Porsche accuses Nissan GT-R of cheating the "Ring":

[lucid]

Originally Posted by footie

Lucid,

Is it the list of cars on the regression or the formula?

Swamp sent me the list but I didn't keep it.

The list of cars that were included in the analysis are in the regression thread, but others might have added cars, etc. I think they uploaded their spreadsheets though. Maybe I did as well?...I'm getting on a plane Zurich in 12 hours, so I'm gonna tune out of this one--hopefully for good!

[lucid]

Originally Posted by urbo73

Yes - here in warm Boston There was another guy if I remember as well. Boston folks not very organized! Still got my snows on. Let's wait until it gets warmer. I'm leasing my M because it's a temporary car until I can get back into a 911 in 2.5 years (yes I'm counting). By that time, my son will be big/old enough for just a small booster that can easily fit in the back of a 911. He'll be able to hop in/out with ease. But for now I need the M3 sedan - that's my compromise. Promise I made to the wife. I'll have to decide how much I want to beat up on a leased car at the track...I sort of got that out my system a long time back. Just recently my wife is allowing me to even *think* about the occasional SCCA race in my old FF car that I have to re tune. It's been a while. I would like to go to the Road America's 40th this summer and race it there. I'll see. Getting completely off topic now!

OK. If you decide to do a harmless weekend at a NE track, let me know and we can maybe coordinate. Otherwise, we should get some folks together when it warms up. I recently blew money on 18" TE37 track wheels and a titanium exhaust. I can present those! I just noticed today that my hood is all messed up from the ice though.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by urbo73

swamp2/lucid - chill out guys. You guys sound like this is an attack on a thesis - don't remind me of those days. It's not. It's a thread on the Internet...I didn't feel like typing 10 pages in my reply - sorry if being curt was an insult. It wasn't meant that way at all - judge me from other posts here if you want. You guys are taking it the wrong way, really...

Cheers urbo, thanks for that. It is indeed quite easy to be misinterpreted on a message board for sure.

I suppose we can continue to agree to disagree about the meaning of power to weight regressed against lap times. But all of the work I have put into this, multiple tracks, multiple sets of cars, huge range of P/W ratios, as well as looking for other regressions with good R^2 and slopes such as aerodynamics (CdxA), max g force, etc. has really convinced me that F=ma and the R^2 values observed in the regression are a statement of the same basic phyiscs.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by T Bone

So at the risk of asking something that has been posted..... How many standard deviations is a 7:30 time for a car with the GTR's power to weight ratio?

A good question actually. A 7:29 lap, with the stated hp and weight of the GT-R (in the expanded list of about 75 data points (cars)) is over performing by 3.5 standard deviations. A 3.5 sigma (or greater) event is equivalent to a probability of 0.00007% (and yes I already multiplied the actual probability by 100 to make it a percentage!).

Here is a quote ifrom a previous reply of mine about what this really means, I added the words in brackets for contextual clarity:

540 hp [in the GTR] yields 2.9 standard deviations of over performance, indeed still the largest amount of over performance [in this group]. This is really a long way off the next best over achiever at "only" 2.0 sigma (standard deviations) the Pagani Zonda F Clubsport. However, it does also place it just inside the "magic" 3 sigma point, which is one that really causes the eyebrows to raise for a scientist. The [M3] CSL is way down at a much more believable 0.6 sigma [of over performance] and is not even in the top 15 over performers in the list.

The percentage likelihood for a 2 sigma vs. 3 sigma event is 0.5% vs. 0.003% (single side of the probability function, counting only such over achievers, not the equally unlikely under achievers). Two full orders of magnitude less likely. So about ten times, and then ten times again on top of that! Hope that also helps put "sigma" in perspective.

As you can see 3.5 sigma is even orders of magnitude smaller than a 3 sigma event. A 3.5 sigma occurence is truly a one in a million event (okay a slight bit more rare, about 0.7 in a million - but you get the point).

[T Bone]

Originally Posted by swamp2

A good question actually. A 7:29 lap, with the stated hp and weight of the GT-R (in the expanded list of about 75 data points (cars)) is over performing by 3.5 standard deviations. A 3.5 sigma (or greater) event is equivalent to a probability of 0.00007% (and yes I already multiplied the actual probability by 100 to make it a percentage!).

Here is a quote ifrom a previous reply of mine about what this really means, I added the words in brackets for contextual clarity:



As you can see 3.5 sigma is even orders of magnitude smaller than a 3 sigma event. A 3.5 sigma occurence is truly a one in a million event (okay a slight bit more rare, about 0.7 in a million - but you get the point).

So we can reasonably conclude that statistically, the 7:30 time is highly improbable for a "stock" GTR can achieve this time.

So...statiscally, Porsche is likely correct in its accusations.

I would love to see the beta software they had in the GTR.

[Year's_End]

So I guess manufacturers can all do scam 'Ring runs on beta software and unknown tires and claim them as stock runs? Cool.

[ruff]

Originally Posted by T Bone

So we can reasonably conclude that statistically, the 7:30 time is highly improbable for a "stock" GTR can achieve this time.

So...statiscally, Porsche is likely correct in its accusations.

I would love to see the beta software they had in the GTR.

T Bone,

Good to see ya back in the game. Your posts have been missed.

I still like it when Nissan sticks it to Porsche and Porsche metamorphoses into whiners running scared.

[T Bone]

Originally Posted by ruff

T Bone,

Good to see ya back in the game. Your posts have been missed.

I still like it when Nissan sticks it to Porsche and Porsche metamorphoses into whiners running scared.

Hey Man, I love the Nissan crack about driving lessons too

As some of you know, I hate the 911 and actually like the GTR but what cannot be tolerated is cheating or even aggressive and misleading viral marketing campaigns.

Swamp and Lucid, through statistical analysis, demonstrate that Nissan is likely lying through their crooked teeth that they used a stock GTR to attain a sub 7:30 time.

The big flag for me was when they admitted using beta software.....untracable and Nissan is completely unaccountable to anyone since it was a viral marketing campaign and not subject to normal product advertising rules.

The other thing that irks me is Carlos Ghosn, CEO of Nissan, forbade the Nissan Marketing team to have any GTR ads so they reverted to viral marketing but they were so aggressive here and completely misrepresented the GTR's performance.....

• Sub 7:30 Ring time
• Launch Control that was subsequently removed in the 2010 model year
• Voiding of warranties

If BMW was cheating too, we will be calling them out.

[ruff]

Originally Posted by T Bone

Hey Man, I love the Nissan crack about driving lessons too

As some of you know, I hate the 911 and actually like the GTR but what cannot be tolerated is cheating or even aggressive and misleading viral marketing campaigns.

Viral and misleading marketing campaigns humor me. No auto manufacture can claim innocence.

[T Bone]

Originally Posted by ruff

Viral and misleading marketing campaigns humor me. No auto manufacture can claim innocence.

Ah...but there is a difference.... When a manufacturer advertises something, they are legally bound to ensure it is factual. Viral campaigns are amusing but when manufacturers use them to claim some performance but not really, they unbind themselves from legal culpability by not standing behind their claims. This is bullshit.

Viral campaigns on non-measurable things / qualities of a product are fine, but not performance.


On a related note, below is my fav ad

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by T Bone

Swamp and Lucid, through statistical analysis, demonstrate that Nissan is likely lying through their crooked teeth that they used a stock GTR to attain a sub 7:30 time.

Almost everyone agrees that it really is impossible for a car with the Nissan's claimed power and weight to do a 7:29, regression analysis or not. Seem to me almost everyone agrees that the 'Ring car and most purchased vehicles are running in the neighborhood of 10% underrated or about 530 hp. I call it cheating as well but some feel this is not cheating at all. For the record BMW is probably cheating with the 335i as well.

Originally Posted by T Bone

The big flag for me was when they admitted using beta software.....untracable

I saw you allude to this on another post. Can you find a reference. I had not heard this enter the debate yet.

[T Bone]

Originally Posted by swamp2

Almost everyone agrees that it really is impossible for a car with the Nissan's claimed power and weight to do a 7:29, regression analysis or not. Seem to me almost everyone agrees that the 'Ring car and most purchased vehicles are running in the neighborhood of 10% underrated or about 530 hp. I call it cheating as well but some feel this is not cheating at all. For the record BMW is probably cheating with the 335i as well.

The reason I resurrected this thread was when I read the Motortrend report, the dyno showed that the GTR was not being underrated.

I am not a believer that either BMW or Nissan underrates their cars. You can explain the freakish behaviour of the BMW N54 because this was the first implementation of "Efficient Dynamics", electric water pumps and other measures that eliminate parasitic drivetrain losses will mask itself as being "underrated". Not sure what Nissan has done here.

I saw you allude to this on another post. Can you find a reference. I had not heard this enter the debate yet.

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/car...san-gt-r-make/

[M3WC]

Originally Posted by T Bone

So we can reasonably conclude that statistically, the 7:30 time is highly improbable for a "stock" GTR can achieve this time.

So...statiscally, Porsche is likely correct in its accusations.

I would love to see the beta software they had in the GTR.

Was there ever an authorized Nissan press release, about the 7:29 ring time. And did they claim the car was completely stock.


Or did they just let the time leak into the internet world and let the legend grow out of control.


I think even they would tell you, a stock GT-R off the showroom floor can't do a 7:29.

[T Bone]

Originally Posted by JetBlack5OC

Was there ever an authorized Nissan press release, about the 7:29 ring time. And did they claim the car was completely stock.


Or did they just let the time leak into the internet world and let the legend grow out of control.


I think even they would tell you, a stock GT-R off the showroom floor can't do a 7:29.

Nope...this is the problem. They release a video (Youtube) documenting a crazy time and won't stand behind it with their stock GTR. Viral marketing at its worst....they make a claim but don't really stand behind it.

If they issued a press release, they would be legally bound to its content, so it would have to disclaim whether the car was a production car, tires, conditions...

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by T Bone

The reason I resurrected this thread was when I read the Motortrend report, the dyno showed that the GTR was not being underrated.

I am not a believer that either BMW or Nissan underrates their cars. You can explain the freakish behaviour of the BMW N54 because this was the first implementation of "Efficient Dynamics", electric water pumps and other measures that eliminate parasitic drivetrain losses will mask itself as being "underrated". Not sure what Nissan has done here.




http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/car...san-gt-r-make/

That article does not claim nor claim that Nissan stated the 7:29 car used non production software, it simply states that Nissan admitted some variation in software among early models, perhaps only pre-production ones.

Efficient dynamics and the like do not account for 50 hp, period. Don't you find it interesting that the GT-R DID NOT make SAE certified power?

Originally Posted by T Bone

Nope...this is the problem. They release a video (Youtube) documenting a crazy time and won't stand behind it with their stock GTR. Viral marketing at its worst....they make a claim but don't really stand behind it.

I was fairly certain Nissan made an official statement that the 7:29 car was absolutely bone stock.

[footie]

Originally Posted by swamp2

That article does not claim nor claim that Nissan stated the 7:29 car used non production software, it simply states that Nissan admitted some variation in software among early models, perhaps only pre-production ones.

Efficient dynamics and the like do not account for 50 hp, period. Don't you find it interesting that the GT-R DID NOT make SAE certified power?

What is the requirements for making SAE certification? I know Clarkson made a big thing about how each engine was hand-built and different from the next and how each gearbox had it's software designed exclusively for that engine, this is not the first time I have heard this.

Originally Posted by swamp2

I was fairly certain Nissan made an official statement that the 7:29 car was absolutely bone stock.

I think you are correct here swamp, was test not conducted with BestMotoring running the documentary?

I am pretty certain that there was a proper press release at their test centre at the ring stating everything and showing the video footage.

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by T Bone

Nope...this is the problem. They release a video (Youtube) documenting a crazy time and won't stand behind it with their stock GTR. Viral marketing at its worst....they make a claim but don't really stand behind it.

If they issued a press release, they would be legally bound to its content, so it would have to disclaim whether the car was a production car, tires, conditions...

Actually, they issued several press releases, each saying the cars were bone stock. The 7:38 run was a disappointment, they said, because their computer simulations said that 7:30 was the target. Then they came back under more auspicious conditions and finally ran the 7:29.

As mentioned, one can't read the latest Motor Trend article without smelling a rat - meaning there's a dyno shop looking for ink.

Nissan hasn't certified the GT-R under the current SAE rules, which is highly suspicious since they, along with the other major Japanese manufacturers, agreed that they would. Note that this was after these same manufacturers got caught with their pants down by the new, more tightly controlled SAE J1349 power rules published in '04, I think, and had to downrate their power figures at that time.

The car that ran the 7:29, like current Nissan production GT-Rs, was rated about 10% low. That approximate number is backed up by a number of chassis dyno runs by various folks on various dynos, and by the car's quarter mile performance, again by various folks in various venues.

Bruce

PS - There is no damned way the BMW twin turbo six isn't underrated either. If BMW's efficiencies are in some way magical, the M3 would show the same type of power abberation on a chassis dyno, and it simply doesn't.

[T Bone]

Originally Posted by swamp2

That article does not claim nor claim that Nissan stated the 7:29 car used non production software, it simply states that Nissan admitted some variation in software among early models, perhaps only pre-production ones.

Efficient dynamics and the like do not account for 50 hp, period. Don't you find it interesting that the GT-R DID NOT make SAE certified power?

I was fairly certain Nissan made an official statement that the 7:29 car was absolutely bone stock.

Can you please show me where Nissan made this claim? Press Release? Or verbal to press? Big difference from a legal perspective.

Variation in software for a turbo car?? That just stinks to me. This can could make over 600 hp on software tweaks alone.

So let's to the bottom of what was claimed and see if they nuance out of it with "software variation"

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

PS - There is no damned way the BMW twin turbo six isn't underrated either. If BMW's efficiencies are in some way magical, the M3 would show the same type of power abberation on a chassis dyno, and it simply doesn't.

Consider the that a mechanical water pump would draw mechnical energy in a exponential manner, the power savings up top of an electical pump would be significant. Additionally, the AC is on a clutch and I am not sure what else they put in the N54.

The other consideration is the 300 hp rating is peak, the N54 delivers a very flat torque curve and generates the 300 foot pounds of torque below 2000 rpm..... This is why a 300 hp 335i is faster than a 300 hp STI, the area under the curve.

These 2 things could be used to explain why people think the N54 is underrated.

As for the GTR, I really have no clue why they didn't get SAE certification other than losing face for delivering a car with 500 hp or so. For marketing reasons, I don't understand why Nissan would hold back if the motor delivered more power, particularly in a very HP conscious North America.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by T Bone

Can you please show me where Nissan made this claim? Press Release? Or verbal to press? Big difference from a legal perspective.

I am certain I read the press releases Bruce mentioned above. They are in writting IIRC but am far to lazy to actually hunt them down. Anyone?

Originally Posted by T Bone

Consider the that a mechanical water pump would draw mechnical energy in a exponential manner, the power savings up top of an electical pump would be significant. Additionally, the AC is on a clutch and I am not sure what else they put in the N54.

These 2 things could be used to explain why people think the N54 is underrated.

Sure these things contribute to lower parasitic losses, a real part of BMW "efficient dynamics". However I don't think there is any way BMW saved on the order fo 10% with these tricks and that is the ball park to which most agree the 335i is under rated. I also side with Bruce here, the 335i is under rated. Nissan is not alone in this game, it is a bit fan boy-ish and naive to think so.

Originally Posted by T Bone

As for the GTR, I really have no clue why they didn't get SAE certification other than losing face for delivering a car with 500 hp or so. For marketing reasons, I don't understand why Nissan would hold back if the motor delivered more power, particularly in a very HP conscious North America.

I know why. The wanted the car to have the magic and allure that the Skylines have always had. They have obtained this with a history of dishonesty and under rating. It has worked again as many fan boys believe the car is fairly equivalent to a UFO. As well they wanted the car to appear to have the same power as it's principally targeted competitor the 911 TT. Since it has the same power, the walloping it dished out on the track "proves" the efficacy of all of the high tech Nissan gadgetry (again much of it truly good gadgetry) such as the software, DCT, AWD, etc.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by footie

What is the requirements for making SAE certification?

It is a pretty thorough spec that involves the process and certification of the tester and equipment even more carefully than the actual allowed power deviation. Multiple SAE spec are involved, sort of parent and child specs as well. The final figure though is within 1%, not high nor low. It is a pretty tight spec but also shows that with modern (not even cutting edge, just solid) manufacturing techniques 1% is reasonable. I know it is obvious, but this is 3 out of 300, 4 out of 400 or just 5 small ponies out of 500. The odd thing is that cars almost certainly gain more power than this through break in.

[southlight]

Originally Posted by swamp2

I am certain I read the press releases Bruce mentioned above. They are in writting IIRC but am far to lazy to actually hunt them down. Anyone?

Two statements I found:

http://www.worldcarfans.com/9080501....ring-in-7m-29s

http://www.drive.com.au/Editorial/Ar...ID=57410&vf=12

Still searching for the preproduction software bit. Can't remember that.



Best regards, south

[footie]

swamp,

I noticed in your reply to T Bone regarding the regression of the GTR and mentioned that the next closest was a Zonda. Are you sure about that, it's only that I remembered the Audi S3 having a much higher regression rating than the Zonda. It was still not as high as the GTR but it did get much closer and I am sure it's time was by SportAuto and not the pro driver who spent weeks fine tuning the car on this very track. Maybe South may know if I am right here but I think all SportAuto supertests conducted on the Nurburgring comprise of only three laps. This may give more credibility to the possibility that the GTR did indeed do the lap and the car was stock to the level of 10% over rated as has been seen from other stock examples.