Quote:
Originally Posted by earlyapex
Footie, I'm not trying to argue but you do contradict yourself a bit. On one hand, you say having a great driver makes a huge difference (of course!) then you go on to claim the GTR is really capable. So which is it?
I think the point of all the math is to isolate and remove some of the brand "magic" people tend to invent. Porsches, Ferraris, BMWs - they all follow the laws of physics. The laws of physics are pretty simple and have been fairly rigorously tested since newton - you can't circumvent them.
It isn't the driver, these companies all have incredible drivers. I doubt an F1 driver or anyone else is going to be much faster, in any car, than walter.
|
If simple maths and physics could determine how quick something was then all those thousands of miles hammering around the Ring was a wasted amount of development money. Even in the regression data you can see swings of close of 3 sigma between upper level and the lower level, not accurate science now is it.
Power to weight can only really determine acceleration within more exacting levels, once you throw in braking and corners these don't quite follow the same patterns. A perfect example of this is the GTR vs GTR V-spec, one of the US mags got a 0.93 lateral G from the stock '08 car but with only a 60kg drop in weight and tweaked suspension the V-spec upped that to 1.12g. It was even using the same compound rubber from Bridgestone but in a different pattern.
There is a multiple amount of reasons for why lap times can vary so much, in fact the list is almost endless.
1 - Driver
2 - Track surface temperature
3 - Wind conditions
4 - Tyre pressure
5 - Variation in examples
6 - Knowledge of the car in question
7 - Knowledge of the track
8 - etc
9 - etc
10 - See what I mean.
Even the Audi S3 threw up some odd results based on this formula, though not as far off as the GTR but then it is not remotely a track star as the GTR and based on it's weight balance and less advanced rubber and AWD system it shouldn't have gotten close to it's result by SportAuto but the fact remains that this was the time they got.
I return to my question that if Nissan did cheat then why return to dig it all up again, the reason is simple, at least to me and Bruce and that is they didn't cheat. A sigma of 3 is meant to be close to a one in a million, well 2 laps of 7:29 and 7:27 proves that lightening does indeed strike twice.