Quote:
Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.
Pretty much everybody on the planet seems to believe that the GT-R is under-rated, and using the latest quarter mile and chassis dyno data on U.S. - spec cars, something on the order of 10% seems likely.
Having said that, however, and assuming I'm not screwing it up, lucid's formula predicts that the GT-R needs about 1,000 HP to get under a 7:30 at the 'Ring, and even the Porsche Turbo needs about 700 HP to get that 7:38.
So for me, that formula falls down, at least when attempting to predict 'Ring times for cars at this level of performance.
Bottom line: I believe the 7:29 was done with a bone stock, roughly 525 HP GT-R.
Bruce
|
You are forgetting my new key "insight" above. The regression and curve fit tells you how much hp it would take for car DRIVEN by Horst to obtain a certain time. As well, as you can see from the scatter plot, there is a fairly large variation of the data around the regression. You can't use the mean values for the slope and intercept you should use something like the 3 sigma (98% confidence values) values for both slope and intercept and then allow about 5 seconds difference to account for the factory driver vs. Horst difference. I have not run this calculation but I'd be willing to bet it still will show the GT-R as a large outlier Hence I disagree with your bottom line. In fact I strongly disagree with it.
What makes sense about cars with a 1.4-2.0 times better power to weight achieving lap times in the same neighborhood? We keep seem to be going back to the point that the car is somehow "magic" and can defy the laws of physics. It is good but not that good.