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

[ismelllikepoop]

wow the arrogance of some ppl is absurd. this horse has been bludgeoned beyond recognition and i really dont see the point anymore

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by ismelllikepoop

wow the arrogance of some ppl is absurd. this horse has been bludgeoned beyond recognition and i really dont see the point anymore

And you are not continuing the process yourself? This whole post is nothing but a giant oxymoron and that is funny. As well the misunderstanding and unjustified negativity of others is even more absurd. Keep up the attacking opinions and I will keep replying right back. You can't repeat yourself into being either justified nor correct.

[ismelllikepoop]

that is my whole point, no one is going to be correct on this hypothetical issue yet you keep pushing yourself to be. i dont have issue with people stating their opinions whether i agree with them or not, but when they try to convey them as fact that is what bothers me. the whole smug attitude is what spurred me to post in the first place, something i do now realize was a mistake. like you said, you can't repeat yourself into being either justified nor correct.

[ersin]

Originally Posted by ismelllikepoop

wow the arrogance of some ppl is absurd.

This is a forum for BMW drivers. Whatd'ya expect?

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by ismelllikepoop

that is my whole point, no one is going to be correct on this hypothetical issue yet you keep pushing yourself to be. i dont have issue with people stating their opinions whether i agree with them or not, but when they try to convey them as fact that is what bothers me. the whole smug attitude is what spurred me to post in the first place, something i do now realize was a mistake. like you said, you can't repeat yourself into being either justified nor correct.

• I never called my analysis absolute, undeniable, without assumptions nor without uncertainties, period.
• I do stick by the methods I have used as completely valid.
• This is pretty reasonable evidence of an under rating. Most here agree with my conclusion, whether or not with this particular analysis.
• Many others have agreed that the analysis is based on sound methods and certainly provides another reasonable data point for a significant under rating of that particular car
• This is not a "hypothetical" issue. The car that did the 7:29 put out some amount of power and or was or was not completely showroom stock in every other regard. I would simply like to know some of the answers.
• You continue to use very strong, insulting and dismissive language without justification. Furthermore you have been directly refuted by me and others on one of your principal claims that you can not use any video evidence in this fashion.
• I think you have stated your point, over and over, ad hominems, oxymorons and continuing to beat the dead horse. It is time to call it quits. However, if you want to reasonably discuss real issues such as methods, assumptions, accuracy, etc. I am all ears.

[footie]

Originally Posted by swamp2

I never called my analysis absolute, undeniable, without assumptions nor without uncertainties, period.

Glad to hear you are becoming more reasonable to other people questioning your findings.

Originally Posted by swamp2

I do stick by the methods I have used as completely valid.

I never said your methods were not valid, only some of your data had enough holes to make your assumptions not reliable.

Originally Posted by swamp2

This is pretty reasonable evidence of an under rating. Most here agree with my conclusion, whether or not with this particular analysis.

Many others have agreed that the analysis is based on sound methods and certainly provides another reasonable data point for a significant under rating of that particular car

Agreed, it is under rated, all of them are, stock example in dealers and the one which lapped the ring in 7:29, but there is not enough data to say for sure that car was any different in output than any other.

Originally Posted by swamp2

This is not a "hypothetical" issue. The car that did the 7:29 put out some amount of power and or was or was not completely showroom stock in every other regard. I would simply like to know some of the answers.[/LIST]

We all would love to know but without all of the data like telematry we are making guesses which are misleading at best.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by footie

Glad to hear you are becoming more reasonable to other people questioning your findings.

This is why diction is so important, if you read the first post carefully you would see I said basically the same thing!

Originally Posted by footie

I never said your methods were not valid, only some of your data had enough holes to make your assumptions not reliable.

Not so, re read your post #14 for one. Your misunderstandings of the simulations, inputs and outputs have formed your biased opinion, not based on facts. However, to be fair a great deal of your criticism has been based on inputs, assumptions, etc., which is obviously, totally fair game.

Originally Posted by footie

Agreed, it is under rated, all of them are, stock example in dealers and the one which lapped the ring in 7:29, but there is not enough data to say for sure that car was any different in output than any other.

We will simply have to agree to disagree.

Originally Posted by footie

We all would love to know but without all of the data like telematry we are making guesses which are misleading at best.

That is the whole point of the CarTest work and of the regression work. To make it not a guess but an analysis. Every analysis will be subject to some error and uncertainties. See my previous comments to lucid on that topic. Again we will have to agree to disagree.

[LIKEWATER]

Originally Posted by JetBlack5OC

FYI

The 2009 GT-R base price went up.

2009 GT-R raised $69,850 to $76,840. The price for the Premium model has been increased even more, going from $71,900 to $79,090.

+ mark up, which is still happening. Just wait a couple years and pick a used one up after Nissan's crap depreciation value.


Also the R8 msrp is $109,000, invoice $101,370


I will take the slow R8 all day lone.

FYI

Go back and check your Audi R8 numbers.....
All the numbers I quoted come from manufactures websites for 2009 models with dual clutch or auto transmissions.

Why did you add the invoice price for the R8 ???

[T Bone]

http://www.motortrend.com/features/p...est/index.html


Discuss..... How is a 480 hp car able to get around the ring in under 7:30?

[urbo73]

Originally Posted by T Bone

http://www.motortrend.com/features/p...est/index.html


Discuss..... How is a 480 hp car able to get around the ring in under 7:30?

Not sure what point you're trying to make here....How is the Viper ACR able to get around under 7:30?

(on your post)

[T Bone]

Originally Posted by urbo73

Not sure what point you're trying to make here....How is the Viper ACR able to get around under 7:30?

(on your post)

Read the analysis on power regression done by Swamp2 and Lucid. 480 hp & 3800 pounds not the formula for 7:30.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by T Bone

http://www.motortrend.com/features/p...est/index.html


Discuss..... How is a 480 hp car able to get around the ring in under 7:30?

Sorry T, that is a repost. It has been discussed here on the forum.

[urbo73]

Originally Posted by T Bone

Read the analysis on power regression done by Swamp2 and Lucid. 480 hp & 3800 pounds not the formula for 7:30.

I did - it's nonsense. There are people who measure and people who drive...

[T Bone]

Originally Posted by swamp2

Sorry T, that is a repost. It has been discussed here on the forum.

Sorry Swampy....

Originally Posted by urbo73

I did - it's nonsense. There are people who measure and people who drive...

Great argument. You are awesome.

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by T Bone

...Discuss..... How is a 480 hp car able to get around the ring in under 7:30?

Without rehashing the 'Ring times, if you read this article without any warning bells going off, you need to read it again.

It's either bad reporting by someone who is unfamiliar with dyno testing, or it's a complete con job by the shop in question, and they're looking for ink...

Bruce

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by urbo73

I did - it's nonsense. There are people who measure and people who drive...

OK genius.... you're right, F=ma doesn't work.

And then there are the brilliant engineers who can both drive quite competently and do math far beyond your comprehension. Both these types and the pocket protector wearing ones who can't drive fast at all are largely responsible for the engineering (i.e. SCIENCE) based advance of consumer sporting cars and of the most extreme race cars around F1. Do you have any idea how much engineereing, science, math, test and measurement goes in on F1. Apparently not.

[Irb Digital]

I know that the drivers are the guys making the big bucks. I know that those drivers are typically not engineers, they're gifted athletes with amazing reflexes and vision. But thats a whole n'other can o worms. The never ending debate of what's more important, the car or the driver. Some people say Lewis Hamilton won because of he was in the fastest car, but then why was his teammate so bad? Especially after being considered one of the better drivers when he raced for Renault. My vote is with the driver.

[Robin_NL]

Originally Posted by swamp2

OK genius.... you're right, F=ma doesn't work.

And then there are the brilliant engineers who can both drive quite competently and do math far beyond your comprehension. Both these types and the pocket protector wearing ones who can't drive fast at all are largely responsible for the engineering (i.e. SCIENCE) based advance of consumer sporting cars and of the most extreme race cars around F1. Do you have any idea how much engineereing, science, math, test and measurement goes in on F1. Apparently not.

Agreed, but the (race)driver does the job(laptimes) especially in Formula 1....

[urbo73]

Originally Posted by swamp2

OK genius.... you're right, F=ma doesn't work.

And then there are the brilliant engineers who can both drive quite competently and do math far beyond your comprehension. Both these types and the pocket protector wearing ones who can't drive fast at all are largely responsible for the engineering (i.e. SCIENCE) based advance of consumer sporting cars and of the most extreme race cars around F1. Do you have any idea how much engineereing, science, math, test and measurement goes in on F1. Apparently not.

You don't know anything about me - stop calling out names and getting so personal. The funny thing is that I have a degree in physics (Cornell, '95), AND I've raced in Formula Ford SCCA 1600/2000 ZETEC (96-99). So I'm going to say I know quite a bit about science as well as racing. People on forums should take it easy before dishing out stuff....What is your background and, more importantly, experience? I stand by what I said.

[lucid]

T-Bone, where have you been man? This has been debated to death here and elsewhere, so I stopped posting on these threads.

Urbo, there is no nonsense associated with regression analysis. It is what it is. By itself, it identifies correlation, not cause and effect. The rest is interpretation. However, when you have reason to think there is cause and effect, and consider it in conjunction with the regression outcome, you can ask certain questions.

The car's performance is governed by physics. If the car is indeed as fast as Nissan claims, there must be a physics-based explanation. I don't understand how "people who drive" have anything to do with that physics-based explanation unless those people are also technically oriented and can offer that physics-based explanation. There is only one type of discussion to be had. The rest is pointless unless you think the driver introduces performance possibilities that can't be explained by physics. Then you'd be living in another world.

Power/weight is a pretty good place to start. If you have any other physics-based observation/data that would explain the performance of this car, share it with us. I am pretty sure others have added other parameters into the regression, which did not turn out to be significant. What would be great to include is some way of characterizing this car's ability to find traction in the corners and potentially reaching higher exit speeds. I think somebody tried skidpad numbers, but they didn't make a difference as that doesn't tell the accelerating out of corners story. Based on what we currently have on the table, I think it is "highly likely" that the car that did the run was underrated.

We are not talking about how much faster one driver can be from another on the ring, which is also been discussed. I personally think the variation assocaited with that is much higher than what most people have been saying, but that's another story.

[footie]

I agree with Lucid, it has been debate to death with some people on one side and others on the other side. It's a oil and water discussion where the two don't mix.

Though while I agree that the regression is a useful tool it's not exact science in the same way as dyno results don't quite tell the whole story. The assumption that power and weight plus tyre and brake size give an good gauge for the final outcome is not correct, a good point to this is motorsport, take F1 for example the cars on the grip all weigh the same, all produce with 3% of each other and all use basically the same brakes and the exact same rubber but you will find in any race a difference of up to 3~5 seconds between the front runners and the ones at the back and that is not all down to driver input.

Always remember that somethings can't always be explained away with facts and figures.

[lucid]

Footie, there is a physics-based explanation as to why the some F1 cars are faster than others. And it has everything to do with which car has the better engine, suspension, downforce, drag, and brakes, and have well the driver can explore their limits. I am not sure what your point is. Also, a 3% difference in power/weight ratio can result in a noticable difference in lap times, but I suspect the actual difference in between the first and last place cars is larger than that although I really don't know the details on that. Where did you get the 3% figure?