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

[southlight]

Originally Posted by footie

Maybe South may know if I am right here but I think all SportAuto supertests conducted on the Nurburgring comprise of only three laps.

Yes, I think I remember an report in Sportauto supporting that. A fast time in the Supertest does not only say something about the car's performance but also about its driveability.


Best regards, south

[footie]

Thanks south for that speedy reply. Well that does give more credibility to Nissan's claim in my opinion.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by 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.

Yes that is correct. My mistake. The spreadsheet and anaylsis is correct. I think I used a different, smaller sample size to conclude the Zonda was next in line. The list is, in order of largest outliers (just listing the first bunch):

Car, sigma
Nissan GT-R, -3.5
Audi S3, -2.0
BMW E46 M3 CSL, -1.9
Porsche 997 GT2, -1.7
Mercedes CLK 63 AMG Black Series, -1.6
Porsche 997 GT3 RS, -1.5
Donkervoort D8 RS, -1.5
Porsche 997 GT3, -1.4

As you know my thoughts are the the Audi S3 is an outlier or error just as the Nissan is. Just looks at its company in the list! It really sticks out like a sore thumb. I know it is hard to accept some anomaly here with the time (I had 8:41 for it, straigh from lucids list) being such an Audi fan but just look at the list. Again a reason why this type of analysis is useful.

[lucid]

Guys, I think we should do a straight sportauto supertest regression to somewhat control for the driver variable. We should also use a select group of "high" performance cars. I think they have the list pubslihed on their website, but everything seems to be in german so hard to understand what kind of tires are being used, etc, but my understanding is that they test stock cars. Is that right (South)?

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by lucid

Guys, I think we should do a straight sportauto supertest regression to somewhat control for the driver variable. We should also use a select group of "high" performance cars. I think they have the list pubslihed on their website, but everything seems to be in german so hard to understand what kind of tires are being used, etc, but my understanding is that they test stock cars. Is that right (South)?

That would only be mildly interesting to me. I can predict the results anyway (as you probably can too). R^2 will be better than previous work, slope about the same. Secondly quite a few of the times in the current data set for the regression models are in fact Sportauto times. Last but certainly not least, like many other topics, people either seem to simply "get it" with the regression or want to claim it is unfounded, useless and tells you nothing...

[lucid]

Originally Posted by swamp2

That would only be mildly interesting to me. I can predict the results anyway (as you probably can too). R^2 will be better than previous work, slope about the same. Secondly quite a few of the times in the current data set for the regression models are in fact Sportauto times. Last but certainly not least, like many other topics, people either seem to simply "get it" with the regression or want to claim it is unfounded, useless and tells you nothing...

I was thinking this would be of value to the believers.

Yeah, I forgot that most of the times on list are from suporauto but not all. Sticking to a single source would also help smooth out some of this discussion about the GTR. As we all know, they won't be getting anywhere near 7:30 in their GTR supertest. Anyway, I might look into it on the weekend.

[M3WC]

Not sure if this is a repost.

Automobilemag Nurburgring test, GT-R vs. GT2.

GT-R: 7:56

GT2: 7:49


Quote:
"The GT-R is an immense achievement - it costs more than $100,000 less than the Porsche, and it has four seats and an automatic gearbox. But even with those sticky Dunlops, it's hard to see where Nissan could have shaved an extra 25 seconds. We wouldn't want to detract from Nissan's achievement with this car, but it should be acknowledged that on the same day, with the same driver, the GT2 was the faster car."


Link:
http://www.automobilemag.com/feature...ing/index.html

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by JetBlack5OC

Not sure if this is a repost.

Automobilemag Nurburgring test, GT-R vs. GT2.

GT-R: 7:56

GT2: 7:49


Quote:
"The GT-R is an immense achievement - it costs more than $100,000 less than the Porsche, and it has four seats and an automatic gearbox. But even with those sticky Dunlops, it's hard to see where Nissan could have shaved an extra 25 seconds. We wouldn't want to detract from Nissan's achievement with this car, but it should be acknowledged that on the same day, with the same driver, the GT2 was the faster car."


Link:
http://www.automobilemag.com/feature...ing/index.html

Good addition. No surprise. The evidence just keeps piling up...

[Robin_NL]

Originally Posted by swamp2

Good addition. No surprise. The evidence just keeps piling up...

+1

[footie]

Originally Posted by JetBlack5OC

Not sure if this is a repost.

Automobilemag Nurburgring test, GT-R vs. GT2.

GT-R: 7:56

GT2: 7:49


Quote:
"The GT-R is an immense achievement - it costs more than $100,000 less than the Porsche, and it has four seats and an automatic gearbox. But even with those sticky Dunlops, it's hard to see where Nissan could have shaved an extra 25 seconds. We wouldn't want to detract from Nissan's achievement with this car, but it should be acknowledged that on the same day, with the same driver, the GT2 was the faster car."


Link:
http://www.automobilemag.com/feature...ing/index.html

Thanks for the link but it doesn't either prove or disprove whether Nissan achieved their 7:29 lap in a stock car. We had a identical set of times from Driver Republic test and the argument continued.

It's well known that the Dunlops in question ARE the stickiest of all R-compound rubber and will probably shave another 5 seconds off the GTR's time, there's little argument about that one. So we then have a completely stock GT2 and GTR posting times in the hand of an accomplish driver within approx 2 seconds of each other.

Both cars are well short of there claimed lap record times so are both Porsche and Nissan telling porkies.

This debate/discussion/argument has went round and around for months now and no one will agree or back down. It should have been left on the shelf gathering dust and in my opinion be placed back there.

[Robin_NL]

Originally Posted by footie

Thanks for the link but it doesn't either prove or disprove whether Nissan achieved their 7:29 lap in a stock car. We had a identical set of times from Driver Republic test and the argument continued.

It's well known that the Dunlops in question ARE the stickiest of all R-compound rubber and will probably shave another 5 seconds off the GTR's time, there's little argument about that one. So we then have a completely stock GT2 and GTR posting times in the hand of an accomplish driver within approx 2 seconds of each other.

Both cars are well short of there claimed lap record times so are both Porsche and Nissan telling porkies.

This debate/discussion/argument has went round and around for months now and no one will agree or back down. It should have been left on the shelf gathering dust and in my opinion be placed back there.

I suppose you're right footie. I really do like the GT-R and I do love the GT3/2

fwiw.

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by footie

Thanks for the link but it doesn't either prove or disprove whether Nissan achieved their 7:29 lap in a stock car. We had a identical set of times from Driver Republic test and the argument continued.

It's well known that the Dunlops in question ARE the stickiest of all R-compound rubber and will probably shave another 5 seconds off the GTR's time, there's little argument about that one. So we then have a completely stock GT2 and GTR posting times in the hand of an accomplish driver within approx 2 seconds of each other.

Both cars are well short of there claimed lap record times so are both Porsche and Nissan telling porkies.

This debate/discussion/argument has went round and around for months now and no one will agree or back down. It should have been left on the shelf gathering dust and in my opinion be placed back there.

This was in fact the Driver's Republic test. There is in fact a welcome addition, however, in that this article published acceleration times - in effect showing both cars were healthy samples of the breed.

No other changes, in fact. The Porshe was two seconds quicker, and the Nissan was making more than 480 HP, as is its wont.

I'm still content with the 7:29.

Bruce

[southlight]

Originally Posted by lucid

Guys, I think we should do a straight sportauto supertest regression to somewhat control for the driver variable. We should also use a select group of "high" performance cars. I think they have the list pubslihed on their website, but everything seems to be in german so hard to understand what kind of tires are being used, etc, but my understanding is that they test stock cars. Is that right (South)?

They test mostly stock cars. Sometimes the cars are equipped with UHP tires, though. In case you're planning to do this regression (a list of the cars you're going to implement would be helpful) I can have a look at the details.


Best regards, south

[T Bone]

Originally Posted by footie

Thanks for the link but it doesn't either prove or disprove whether Nissan achieved their 7:29 lap in a stock car. We had a identical set of times from Driver Republic test and the argument continued.

It's well known that the Dunlops in question ARE the stickiest of all R-compound rubber and will probably shave another 5 seconds off the GTR's time, there's little argument about that one. So we then have a completely stock GT2 and GTR posting times in the hand of an accomplish driver within approx 2 seconds of each other.

Both cars are well short of there claimed lap record times so are both Porsche and Nissan telling porkies.

This debate/discussion/argument has went round and around for months now and no one will agree or back down. It should have been left on the shelf gathering dust and in my opinion be placed back there.

Actually Footie, statiscally, a stock GTR cannot come close to a sub 7:30 time.

The new test shows the GTR is a full 25 seconds from that time.

The data is front of you.....unless you want to make the argument that a stock GTR can do a sub 7:30 time, in which case you would be right about 7 times in 10 Million.

[footie]

T Bone,

My post explains that when equipped with Dunlop (r-compound) like the GT2 then the GTR is within 2seconds of each other. This is the facts, these cars are pretty evenly matched.

But since you brought up the fact that in that test the GTR was a lot slower than claimed, but the same was true for the GT2. So is Porsche telling porkies as well.

If you have to pick holes at the Nissan then you really need to discuss the Porsche as well.

[T Bone]

Originally Posted by footie

T Bone,

My post explains that when equipped with Dunlop (r-compound) like the GT2 then the GTR is within 2seconds of each other. This is the facts, these cars are pretty evenly matched.

But since you brought up the fact that in that test the GTR was a lot slower than claimed, but the same was true for the GT2. So is Porsche telling porkies as well.

If you have to pick holes at the Nissan then you really need to discuss the Porsche as well.

If you concede that a stock GTR cannot achieve a sub 7:30 time then I think we can all move on....

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by T Bone

Actually Footie, statiscally, a stock GTR cannot come close to a sub 7:30 time.

The new test shows the GTR is a full 25 seconds from that time.

The data is front of you.....unless you want to make the argument that a stock GTR can do a sub 7:30 time, in which case you would be right about 7 times in 10 Million.

That turns out not to be the case (he said, diplomatically). The data shows it would be terrifically unlikely that a 480 HP GT-R will do what the car actually did, but subsequent testing indicates that a GT-R actually is rated about 10% low.

With that as a given, even Swamp has indicated that a GT-R could do that time, albeit under perfect conditions, driven by a cockpit assassin after thousands of tries - which was evidently the case, according to Nissan.

I personally would love to see an actual record of lap times over the months of trying. My bet is there were very, very few under 7:35 or so. The computer said a sub 7:30 was possible, so those guys kept on going until they got one, and I expect an underwear change was needed upon pulling into the pits. Also expect minor things like just enough fuel after the lap in question to keep the pickup damp.

Bruce

Edit: PS - Note that Nissan has publicly (and repeatedly) stated in press releases and in public speeches by high level execs that the car was bone stock.

[M3WC]

Originally Posted by T Bone

If you concede that a stock GTR cannot achieve a sub 7:30 time then I think we can all move on....

Yup

[lucid]

Originally Posted by T Bone

The data is front of you.....unless you want to make the argument that a stock GTR can do a sub 7:30 time, in which case you would be right about 7 times in 10 Million.

Those are the stats for that specific sample. If you change the sample, the stats might change. If you put a F1 driver in every single car that was included in that sample and give it ultra sticky tires, that would change the sample and the regression line, and the deviation of the GTR from that line. I am sure the GTR would still look like an outlier, but I bet we would see the deviation come down. That's why I am interested in doing a regression on a select set of cars with just the Sportauto times.

[lucid]

Originally Posted by southlight

They test mostly stock cars. Sometimes the cars are equipped with UHP tires, though. In case you're planning to do this regression (a list of the cars you're going to implement would be helpful) I can have a look at the details.

Best regards, south

I might take you up on your offer on this...

[Garissimo]

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

With that as a given, even Swamp has indicated that a GT-R could do that time, albeit under perfect conditions, driven by a cockpit assassin after thousands of tries - which was evidently the case, according to Nissan.

With all those caveats, I could possibly accept the "outlier" case of the 7:29 lap.

My question is, has Nissan represented this 7:29 ring time as typical for a production GT-R? If so, they should rightfully be raked over the coals for it.

[footie]

Originally Posted by lucid

Those are the stats for that specific sample. If you change the sample, the stats might change. If you put a F1 driver in every single car that was included in that sample and give it ultra sticky tires, that would change the sample and the regression line, and the deviation of the GTR from that line. I am sure the GTR would still look like an outlier, but I bet we would see the deviation come down. That's why I am interested in doing a regression on a select set of cars with just the Sportauto times.

That is exactly right Lucid.

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

That turns out not to be the case (he said, diplomatically). The data shows it would be terrifically unlikely that a 480 HP GT-R will do what the car actually did, but subsequent testing indicates that a GT-R actually is rated about 10% low.

With that as a given, even Swamp has indicated that a GT-R could do that time, albeit under perfect conditions, driven by a cockpit assassin after thousands of tries - which was evidently the case, according to Nissan.

I personally would love to see an actual record of lap times over the months of trying. My bet is there were very, very few under 7:35 or so. The computer said a sub 7:30 was possible, so those guys kept on going until they got one, and I expect an underwear change was needed upon pulling into the pits. Also expect minor things like just enough fuel after the lap in question to keep the pickup damp.

Bruce

Edit: PS - Note that Nissan has publicly (and repeatedly) stated in press releases and in public speeches by high level execs that the car was bone stock.

Your evil twin is in agreement, I posted to swamp a while ago that I too reckon the likelihood was that the majority of runs by Nissan were in the 7:3? point. If Horst reckon he would be capable of achieving a 7:40 lap in better conditions within his three lap 'supertest' then I believe it is perfectly acceptable for Nissan with their chief development test driver who happens to be much more skilled behind the wheel than Horst and knows the track just as well and the car a million times better to do the lap they did.

Originally Posted by T Bone

If you concede that a stock GTR cannot achieve a sub 7:30 time then I think we can all move on....

Originally Posted by swamp2

As you know my thoughts are the the Audi S3 is an outlier or error just as the Nissan is.

T Bone, I am not the one who highlights only the GTR as being a fake but totally forgive the Porsche for being equally as far for it's claimed lap.

Though to be perfectly honest with you I can't accept that the GTR didn't do the lap and the reason being I totally believe it was done, the regression data is too incomplete to be viewed as gospel. In fact for swamp to almost disregard the S3's lap time because it was so good in comparison to the cars with similar simga figures as a misprint says it all. You can't pick and chose what you want to believe just because it doesn't fit into a perfect little model, shit happens..........deal with it.

P.S.

There is nothing new being discussed here, so why are we.