[hb]

Originally Posted by crypto

lol what a dick response.

All good. My fault for getting involved to explain things or to correct them.

[hb]

Originally Posted by M5 London

I was actually calling out a famous youtuber who was suggesting another famous youtuber was being untruthful to his massive audience.

Would be good to understand the thinking behind his comments, which from the outset seem rather disjointed and dare I suggest slanderous.

BMW has not lost its way. I have a G90 M5 arriving in January 2025. I currently own an F90 M5 LCI Comp, E39 M5, E34 M5, E92 M3, E30 M3 and non BMWs a 996 Carrara, 996 Turbo and Mclaren 570S Spider.

I appreciate their modern offerings as much as I do their classic ones.

If I see foul play, in my opinion, I will call it out.

No one said Joe was unfaithful. FYI, I'm friends with Joe, or at least I'd like to think so. I was just saying that most reviewers set the app to 1 ft roll out so that will have an impact on the 0-60 times recorded by the GPS box.

This is why I reached to Joe to ask what his settings were because we pretty much tested the same car and it's not rocket science.

[M5 London]

Originally Posted by hb

The app was set to 1 foot roll out so it will record accordingly. Due to the huge wheel slip and wheel hop initially, it will get better times if you set the GPS box to 1 ft rollout. Feel free to test this theory. Not sure what else to say.

What was your recorded 0 to 60 mph time please?

You keep seeming to compare your 0 to 62 mph time with Joe's 0 to 60 mph time.

I've asked several times now, I look forward to hearing it, if you care to share it.

[hb]

Originally Posted by M5 London

What was your recorded 0 to 60 mph time please?

You keep seeming to compare your 0 to 62 mph time with Joe's 0 to 60 mph time.

I've asked several times now, I look forward to hearing it, if you care to share it.

The 0-62mph time was 3.6 seconds as I said in the video. I just did another run yesterday, which can be seen on Instagram, 0-62mph 3.5 sec. Same GPS box, set to not count 1 foot roll out. I did not measure 0-60. I did the typical 0-100 km/h since I was in Germany.

I think that's pretty much what BMW counts in best case scenario. Could it be faster in some situations? For sure, but the biggest struggle was again the loss of grip in the first half a second.

[M5 London]

Originally Posted by hb

The 0-62mph time was 3.6 seconds as I said in the video. I just did another run yesterday, which can be seen on Instagram, 0-62mph 3.5 sec. Same GPS box, set to not count 1 foot roll out. I did not measure 0-60. I did the typical 0-100 km/h since I was in Germany.

I think that's pretty much what BMW counts in best case scenario. Could it be faster in some situations? For sure, but the biggest struggle was again the loss of grip in the first half a second.

Thanks. So was it 3.5s or 3.6s as you stated on your first post on this thread as per below:

Originally Posted by hb

Need to ask him also because none of us managed to get that. I got 3.5 to 62 mph, maybe with a better surface and warmer weather, save another .2 seconds.

When you say none of us managed to get that, what are you actually saying really?

That none of us got to 62mph in Joes 3.1s?

OR None of us could get lower than 3.5s to 62mph?

My point is, that you are not understanding that Joe was measuring to 60mph so when you say none of us managed to get that, that's pretty obvious because you are NOT measuring the same metric as he was, correct?

Anyway you are at 3.5/3.6s for 0 to 62mph

If your timing gear does not also show a result to 60mph on your above run, like Dragy does for example, then please try to do one when you have some spare time. That's going to be the only way to assess a comparison to Joe's 0 to 60 mph run. There is no point coming on here stating OH, wow me and the rest of us couldn't do it in 3.1s, because you were all not measuring what Joe was testing, so invariably there will be large deltas in the timings.

I am fully versed in the 1 ft roll out setup. I feel it should not be used. Why I am surprised to hear that you say Joe has used it, is my own acceleration figures on my F90 M5 Comp LCI match Joe's own numbers on his several videos on that car, and I do not use 1 ft roll out.

[hb]

Originally Posted by M5 London

Thanks. So was it 3.5s or 3.6s as you stated on your first post on this thread as per below:



When you say none of us managed to get that, what are you actually saying really?

That none of us got to 62mph in Joes 3.1s?

OR None of us could get lower than 3.5s to 62mph?

My point is, that you are not understanding that Joe was measuring to 60mph so when you say none of us managed to get that, that's pretty obvious because you are NOT measuring the same metric as he was, correct?

Anyway you are at 3.5/3.6s for 0 to 62mph

If your timing gear does not also show a result to 60mph on your above run, like Dragy does for example, then please try to do one when you have some spare time. That's going to be the only way to assess a comparison to Joe's 0 to 60 mph run. There is no point coming on here stating OH, wow me and the rest of us couldn't do it in 3.1s, because you were all not measuring what Joe was testing, so invariably there will be large deltas in the timings.

I am fully versed in the 1 ft roll out setup. I feel it should not be used. Why I am surprised to hear that you say Joe has used it, is my own acceleration figures on my F90 M5 Comp LCI match Joe's own numbers on his several videos on that car, and I do not use 1 ft roll out.

Again, this is not an argument about the times. I spoke with Joe to find out what settings he used so I can figure out why my time was slower. So it is confirmed he used the 1 foot roll out setting.

Secondly, I setup my Racebox profile for that run to 0-100 kph. Not to 60 mph (96.5 km/h). I guess even if you do the delta between 60 and 62 mph, I still won't get 3.1. That's my guess which will be tested in the future.

In the end, these times are irrelevant for many people. It's fun to see, but way too many variables in getting the perfect launch.

[M5 London]

Originally Posted by hb

Again, this is not an argument about the times. I spoke with Joe to find out what settings he used so I can figure out why my time was slower. So it is confirmed he used the 1 foot roll out setting.

Secondly, I setup my Racebox profile for that run to 0-100 kph. Not to 60 mph (96.5 km/h). I guess even if you do the delta between 60 and 62 mph, I still won't get 3.1. That's my guess which will be tested in the future.

In the end, these times are irrelevant for many people. It's fun to see, but way too many variables in getting the perfect launch.

I am glad that you now finally acknowledge that you were timing 0 to 100 km/h and Joe was in fact timing 0 to 96.5 km/h. They are different metrics as you see now.

When you first came onto this thread, it was to question the times. They are irrelevant to some of course, but they seem very relevant to you, as that is why you came on here, to specifically discuss and actually question his time compared to your time. On the contrary you seem very interested in times.

For your reference my 2.99s run to 60 mph took 3.14s to 62 mph. There's quite a substantial delta in times between 0 to 60 and 62 mph.

[hb]

Originally Posted by M5 London

I am glad that you now finally acknowledge that you were timing 0 to 100 km/h and Joe was in fact timing 0 to 96.5 km/h. They are different metrics as you see now.

When you first came onto this thread, it was to question the times. They are irrelevant to some of course, but they seem very relevant to you, as that is why you came on here, to specifically discuss and actually question his time compared to your time. On the contrary you seem very interested in times.

For your reference my 2.99s run to 60 mph took 3.14s to 62 mph. There's quite a substantial delta in times between 0 to 60 and 62 mph.

Ok, I think you misunderstood my intentions. But it's all fine, you're right.

[x622]

Originally Posted by Moewron

I have a two-year-old iX with tons of that black, and it all looks just fine. Even the stuff on the front that you'd expect to get beat up by debris.

Good to know, I wouldn't expect it to last.


I think we both can agree it looks very cheap however.

[Moewron]

Originally Posted by x622

Good to know, I wouldn't expect it to last.


I think we both can agree it looks very cheap however.

We disagree.