is no doubt the Performante made the time claimed it's amazing that anyone would think otherwise if you all know the car or the people who built it you would see their passion and the ALA is the best in the business Lamborghini work with Boeing they know a little bit about air movement. Try sticking your iPhone out at 200 mph let me know how that aero works ... Scott beating up on the ALA system is naive.

GT2RS - Let's wait to see the tape it's my understanding they ran two different tires and since the stock one will come with their factory partner let's see.

All these runs have been looked at by the best in the business - corner speeds exit speed straight speeds there is no way to fake a Ring time. Let's get past the tires we know everyone tweaks their cars for the ring the Viper is at a huge disadvantage at the Ring and should still get under 7.

What is amazing is the new Goodyear tires with the Camaro they are on a whole new level of performance and wear far better than anything out there.

Viper at 7 minutes - if it's gets under 7 minutes it did more than the world expected and who cares just the fact that it went there is more than enough for a celebration. The Viper does not have the systems or active aero to absorb travel a car at speed incurs at the Ring plus the aero is just too much drag on the long straights.

There will always be a faster car the Viper IMO should have made a run of 100 added 50k to the cost tweaking the ACR but they did not and that's fine by me. Love my GTS-R!

Driving a Performante at speed is like a Sunday drive vs the Viper but that's what makes it great a manual V10 front engine list goes on. Also have a Carrera GT manual V10 rear engine even more of a handful than the Viper vs the Performante or GT2RS they are faster and makes an ok driver look like an advanced driver.

The Viper IMO will go down as one of the greats and the Ring appearance alone speaks volumes whereas the others speaks (yawn) marketing.

[512BB]

Well written ACR Extreme.

[ACR Extreme]

Well written ACR Extreme.

Thanks.

The Ring has been tough on many cars. The P1 where the CEO promised low times couldn't pull it off whereas the 918 did but it's questionable how. Ferrari knew better and never attempted a run at the Ring and never will it's a lose lose scenario.

The Viper went around the US knocking the crap out of the 918 the Ring is just a whole new level for Viper - to just show up and run vs the factories that have tested there for a long time as it's in their back yard it's simply not a level playing field ... yet it still performed far better than anyone expected you gotta love how Viper is exiting on a world class level.

[Rrobert22]

Very true. We are comparing the end of an era to a bunch of computers. Viper is it. The end: buy another. I plan on it.

[Snakebit10]

using this logic then you would have to also negate the ACR 2010 run as no 3rd party witness is listed.

It was my understanding that Motor Trend was there for that 2010 run. It might not be listed but if my memory serves there was a third party. Am I wrong?

[ironpeddler]

It was my understanding that Motor Trend was there for that 2010 run. It might not be listed but if my memory serves there was a third party. Am I wrong?

For the record, I personally believe the time whether or not a 3rd party was there/listed on a Wikipedia site. I believe the 918 time, performante time, viper time, I believe all the times. Its the people that say they believe one time but not the other time when the variables are basically the same, that doesn't make any sense. Call out the lambo time for no 3rd party and call it fake but then accept a viper time with no 3rd party and call it real.

The whole 3rd party/witness thing doesn't really mean diddley squat anyway. All these times are basically recognized by most people/websites/whatever whether a 3rd party was there or not. And that probably is because the 3rd party we are talking about is a magazine lol so most people understand that a magazine being there or writing an article doesn't really matter at all when it comes to ring attempts. We are not talking about a business whose sole purpose is to over-see ring attempts and make it as fair as possible, we are talking about a magazine whose purpose is to make money and sell subscriptions. If the 3rd party was a company and all they did was watch everyone's ring attempt and make sure it was a level playing field then having a 3rd party there, having that 3rd party there, would actually mean something. But the way it is now, this magazine here or that magazine there, I don't think that it really means anything. I do understand though that people on this forum obviously put stock in a magazine being there and while it might not make sense to me, that's ok, whatever floats your boat as they say.