You must be registered for see images
Look at all the mistakes in "Kim Reynolds" rinky-dink graphics-
1. The far left side of the bar at the top of the graph is described as "Exiting Corner and Braking", but the vertical dotted line from the left side of the graph extends down to the track at mid-corner, which is defintely NOT "Exiting the Corner-".
2. The side-bar text at the right side of the graph says the mid-corner speed for the FGT was 186. If the far left side of the graph is showing the mid-corner speed, (as the dotted line suggests), and not "Exiting" as it says in the top bar, then there is a discrepancy, not only between the bar label and the dotted line, but also between the graph and the text. The sidebar text to the right of the graph states mid corner speed for the FGT as 186, but the red line (FGT) on the left side of the graph shows a mid-corner speed of about 178. If the left side of the graph is actually "Exiting the Corner and Acceleration", (as it claims), thats wrong, because Herta states on page 69 that he is going "over 190 coming off the banking". If the right side of the graph is supposed to show Herta's "190 coming off the banking", then it still doesn't make sense, because that side of the graph is labeled "Braking" in the top bar. No matter how you take the meaning of the graph, it doesn't match the text in any way! Utterly incomprehensible trash.
3. The far right side of the bar at the top of the graph is described as "Braking", but again, the vertical dotted line from the right side of the graph extends down to the track at mid-corner, which is defintely NOT "Braking". Braking is done before turn-in, and even trail-braking would be over with before mid-corner, especially when the corners are as long as those at the APG. Within their claimed "Braking" area, the speeds are actually increasing! The only actual braking that could be referenced is the downward spike before corner entry, but again, the "Braking" zone covers far more than the downward spike. It should be called "Braking and Mid Corner", or at least something other than just simply "Braking". The speeds shown on the right side of the chart should be close to the speeds shown of the left side of the chart for any realistic continuity, even if they are only trying to show half a lap. I don't think Herta reported a bunny wabbit splattered on the windshield at any time, so there is no reason for his speed at the left side of the graph to be so much lower than his speed on the right side. The Ferrari's and PGT's speeds are much closer in MPH from side to side of the chart, identical in fact, but the FGT's is shown to be as slow as the SLOWEST PART OF THE BRAKING ZONE, or about 178. Surely he wasn't going that slow in mid-corner, or especially not corner exit for that matter! He would have had to ride the brakes all the way around the back side of the track, to be as slow in mid-corner, (or even if its really "Exiting...) as he was at the end of braking. Something just doesn't add up.
4. The approximate difference between the Enzo's 211 top speed and the PGT's 201.5 speed is about 10mph, shown by a separation of about 5 boxes on the graph. That would make each box worth about 2 mph. In contrast, the approximate 1 mph difference between the PGT's speed and the FGT's speed is represented by 2 boxes, making it look like the PGT is faster than it really is at that point. It should show the FGT's red line right on top of the PGT's line, since the difference in their speed at that point is only about 1 mph, or 1/2 of a box. Selective proportions in the name of clarity? Why would the graphics artist be concerned with clarity here, when the rest of the graphics is so oblivious to, and unconcerned with, clarity?
The unfortunate part is that the graph carries more weight in reader's minds than the text does, or, at least at a cursory glance it makes the Ferrari's and Porsche's cornering speeds look magnitudes greater than the FGT's, which is totally wrong and a gross misrepresentation. If the graph accurately represented the facts of the data, it would show the red line for the FGT coming of the banking at Herta's stated 190+, not down near 178. The slope of the red line would rotate clockwise, starting at "over 190" on the left, covering the PGT blue line most of the way up to 200mph, and the Ferrari's purple line wouldn't pop up its head above the FGT's red line much until after 200mph, when its 651 HP, low drag, and svelte 3200 lb weight carries it along to 211mph. The FGT is not far off this mark. The FGT's red line should have showed that the FGT is truly a world class exotic, and runs with the big dogs. The divergence in performance between the Ferrari and the FGT is not as great as most would assume, seeing how the revered Enzo costs 4X as much. The silly little graph should show that the FGT is a near equal to the $450,000 PGT.
Any way you slice it, Kim Reynolds shows that he or she is better at cute but meaningless magazine graphics, than actually presenting the test data in an accurate, intelligent way. Doesn't anyone look at that crap before they print it? Sheesh! Shame on you, MT!
