RC-F: Insight into Road & Track's Testing
12-06-14, 12:09 PM
#31
Lexus Champion
Thread Starter
I was thinking the same thing: how the RC-F set up for the 0-60 run, etc.?
Do I dare go back for another round of chat? Sure...
I will try to get the information early next week.
12-06-14, 12:35 PM
#32
Lexus Test Driver
I'm close to unsubscribing from this thread given the tone it's taken lately.
12-07-14, 04:52 AM
#33
Lexus Champion
Thread Starter
The test driver was using the automatic option in Track mode, to achieve the 3.9 runs. This is what Robin Warner said:
"Since the RC F runs an eight-speed automatic, best runs come from a straight forward launch procedure: hold the brake for a moment to build revs, release and go. Very easy and repeatable. It was a standstill start, and yes, that’s how we do it. Toyota really knows how to make an automatic work for us."
12-08-14, 10:45 AM
#34
The Correct 0-60 time for the RC-F was 4.3 seconds, not 3.9 seconds
I contacted Alex Kierstein, the Road and Track Web Editor, in regards to why the R&T magazine copy of the PCOTY 2015 article was showing a 0-60 time of 4.3 seconds for the Lexus RC-F yet the online article was showing a 0-60 time of 3.9 seconds (especially when the 1/4 mile time and trap speed was 12.7 sec @ 113.0 mph). Below is his response stating that 4.3 seconds is the correct 0-60 time for the RC-F (not 3.9):
Originally Posted by Alex Kierstein (Road and Track Web Editor):
Thanks for the email. It appears that through a transcription error, a field in the table was filled out with data from another field. We're correcting the error and appreciate you bringing it to our attention.
The correct time was 4.3 seconds as reflected in the print version of the article.
Thanks again!
Alex Kierstein
Web Editor
MAIL: akierstein@hearst.com
TWITTER: @HanSolex
FACEBOOK: facebook.com/roadandtrack
Thanks for the email. It appears that through a transcription error, a field in the table was filled out with data from another field. We're correcting the error and appreciate you bringing it to our attention.
The correct time was 4.3 seconds as reflected in the print version of the article.
Thanks again!
Alex Kierstein
Web Editor
MAIL: akierstein@hearst.com
TWITTER: @HanSolex
FACEBOOK: facebook.com/roadandtrack
Last edited by redspencer; 12-08-14 at 11:08 AM.
12-08-14, 12:50 PM
#35
Rookie
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: WA
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I contacted Alex Kierstein, the Road and Track Web Editor, in regards to why the R&T magazine copy of the PCOTY 2015 article was showing a 0-60 time of 4.3 seconds for the Lexus RC-F yet the online article was showing a 0-60 time of 3.9 seconds (especially when the 1/4 mile time and trap speed was 12.7 sec @ 113.0 mph). Below is his response stating that 4.3 seconds is the correct 0-60 time for the RC-F (not 3.9): The correct time was 4.3 seconds as reflected in the print version of the article.
12-08-14, 01:14 PM
#37
No problem. The R&T PCOTY online article has been updated with the correct information:
http://www.roadandtrack.com/car-cult...he-year-award/
http://www.roadandtrack.com/car-cult...he-year-award/
12-08-14, 05:01 PM
#39
Rookie
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: WA
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I received a call today stating that the TVD might still be available, but they had to wait until the build order is complete (or something to that effect) before I will know for sure. I will update once I have a definitive answer.
12-08-14, 05:47 PM
#40
Lexus Champion
Thread Starter
Re: LOL Knew It
Despite the change in 0-60 time, the new RC-F still outruns the M4 when it comes down to pulling it all together on the track or a tough course.
This is a "club" of Lexus enthusiasts who want to share information. Am I missing something?
Others,
I just received this from Road & Track:
"Evidently, there was a transcription error when the book feature was ported over to the web. The corrected value that Robin recorded is what's online now."
Alex Nunez
Road & Track
Director, RoadandTrack.com
This is a "club" of Lexus enthusiasts who want to share information. Am I missing something?
Others,
I just received this from Road & Track:
"Evidently, there was a transcription error when the book feature was ported over to the web. The corrected value that Robin recorded is what's online now."
Alex Nunez
Road & Track
Director, RoadandTrack.com
Last edited by ISF001; 12-08-14 at 07:45 PM.
12-08-14, 05:48 PM
#41
The universe is no longer upside down.
For a few days, things seemed upside down... This forum is indeed very entertaining. I can hardly wait for the next twist in the plot. 
12-08-14, 06:00 PM
#42
Lexus Champion
Thread Starter
Entertaining or not, we did get to the actual result. I am not sure that there is much more to unravel here.
12-08-14, 06:23 PM
#43
How do you figure your direct communications found the problem, you used your communications with them to bolster your incorrect time of 3.9 for days. Someone else here contacted someone in the know and got the correct time hours ago. Im not sure what you had to with it at all. In fact R&T thanked the OP for finding the error.
12-08-14, 06:32 PM
#44
Lexus Champion
Thread Starter
How do you figure your direct communications found the problem, you used your communications with them to bolster your incorrect time of 3.9 for days. Someone else here contacted someone in the know and got the correct time hours ago. Im not sure what you had to with it at all. In fact R&T thanked the OP for finding the error.
Feel free to ask that question to Road & Track.
The 3.9 is not my incorrect time. I did not test the car.
12-08-14, 06:57 PM
#45
Why would I ask R&T why your trying to take credit for finding their error when clearly you didn't?
You lost me. Anyway, this thread will die on its own merit now that the truth of the R&T testing and the errors have been corrected.
You lost me. Anyway, this thread will die on its own merit now that the truth of the R&T testing and the errors have been corrected.