2010 GTR loses launch control

[footie]

South,

I haven't a problem with Porsche posting a better time in there own cars on that day, it's to be expected as the driver in question will be more familiar in the Porsche than anything else. My problem is the difference in time between the two cars (GT2 and GTR), if we are lead to believe that this test by Porsche was conducted on the same day then given Driver Republic data the result should have been within a few seconds of each. Lets face it, Porsche have a lot deeper pockets than DR and wrecking a GTR wouldn't have caused a blink of a eye in comparison but their respective times were miles apart.

You are correct in saying that until Sport Auto do their full test any result or discussion is a waste but even then it's all down to weather/track conditions and could vary as much as 5 seconds either way given the unpredictability of the ring. I personally prefer to look at tracks like Hockenheim, Silverstone, Croft, Laguna Sega etc to get a more balance opinion on a car's abilities and in this case the GTR IS as good as the rest costing up to three times as much.

Maybe the question we should be asking about that ring time is not was the car tweaked from stock but how many laps did it take to achieve this perfect lap?.

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by Doc

...Its not going to get close to 7min 38s unfortunately and I don't think a 997 turbo is that fast either. Porsche are panicking and putting a time out to save face, which is as bad as Nissan lying.. meaning I dont think that the 997T that set that time is the same as the one you can drive off the showroom floor

So, you're saying Porsche is also lying, but they're pissed because Nissan is lying more than they are?

Huh. There goes my meter again.

Originally Posted by Doc

Sport Auto don't disappoint - they will have stock GTR with stock 997 turbo running same sunny day, same driver, same fuel. Bets?.. i stand by my initial statement GTR -will be about 7m 45s give or take a second or two

I personally have no idea what they'll turn, but expect the GTR to be ahead. Horst seems to have his good days and off days. He's been within a couple of seconds on some cars, but has been as much as sixteen seconds off pace with a Vette - 8:15 to 7:59.

In any event, I expect we're all looking forward to it. As usual, we'll interpret the results differently, of course.

Bruce

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by footie

I would be the first to admit that I am defending the GTR time and this is based on logic and being level headed.
...

I was not trying to restart, reset nor begin the whole debate over again. I was merely pointing out an interesting and valid parallel point to yours which although it is parallel, it is also in sharp contrast to and literally on the other side of the fence.

[footie]

Originally Posted by swamp2

I was not trying to restart, reset nor begin the whole debate over again. I was merely pointing out an interesting and valid parallel point to yours which although it is parallel, it is also in sharp contrast to and literally on the other side of the fence.

Fair comment and I admit my position and stance on this is very strong. But I think there is enough evidence to show that else where, even equally quick tracks (Silverstone 3.2miles) the GTR is as quick if not quicker than the GT2.

I suppose I got a bee in my bonet with Porsche's claims for the GTR, especially after DR's test results. I just find it petty for another manufacturer to perform a PR stunt like Porsche did, to try and prove that Nissan were cheating and then proved results that are so clearly one sided.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by footie

I suppose I got a bee in my bonet with Porsche's claims for the GTR, especially after DR's test results. I just find it petty for another manufacturer to perform a PR stunt like Porsche did, to try and prove that Nissan were cheating and then proved results that are so clearly one sided.

And Nissans 7:39 and 7:29 Ring times were not PR stunts in the first place? Come one foot, you simply can not have it both ways.

Either way no matter how you feel about either P cars, N cars or how either has handled this, the GT-R is good for the market, period. Good both technically and even more importantly good due to the competitive pressure it IS producing as clearly evidenced in Porsche's reaction.

[footie]

Originally Posted by swamp2

And Nissans 7:39 and 7:29 Ring times were not PR stunts in the first place? Come one foot, you simply can not have it both ways.

Either way no matter how you feel about either P cars, N cars or how either has handled this, the GT-R is good for the market, period. Good both technically and even more importantly good due to the competitive pressure it IS producing as clearly evidenced in Porsche's reaction.

At the moment I am having a problem expressing what I mean. In my opinion Porsche shouldn't have pulled the stunt they did, it was petty and childish. The should have kept their opinions to themselves and let their products do the talking, if the GT2 is so much better than the GTR then this would have been seen in group tests throughout the world.

The only reason why Porsche took the stance they did is because so far the GTR has proven itself to be on par with the GT2 on almost every test.

Now do you see my anger at both Porsche's stunt and the times they claimed.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by footie

At the moment I am having a problem expressing what I mean. In my opinion Porsche shouldn't have pulled the stunt they did, it was petty and childish. The should have kept their opinions to themselves and let their products do the talking, if the GT2 is so much better than the GTR then this would have been seen in group tests throughout the world.

The only reason why Porsche took the stance they did is because so far the GTR has proven itself to be on par with the GT2 on almost every test.

Now do you see my anger at both Porsche's stunt and the times they claimed.

Well they are certainly backed into a corner of sorts. Absolutely no doubt about that. The painfully obvious reason they have done what they have done PUBLICLY is because they honestly beleive that at least the 7:29 time simply is not possible given any combination of a stock spec car any weather, any track conditions, any OEM tires and ANY driver. And hence when someone beats you by cheating you get pissed. Pretty simple.

P.S. I don't mean pissed = drunk

[footie]

Still missing my point swamp. It not that the GTR time of 7:29 is the issue here but that according to Porsche the GTR is over 20s slower on the same day as they did their GT2 timed run. This result goes against every other independent test of which there is numerous.

Do you still believe their result?

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by footie

Still missing my point swamp. It not that the GTR time of 7:29 is the issue here but that according to Porsche the GTR is over 20s slower on the same day as they did their GT2 timed run. This result goes against every other independent test of which there is numerous.

Do you still believe their result?

Again, I'm trying hard not to completely reopen the debate. We have both definitely said our points and our peace. The 7:29 is absolutely THE KEY CENTRAL ISSUE here. The same thing would be happening with such extreme times posted by any other manufacturer.

There is only one independent test of the GT2 vs GT-R at the Ring, the one by DR. Comparing other tests on other tracks is worthwhile as a rough estimate but it simply is not the real thing. Different tracks favor different elements of different vehicles. You can cite as much evidence as you like about the validity or invalidity of Nissan's test, Porsche's test or the DR test. The fact remains that many good to great drivers have had a shot at the Ring with the GT-R and no one can come anywhere close to the Nissan time. That is about as conclusive as most need.

[ismelllikepoop]

you two should just have a caged deathmatch, i dont think there's any other way this will end

[footie]

Originally Posted by swamp2

Again, I'm trying hard not to completely reopen the debate. We have both definitely said our points and our peace. The 7:29 is absolutely THE KEY CENTRAL ISSUE here. The same thing would be happening with such extreme times posted by any other manufacturer.

There is only one independent test of the GT2 vs GT-R at the Ring, the one by DR. Comparing other tests on other tracks is worthwhile as a rough estimate but it simply is not the real thing. Different tracks favor different elements of different vehicles. You can cite as much evidence as you like about the validity or invalidity of Nissan's test, Porsche's test or the DR test. The fact remains that many good to great drivers have had a shot at the Ring with the GT-R and no one can come anywhere close to the Nissan time. That is about as conclusive as most need.

Let's discuss some other GTR ring times. Horst on a wet track posted 7:50, DR on an equally wet track got 7:56, even using Horst's own estimates that puts the GTR at 7:40 and the Dunlops make up another 5 seconds, so we end up with a stock GTR capable of posting a 7:35 in Horst's own hands. Given that on average Horst is within 3~6s per lap slower than most test drivers where would that possibly place the same GTR in Suzuki's hand (7:32~7:29).

Does it still sound so impossible?

Next, using Horst own estimates do you honestly believe that a GT2 and GTR in the hands of an accomplished test driver should post such a varied difference? Of course not, given the experience on the driver in one and not the other the difference on that day given that the Porsche all but matched Walter's time such has been with 5~10s of the GTR time, 5s being the unfamiliarity of the car and the other 5s for possible tyre choice. That is an estimated 7:38~7:43, over 12s better than their actually did.

Once again I call Porsche PR stunt as total BS.

[Big Windy]

@ Footie, why do you call the Porsche PR stunt BS when Nissan's PR stunt was what started this whole thing? It seems a bit ironic to me. You guys have all spent a long time discussing and debating all of these ring times...I have followed along and have been interested by a lot of the comments. But I keep coming back to this simple fact. If Nissan wants to claim that they can lap the GT-R in 7:29, PROVE IT. If the GT-R is truly capable of what Nissan says it is, Nissan should have no problem replying to Porsche's accusation with a videotaped run of the original 7:29 lap or another 7:29 lap. If you want to claim to be #1, you gotta back it up. That is what being on top is all about. And if Nissan can't replicate 7:29 again, well they shouldn't have said their car was capable of that in the first place. Anybody can get lucky, but to me if you're in the auto industry you have to have confidence in your product. It seems that Porsche has called Nissan's bluff, and Nissan doesn't know what to do. Not trying to digress or restart this whole thing, but that is just my un-scientific take on the whole thing.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by Big Windy

@ Footie, why do you call the Porsche PR stunt BS when Nissan's PR stunt was what started this whole thing? It seems a bit ironic to me.
...
Nissan should have no problem replying to Porsche's accusation with a videotaped run of the original 7:29 lap

Thanks for chiming in. I agree (obviosuly with yout first point. However, on your second point do note that there is a video of the 7:29 lap. There is no question that Suzuki did a 7:29 in some car. Just in what state of tune the car was in, engine, suspension, etc. is the question about that lap.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by footie

Let's discuss some other GTR ring times. Horst on a wet track posted 7:50, DR on an equally wet track got 7:56, even using Horst's own estimates that puts the GTR at 7:40

Foot, foot, where will the lies end? What is the problem? The only choices are reading comprehension or dishonesty.

The SA lap by Horst was clearly/obviously/explicitly not a "wet track". There were some wet areas. Similarly with the DR test their first few warm up laps were in the wet and led to the comments about the wet handling. Then, if you can read (and see by watching the videos) the weather turned the track mostly dried and Chris was able to push the cars pretty darn hard. You call this a "wet" track?

Next on Horst words on the car. In the Sportauto test he said that for the car a 7:5X shows the true potential of the car and 7:4X is "very optimistic". The direct implication is that he believes that 7:4X is OPTIMISTIC FOR THE CAR, i.e. meaning given great conditions, a great driver and a great lap. Following this train of thought if any time in the 7:40s is optimistic then 7:49 is optimistic as well (again great conditions and a great driver on a great lap). Subtract 5 seconds for the better tire option and you are squarely in the mid 7:40s. You are not in the 7:20s not in the 7:30s and not a few seconds from 7:29. You take absolutely the best numbers from everything and like the previous poster pointed out add them all up like off a shopping list. It doesn't work that way and the numbers you use are not supported by those whom you claim provide your numbers.

Talk about blind bias toward your foregone conclusion...

Originally Posted by footie

Once again I call Porsche PR stunt as total BS.

So you think they had what or what combination of contributing issues to their poor time. Please really think about this and answer. I am really curious.

1. An unskilled/hack driver.
2. A driver who does not know the Ring.
3. Terrible conditions, totally unsuited for getting a good solid run.
4. Little to no experience pushing the GT-R (that they bought) really hard
5. The driver, despite being accomplished, pussy footed around, mostly shifting 1000 rpm below redline.
6. None of the above, they got a fantastic time in the 7:2X or 7:3X range and just lied because they knew they had been beat so badly.
7. Other (fill in your own)

[footie]

Big Windy,

I am in total agreement with the opinion it was a one off, that is why I said

Originally Posted by footie

Maybe the question we should be asking about that ring time is not was the car tweaked from stock but how many laps did it take to achieve this perfect lap?.

If Nissan had stuck to the 7:38 lap time then all of this would never have happened, the talk was that this time was achieved on a track with the odd damp section, maybe 3~4 seconds could be allowed for that. And based on everything that has been said by other drivers who have driven it on the ring the belief is that a 7:40 is very achievable, even with the Bridgestone tyres.

The lap was done and the video evidence is there to see, but the thing we will never know is how many laps Suzuki did at say 7:35~7:38 to get that one-off 7:29.

P.S.
If Walter (chief Porsche test driver) believed a 7:40 was possible then why would Porsche feed us this BS that on a day were their own GT2 achieved a 7:33 lap that their best with the GTR was 7:55.

Swamp is being silly if he believes that a great handling car doesn't perform equally great on every track, regardless of length. The test conducted by DR on Silverstone proves that on a track with equally high average speeds the GTR is as quick if not quicker then the GT2 yet was 10 mph slower on the main straight. The GTR matches the GT2 on almost all tracks, these are the facts. Denying these facts is the equivalent to disbelieving every independent test conducted else where.

The real trick with the Nurburgring is it's length and familiarity, a normal 2~3 race track is easy to learn and consistancy is easier to achieve because of this. This is the reason why track time can vary so greatly on the ring and why someone like Horst is used on all the Sport Auto supertests, the only variable then is track conditions and familiarity of the car.

[swamp2]

^ blah, blah, blah.

You never answer, NEVER, when a DIRECT question and request to answer is posed to you. I find it funny. Sort of like ADD.

[Socale92]

that suuuucks

[09E92M34ME]

lol

[footie]

Originally Posted by swamp2

^ blah, blah, blah.

You never answer, NEVER, when a DIRECT question and request to answer is posed to you. I find it funny. Sort of like ADD.

Explain???????? I thought I was as direct as yourself on most thing but maybe not.

Ask a direct question about the GTR and I will answer to the best of my ability if I can.

[footie]

Originally Posted by swamp2

So you think they had what or what combination of contributing issues to their poor time. Please really think about this and answer. I am really curious.

1. An unskilled/hack driver.
Answer: I believe the guy in question was very skilled.
2. A driver who does not know the Ring.
Answer: I think he knew the ring as well as anyone.
3. Terrible conditions, totally unsuited for getting a good solid run.
Answer: As the GT2 did a 7:33 time in their hands on that day I would say that weather conditions were good.
4. Little to no experience pushing the GT-R (that they bought) really hard
Answer: Very probable, but ever then they should have been able to get within 90~95% of the car's ability if the driver was as good as I believe he would be.
5. The driver, despite being accomplished, pussy footed around, mostly shifting 1000 rpm below redline.
Answer: I reckon he did as he was told during that test.
6. None of the above, they got a fantastic time in the 7:2X or 7:3X range and just lied because they knew they had been beat so badly.
Answer: Porsche got the result they wanted.
7. Other (fill in your own)
Answer: Will Porsche be using the GTR as their reference bench mark for the next 998 Turbo, you bet.

P.S.
Since I have answered your questions will you answer one for me.

As the GTR has been tested on numerous occasions against the GT2, Gallardo and 997Turbo (purely track tests) do you believe that given how it has performed else where that the results being mention by Porsche are a true reflection of what you would have expected (please read as many European reviews as possible)?

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by footie

...
4. Little to no experience pushing the GT-R (that they bought) really hard
Answer: Very probable, but ever then they should have been able to get within 90~95% of the car's ability if the driver was as good as I believe he would be.
5. The driver, despite being accomplished, pussy footed around, mostly shifting 1000 rpm below redline.
Answer: I reckon he did as he was told during that test.
6. None of the above, they got a fantastic time in the 7:2X or 7:3X range and just lied because they knew they had been beat so badly.
Answer: Porsche got the result they wanted.
...


P.S.
Since I have answered your questions will you answer one for me.

As the GTR has been tested on numerous occasions against the GT2, Gallardo and 997Turbo (purely track tests) do you believe that given how it has performed else where that the results being mention by Porsche are a true reflection of what you would have expected (please read as many European reviews as possible)?

OK it comes down to the point that you do believe the Porsche driver of the GT-R was not experienced enough and was told not to get the best time possible. I, along with the majority of others (indicated by your own poll), don't buy that as reasonable for one moment.

I'll will answer your question directly:

The problem with the GT-R and comparing different cars and different tracks is that they clearly shipped GT-Rs in different states of tune and break in. Look at the various 1/4 mi times and traps. These differences are not due to random variations caused by production tolerances. Absolutely NO WAY. Similarly they are not caused by Nissan cherry picking from production (which is bascially the same point just above). Now that being said a 7:54 for a solid Porsche test driver on a good day with a production GT-R WITH 480 hp is reasonable. The only reason you think 7:54 is unreasonable is because the car is so darn under rated. If you want to call 530 hp the "norm" for a production car that "meets specs" (which seems to opinion of most "knights for the honor of Nissan and of the GT-R") then no 7:54 is not a reasonable time.

Case closed.

[footie]

Originally Posted by swamp2

OK it comes down to the point that you do believe the Porsche driver of the GT-R was not experienced enough and was told not to get the best time possible. I, along with the majority of others (indicated by your own poll), don't buy that as reasonable for one moment.

Actually this statement above and the one below are not separate at all and that has always been my point about Porsche time and why I disbelieve what they did as truthful. Below is the reason for this.

Originally Posted by swamp2

I'll will answer your question directly:

The problem with the GT-R and comparing different cars and different tracks is that they clearly shipped GT-Rs in different states of tune and break in. Look at the various 1/4 mi times and traps. These differences are not due to random variations caused by production tolerances. Absolutely NO WAY. Similarly they are not caused by Nissan cherry picking from production (which is bascially the same point just above). Now that being said a 7:54 for a solid Porsche test driver on a good day with a production GT-R WITH 480 hp is reasonable. The only reason you think 7:54 is unreasonable is because the car is so darn under rated. If you want to call 530 hp the "norm" for a production car that "meets specs" (which seems to opinion of most "knights for the honor of Nissan and of the GT-R") then no 7:54 is not a reasonable time.

Case closed.

The GTRs have been imported to the US and thus not supplied by Nissan themselves during most if not all of those tests, as has been the case in the UK. In Japan the fuel is 100 octane not 97~98 octane as in the UK and slightly less in the US, if these cars haven't had their software adapted to the different fuel then under performing caused by the fuel could explain the varied results.

Also the GTR used by DR was a stock example imported as all the others from Japan as their is no GTR currently available in the UK until spring next year. This car has been tested against the clock and against a 997C2S with PDK and lost in acceleration but still proved to be quicker than both the GT2 and LP 560 around Silverstone and would have been only one second slower than the GT2 on the ring in the hands of Chris from DR if the car had been equipped with the Dunlop tyres which are similar in spec to the ones used on the GT2.

Which comes right back to the question, 'Why did Porsche get their GT2 around the ring 16 seconds quicker than DR did but only 2 seconds quicker than they did in the GTR?'

Case is most definitely not closed.