guy apparently forgot there was a tight turn coming right after the fast right sweeper. Nothing to do with the car or technology or breakthroughs, IMO. Was coming a little too hot and paid the price.

true

Mustangs arent this ugly though lol

hahaha

+george palacios it does kind of look a little rice

atvkid0805 is cause of the Camo .you mean nice

Probably, even the fronts locked up. Looks like some tuning needed.

+V Poje Probably an ABS failure. I doubt the would test without ABS.

+Fighter Jet Magic if the abs worked there was no crash. I think

+V Poje You do understand cars in the 60's came with 4 wheel DRUM brakes! The Camero did have Discs up from but Anti Lock Brakes didn't come around until the 80's on German Cars and Cadillac I think. Hell my 2004 Nissan Sentra SE-R didn't have ABS. Thsi is a 67-69 Camero NOT a Modern one.

+Corrado Soprano This is a 2017...

It's possible that they turned off ABS to give the test driver more control over the brakes to help reduce any potential damage that could have incurred if he was unable to lock the wheels when about to crash into something.

+FEGTTTSDH - Uh, I guess you aren't aware of the ability to test without ABS. This car OBVIOUSLY did not have any ABS engaged, plus the driver did not perform properly in this situation. A proper driver would not have locked the brakes continuously. Remember, you can't steer a car if the brakes are locked, right?

+Atte Jokinen He wasn't close to fast that was a computer glitch that locked the brakes up. What should have been a simple pump and turn into the apex ended with the entire abs system locking.

+Atte Jokinen actually moron, it's 100% rear brake lock up.

+1LE Camaro Which is why its a computer issue... other wise all 4 brakes would have locked up lol

+That Ford Guy rekt

***** Right? It went from oh crap to screw it you take the wheel in a hurry. Backs locked then the fronts and it was done.

+Jay Trock Unless the brake controller failed and locked the rear wheels up which is what it looks like. If you notice after they lock he tries to steer out of it that's not driver error that's a computer system fuck up!

+Modernmuscle Exactly.

+Modernmuscle yep. that rear lock caused it. looks like it snapped into oversteer. abs issue or mechanical failure?

+freeman Geiger Gotta be ABS. If you rewatch it several times you can see after the rear lockup occurs he applies hard left steering, but the car continues forward because the front tires have locked after the rears.

Fighter Jet Magic true. Wondered if it was just over steer from the rear lock up or brake control failure.

News update on the 2018 z/28 this time without side windows OR a back window!

Hate we never got a z28 tho

@@ttamcc.4674 Ain’t that the truth, wish we could’ve seen what they would’ve done but I felt like it would’ve been hard considering you have the SS 1LE and the ZL1 1LE already for handling

sounds like the old one. gt350 exhaust still shitting on that big ass boat lol

+Allen Atkins Not if you prefer the exhaust not of the traditional V8. I've got nothing against the GT350, great car in my eyes, but that flat plane crank V8 is not my cup of tea. It doesn't sound bad sure, but it's not what I think of when I hear the words Mustang.

+WOLF W i think you did

+Brian Brooks the 135th

Sam Ahmed that is not a z28 everyone got it .wrong it is a chevy camaro zl1 1le not a z28

There's new headlights if you look at the previous zl1 and z28 the headlights are different but the body style is almost the same

+TommyVercettism That's what I thought, strange to see the wheels lock up like that

yea this video is just fake because look at the tail lights that's a 2010 in a body kit

+Kevin Torres the new Campari has those tail lights lol.

+ATTESA ET-S NISMO N ATTACK 東瀛戰神 R34 Z TUNE One thing to note is it is not (yet) a high performance car, is a prototype of a high performance car. Actually looks like a process verification unit. Probably they faced a brake distribution calibration fail or hardware fail. Luck enough they experience the fail in a prototype so they have time to fix it before production units get to the customers

+Zolet Not hardware fail, just brake distribution fail. Well it can be the ESC but it's quite funny if ESC is the reason it locks the inner rear.

2 years after this same camaro destroys....bmw m cars for hundred less dollars....lol

I saw that. I was going to get one in 2015 but dealers acted like they were gold

+Danny Contreras LOL. You act like this is a big surprise to see a GM JUNKER crash trying to lap the ring. Remember the "MOST TRACK CAPABLE 2015 c7 z06shit that GM made that couldn't complete a lap on the ring and no time was released after multiple attempts LMAO. GM doing what they do best. Crashing and failing to complete a lap on the ring. TOO BAD, SOOOOOO SAD. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

John Jones Oh yeah the one that SLAUGHTERED the GTR on Laguna Seca by 2 seconds HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH or the one at VIR or Willow Springs LMAOO

+John Jones Hey dumb fuck how'd that Ford GT do at Daytona? Oh ueah, it didn't last 15 minutes before it was in the garage. Who won that race? I'll be damned if the Corvette didn't get 1st AND 2nd place and the Ford finished 165 laps behind.

+Michael King people who have nothing concrete to say usually end up embarrassing them selves, just like John Jones.

+John Jones that's why it's called a prototype

+MrSlimpickenz mustangs crash too!

+TOP GUNZ really? On no! 😏

+DriftlessTroutDude yup

+DriftlessTroutDude It's also great when you crash, you don't see all the dents...

+DriftlessTroutDude The paint job is so it makes camera's harder to take pictures of it. The paint job makes the autofocus of a camera tripout and makes it harder to take a good picture.

The reason y the cars have camo on them is BC #1 its hard to take a good picture when focusing and #2 its hard to tell the make/model and the details of design.they also put camouflage on the window to make it harder for ppl trying to take pictures from a far angle to take a look at the inside.

+Nicholas Mathews Both since traction stabilizing relies on ABS along with other systems to control skid. That is assuming the stabilizer feature was active which it probably was.

Very true. By Anti-skid module I meant the ABS hydraulic manifold could have had a mechanic failure.

Nicholas Mathews Entirely possible but my guess is they were trying to optimize the feature & their programming was not quite right. Did you notice the front tires locked up right after the back ones did? I think that's because they slammed on the brakes & the ABS had already failed. Fun to watch though.

+Raggical Traggical Definitely possible. Indeed I did see that. Nice eye ;)

Leen Amer I agree looks exactly the same and revs very little the z28 is suppose to rev beyond 7000 rpm

There's no need, the alpha platform is amazing. Everyone that drives a alpha platform vehicle on the track can't say enough praise.

those add alot of weight. that's why they arent included

+RugerReaper a car that isn't street legal dnt need em when HIDs and halogens could do the job

I hope it does when it hits production. Like a BMW

So it's hard for people to see the true design of the car in its prototype state

Hmm I feel like I can see the design just fine but whatever.

+PureDoom It's used so its harder for cameras to take pictures. As the camera has trouble autofocusing with the different patterns.

lol maybe in 1990 cameras had a hard time focusing.. I have never heard of that problem.

N_N yes xD

+jake wallace He clearly initiated braking in a straight line and at a point in time where no lateral forces from the previous bend were influencing load transfer - the initiation of braking being indicated by forward load transfer. There was clearly no indication of any significant lateral load transfer occurring at that time and at the point of lock up. There was also clearly no indication of counter-steer, nor was there any need for it, being as there was absolutely no indication of over-steer. As far as the collision is concerned, the only point of interest is that the rear wheels locked up before the front wheels. Assuming that the engineers didn't muck up the brake balance, the most natural conclusion would be that the front brakes experienced brake fade, thereby allowing the rear wheels to lock up first. Of course, brake fade would also explain the off and the subsequent kissing of the Armco barriers, however, without the rear wheels locking first we would have no concrete indication as to it being the most likely candidate. The fact that the section immediately preceding the location of the off was one of the highest speed sections of the track (the highest for lower powered vehicles) followed by a heavy braking zone, would also lend credence to brake fade being the culprit. Without any other information, that would be the only reasonable conclusion to draw from this video. Not any of that other conjecture you were going on about, which isn't supported by the clip. At all.

+LogdroPPer SaVant I'm sorry man, but you don't know what you're talking about and you didn't understand what I wrote. The mistakes started at the end of the apex. More than like from engine torque breaking. But very simply, I already explained what actually happened. If you don't want to believe me, that's fine but at least make an effort to understand the physics that I described.

+LogdroPPer SaVant you're comments sure do confuse me though. first off, he ended with understeer, I not overseer, and it is evident through the impact of the wall. But are you kidding me? Engine torque is the most likely cause of the rear brakes locking up. Along with the lateral G's and breaking. Which is exactly what I said. This makes me think you don't have racing experience, and I definitely know you've never done it professionally. Not to mention the fact that you don't have a degree in physics. I'm really not trying to be rude, but it is evident you have no idea what you're talking about. so why do you feel the need to contest without even asking any questions?

+jake wallace You start off by spewing absolute nonsense in what appears to be an attempt to put on the appearance that you know the slightest bit of what you are talking about. I refuted said nonsense, without attacking your character, by pointing to specific points that are not supported by the video clip. Then, apparently aggravated at the indecency and sheer bravado that some pleb (who isn't even a race car driver and surely doesn't even have a physics degree) could possibly think to dispel this little imaginary world in which you are, of course, an elite physicist, race car driver (a professional one, at that), you resort to ad-hominem attacks - a sure sign of a superior intelligent being. Surely, I should bow down in awe and surrender. But, alas, as you've insinuated, I'm just not that smart. I never put forth that there was any over-steer. Matter of fact, I said the exact opposite. It was you who suggested over-steer, by proposing that the driver initiated counter steer measures - which he didn't. So, apparently, now you seem to be contradicting yourself... The only way negative engine torque could have possibly caused the rear to lock up, was by way of either improper rev-matching or a total mis-shift, in which either case, there would have been an immediate auditory verification of this with the engine rpms rising at the point of lock-up. Again, this is not evidenced in the clip. At all. However, you can continue to dig that hole of yours...

Lol. You're so ridiculous.. the car was in gear. I'll explain with simple terms so I don't seem to be flaunting my intelligence. A rear wheel drive car with a lot of torque can break traction during breaking, gassing and simply allowing the engine to slow the car... This is a fact and your stupid rev-matching argument is IRREFUTABLY FALSE, and if you had any racing experience you would know this. If you ignore this point on your reply I will have to ignore any further responses because I don't want to waste my time arguing with an idiot. The reason I referenced over-steer is because I NEVER MENTIONED IT I'm my original post, yet you decided to refute. Did you realize countersteer and oversteer are different things? But here's the kicker and the reason why I find you to be less intelligent than you think you are. You keep saying that the video does not support my claim. But guess what, if you knew anything about physics you would understand that the video DOES support my explanation of events. Physics don't change. I'm using what I see in the video along with the necessary actions of physics to explain my case. Just f****** admit you have no idea what you're talking about. Or give me some reason to think anything you have to say is worth my time. Do you even have any racing experience? Any education? Anything that would give you insight? Maybe you should do some research or get advice from someone smarter than you. You would probably just argue with them too.

+MasterAce 64 - Mishel Alen - the back wheels luck up first and he lost control... maybe drive train problem

+Jan Matusiak exactly. This is engineering testing and new parts/technology can fail. Better to happen on a safe track than in a production car on the street.

OSUCcherokee1, I agree but this doesn't seem like any sorts of new tech failed during the test, he just hit the brakes too hard and this is what caused the wheels to lock, at least how I see it. Maybe you're right and they tried to test a new ABS and it just failed to work.

No way he hit the brakes hard on a track? Shit the bed. Yes it could've been corrected but the ABS should've start jabbing at the brakes, not holding onto them.

system error not driver error sadly

Actually it was the car. If you pay attention you can clearly see the rear wheels lock up.

***** it still looks cool. Stop grilling me

1le