|
|
12-21-2007, 01:55 PM | #177 |
Captain
68
Rep 706
Posts |
Swamp, swamp.
Just so you know, i just changed the title twice just now on my thread about "what other cars you would consider below $70k". Originally it said "consider around $70k". How long you've been on this forum, and you did'nt know you could change your thread title, see how easy it is to be wrong. But it's okay to be wrong, there's nothing wrong with that at all, as long as you learn from your mistakes. Back on topic, again your sadly mistakenly confusing your so called evidence to actual proof. But i'm not going to waste my time.
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-21-2007, 02:08 PM | #178 | |
Lieutenant General
609
Rep 10,407
Posts |
Quote:
Again, all I am calling the evidence I listed is EVIDENCE. I am absolutely not calling it PROOF. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-21-2007, 02:13 PM | #179 |
Captain
68
Rep 706
Posts |
When you go to edit, click the advance tab. From there you can edit the title as well as your post. No problem bro.
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-21-2007, 02:46 PM | #180 | |||
Conspicuous consumption
97
Rep 1,183
Posts |
Swamp,
One of the things I like about you is you are always good to reply to people's posts, even if it isn't fun. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
My opinion didn't fly with your fantasy that the M3 outperforms everything in it's class for the money, unlike my thread on the M3 being a better performer, C2S without an LSD, which, surprise surprise, you thought was a great thread on my part. Although I am sure you also believe the M3 is also a better performer than a C2S with a LSD per your belief that the M3 is the best perfoming car for the money. If I am lucky enough that my opinion happens to fit into your M3 performance fantasy world, there is never an argument between us now is there? Infact, I would be getting that a boys from you. This GT-R must really be causing you some dissonance and heartache. 0-60 in 3.3 and not on ideal surfaces. No more, at least logically, hanging your hat on the M3 being the performance/price choice. So now, as expected, you back track and say price to performance is not the most important thing....oh ya, so now what is the most important thing...back seats or in reality is it really the fancy German Marque and accompanying status and street cred? What else could it be? Performance, obviously is not your first prioty, as you always state, because if it was, there are now better choices than the M3 don't you think? Now if you would of just said, you just like M3's the best, that would of be fine. However, to see you go on and on the past few years about the M3's performance advantage vs the competition and how price to performance is what sets it apart from the competition; then just as quickly about face and try to discredit the GT-R in every which way, looks a bit disingenuous don't you think? Would you still like more of my opinions on the GT-R vs M3 in regards to price/performance? If I were a betting man, I would guess you will respond to this, even though you claim you will not. Venture to guess your ego and "status" will not be able to let this go. However, I could be wrong and have been wrong many times over, something you apparently have never had the fortune or misfortune to experience. |
|||
Appreciate
0
|
12-21-2007, 05:11 PM | #181 | |
Lieutenant General
609
Rep 10,407
Posts |
Quote:
By misquoting, what I specifically mean is that you have missed the unequivocally clear INTENT of my stance (which was explicitly clarified ad nauseam) by quoting a single sentence I placed in a post. Are you familiar with the immense power of limited quoting? Politicians do it all the time. Even in the post from which this quote came from it was clear that given the present state of the evidence I am unwilling to admit I am incorrect about the possibility that the GT-R is under-rated. My crystal clear stance for perhaps the millionth time is that there is evidence on both sides and the jury is out. You know this is my position but can't let go of your silent little jabbing me in the side exercise/game. You simply have to cut to the chase here and say you agree that my stance is clear and that your isolated quote unfaithfully represents my stance. If you claim otherwise, we simply can not continue a rational discussion on this. This is the one direct, no nonsene question for which I demand a yes/no answer from you. Funny you mention how I am "never wrong" when I just was a couple posts back! gbb357 pointed out me being 100% wrong and I thanked him for a useful tip. Talk about absolute maximum irony.... Are you following along here? Is the ADD getting to you as well? Oh well nice try. You are also flattering yourself greatly in your characterization as to why I am arguing with you. It could not be much less related to the potential competitive stance between BMW and Nissan and the M3 vs. GT-R. Continue on with your view of convenience, it is categorically incorrect. This is another point I have been clear, repetetive and unwavering on. I still do contend that once we know the M3s price it will OVERALL outperform everything in its class and cost less as well. We pretty much know this already. Sure the C63 is faster in a line and the IS-F will be close enough that this will be a drivers race. But in all comparisons thus far the M3 has prevailed OVERALL. I simply do not call the GT-R a direct competitor to the M3 its targets are the 997TT and Z06, etc. Comparisons will be abound between the M3 and GT-R and they are certainly more appropriate than say a Cayman to a C63, but the actual "out the door" US price is a much bigger question on the GT-R than M3, isn't it? If the GT-R performs as it has been and it is sold for list price we have heard, it will be THE price to performance champ in the ENTIRE world, period. That is what I admire most about the car and it is a "spec" Nissan execs have directly quoted themselves, something like the cars "lap time per dollar". Not only do I respect this but I have touted it over and over and over. Will you please read what I write and accept it as my honest opinion rather than the constant psychology games and meta-posts where you try to fit what you think are my motivations with my actual words. Your ability to reconcile the two is NIL. Ugh, back to Porsche and the 997S. What a dead topic. Who in their right mind would not say that in terms of raw performance numbers that the M3s price to performance far exceeds the 997S? This case is closed. You can argue steering feel, brake fade, weight (pretty red or yellow calipers) and this and that all day, but in the end the numbers are what they are the and M3 pretty much matches or exceeds the 997S in all metrics for nearly $25k less. CASE CLOSED. Your perpetual second guessing, accusations through "psychological speculation", meta-posts and misrepresentation are absolutely exhausting. It is 100% apparent you do not wish to discuss the actual issue at hand and have nothing to add there. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-21-2007, 07:55 PM | #182 | |
Conspicuous consumption
97
Rep 1,183
Posts |
I figured you couldn't help yourself and you would have to respond despite your statement not to do so. You are a master flip flopper, numbers cooker, and slick, when it is convenient for you to do so. This is why it useless to even try to present real evidence to you and have any kind of legitimate debate. Remember you drivel about Toyota and Lexus getting the best of me with marketing and then when I presented the evidence from J.D. Power and Associates, you had a quick change of tune, but of course you were still right and I was wrong....Classic Swamp.
Quote:
You are quick to dismiss steering feel as a subjective performance factor becase it is apparently numb in the M3 and great in Porsches. You even inferred you were pleased it was more numb than the base 3 series. Another example of your master of rationalization to fit your rigid thinking. You do this because it obviously bolsters your M3 DCT fantasy. If the M3 had great steering feel we would never hear the end from you with how important it is and how it bests it's competitors. We both have driven enough cars to know steering feel is very real and is of the upmost importance to a sports car. It is much more important than your obsession about a tenth of second here or there, but listening to you, you would never know it. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-21-2007, 09:12 PM | #183 | |
Lieutenant General
609
Rep 10,407
Posts |
Quote:
You are right and I am wrong (enjoy that b$%&#, it is not going to happen often) I said I would not continue to engage, but I can not just let your enormous absurdity go on and on and on. Have fun, keep changing the topics, rehashing old news, drawing in totally irrelevant old news, never address the real issues up for debate and discussion and weasel your way out of any serious and honest admissions. You don't want to deal with evidence here EVER because you never have any. It is that simple. Nice avoidance of the SINGLE yes/no question I demanded you answer. It is painfully obvious why you can't - it makes your last 5 or so posts completely worthless/redundant/contradictory. Oh well enjoy wallowing in your own mess. This is absolutely and truly despicable to me ruff. ANSWER THE F&^$@#* QUESITON ABOVE YOU COWARD! If I sound pissed, I am. You are really getting me going now. Time to back up your BS empty statements. FIND ME A single god damn number I have "cooked". You can't you lying sack. Time to not be so jealous of someone good with numbers, science and evidence. Time to head back into your little dark age cave and enjoy your hopelessly subjective world. Last I checked car performance was a very OBJECTIVE thing, that means NUMBERS. No, it is certainly not the whole story but they sure don't talk much about feel and other flowery BS when the winner gets the checkered flag do they? Show me any number where the 997S price to performance ratio bests the E92 M3, then you have an agrument on this. Of course if you value two tenths here or there at $25k then yes-sir-eee you've got a point. Until then NOTHING. Yes, CASE CLOSED. Perhaps you should refer back to the thread tracking all of the performance figures for both cars? Oh yeah that is objective and compiled by a bunch of members here, myself included - it must be cooked. Ugh. Another fantastic mis-representation of my comments on steering feel vs. steering numbness. You simply can not accurately recapitulate anything I say here, despite it being CRYSTAL clear. You change, warp and modify to suit your own twisted little games, insecurities and lies. It is beyond old, ruff, time to act like a freaking adult. Just to be 100% clear (again) on the steering issue: I said I feel that the E36 M3, although having excellent steering transmits too much of the bad along with the good through its steering system. I thought it would be a great idea for BMW to lose as much of the bad while trying to preserve as much of the good/needed feel and feedback as possible. And although I have not driven the car IT SOUNDS like this is what they have done. This is simply NOT AT ALL how you represented my thoughts above, NOT AT ALL. I may be embarrasing myself here with my inability to control my anger but you are embarassing yourself in a much worse way. Ruff, this is pathetic. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-21-2007, 10:41 PM | #184 | |
Banned
11
Rep 471
Posts |
Quote:
2) meaningless...I'm pretty sure if nissan controlled both cars, we can predict the 'winner'...now put a factory Porsche with Walter out there...different outcome... 3)short lap...cut slicks 4)cut slicks, prototype, tweeks? 5)all form Japanese sources indebted/beholden to nissan and nation pride... we'll know in 1.25 years when it's released in Europe... til then: 500 lbs heavier 16% less torque 1/3 less power band >driveline loss same HP NOT faster, no way... |
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-21-2007, 10:57 PM | #185 | |
Lieutenant General
609
Rep 10,407
Posts |
Quote:
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-21-2007, 11:30 PM | #186 | |||||
Conspicuous consumption
97
Rep 1,183
Posts |
Swamp,
First of all, your post and the tone of it speaks volumes. I will just leave it at that. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
You continually use your simulation numbers to put the M3 in a good light and it's competition in a negative light, especially before the actual numbers are out. Once the actual numbers are out, and you find out that the M3 didn't stack up so well to the C63 and GT-R, as you so humbly predicted, then you wave the only flag you have left, which is the white flag and say the competition is hp underrated, which indeed it may be. My point is, your pre- actual number analysis has not lived up to your pre-actual number hype for the M3 against the competition. How come? How about this, maybe If you wouldn't have been so biased towards the M3 from the get go, you would of have originally predicted the better C63 and GT-R 0-60 times... just a thought. My point is: bias effects the numbers we want to see and not see. Quote:
Oh ya, the "flowery" steering feedback does effect a cars performance, especially in the corners. You don't believe it? Hit a corner at high speed with numb steering feel and see where you confidence and speed is in the next corner. Quote:
Actually, I am a bit embarrassed for you, but still respect you. As we both know, profanity and anger does not enhance one's argument, it only diminishes it. Last edited by ruff; 12-21-2007 at 11:53 PM.. |
|||||
Appreciate
0
|
12-22-2007, 02:51 AM | #187 | |
Lieutenant General
609
Rep 10,407
Posts |
Quote:
Let's keep going... You did not answer the question I demanded that you answer. You answered the wrong one. Again it seems you just do not read nor understand the points of anything I write. I agree 100% that simulation is garbage in and garbage out. I very much like to classify it that way, it is its essense. It can, therefore, be totally biased. But again your false assumptions about my use of such tools is so insidious it makes me nothing but an evil liar. Which I am not. Let me understand this. I know what various inputs to the software should be, but I'm so insecure about my own personal car preferences that I purposefully (or maybe even funnier - subconsciously) stack the inputs against cars that I often admire very much, but simply are not my favorites and that I don't want to buy myself? Ruff, this is so offensive and categorically false it is actually a bit humorous/entertaining. Every accusation and insinuation you make along these lines is so inaccurate and untrue it astounds me. With science comes responsibility and despite my opinions, my use of science is governed by a life long study and commitment to it. Although passionate and stubborn about cars, I simply will not abuse science nor simulation for these petty reasons. Perhaps you will recall that simulation is also my profession (loosely, not actively doing it as an engineer these days but have, now on the sales and marketing side - TECHNICAL sales that is). Remember to me science>cars, truth>ego, engineering>driving skill. Maybe someday you will understand one or two simple things about me, but not yet, not even close. No matter how many times I state my goals and lay it all on the table of how I try to meet those goals you simply can not be convinced against your bizarre theories of my psychology and motivations. My goal with cars is a deeper understanding of them through consistency of specs with performance and through engineering explanations, period. So how does this relate to my simulation efforts on various cars. The M3 is fairly easy to simulate as nothing is hiding in the numbers. It takes very few changes to default values to get its numbers correct (pretty much shift times only). Do remember my initial inability to get reasonable DCT sims though and how I carefully posted the explanation for that and thanked lucid who gave me the simple insight to get it correct? You probably forgot or simply did not read that. On to the C63 AMG which is so clearly under-rated. My enveloping procedure showed this very clearly and the dyno results on an almost identical engine really made that "case closed". Will the M3 M-DCT be very close to as fast as the C63, yes pretty close to 100 mph or so, but then it simply won't be able to keep up. The obvious reason is the large hp deficit. Will it best it back on the track, I'd say very likely. No bias, real numbers, solid conclusions. Do I think the C63 is pretty darn ugly, yes, will that bias me to not give it a completely fair shake in simulation, not an iota of a chance. There is little hiding one can do from truth and facts and good science. I would simply have to be a fool to think I could pull off some grandiose deception like this - selectively incorrect inputs. Hmmm, next: Did I use the incorrect IS-F final drive number that someone provided to me, yes. Did I admit and explain the error and revise my theory based on correcting the mistake? Yes. It is all so simple ruff, your outlandish theories that constantly attack my credibility are simply without merit. My previous comments about the checkered flag were only to make the point that in motor sports performance directly tied to solid numerical quantities (lap time) always rules. Similarly knowing your and your vehicles capability precisely and providing razor sharp consistency rules in more straight line type of events. No one really cares what the winning nor losing driver feels about the comfort, steering feel, brake feel, etc. Sure the driver cares a bit and teams surely do there fair share of obsessing on these things, but in the end, the numbers speak much louder. This was (obviously) not an argument of the only way one should choose a car - especially choosing a car for a daily driver that one may occsionally take to the track. Misunderstanding, misunderstanding, misunderstanding. Last on steering feel: You have it wrong here again, sorry. It is possible to isolate or filter through simple engineering principals (mass, stiffness, damping) the bad feel and feedback from a steering system vs. the good feel. The bad feel is much more an NVH issue and the transmission of higher frequency "noise" i.e. vibration through the front chassis and steering components which then affect the feel at the wheel. Good feel obviously relates to the ability to feel what your tires are doing and being able to gage the force feedback into the system from the turning tires. An ability to feel the behavior of the tire itself and the contact patch is also important. This feedback happens from the torque exerted on the wheels through their contact patch working through the front end geometry that tends to self correct turned wheels back to straight. Important design considerations here are steering ratio, power assist vs. no power assist, steering boost, rack design/mechanism, front end suspension type (McPherson vs. double A-arm), etc. Although in practice the design of a system with very good "good feel" relies to some extent on enough stiffness of the front sub frame, suspension arms, the entire steering rack and shafts going to the steering wheel. This stiffness can indeed have a deleterious effect in increasing bad steering feel. Damping and isolator stiffness in the suspension and steering systems will also affect both bad and good steering feel but with careful engineering you can absolutely improve/maintain one and reduce the other. It is my hope and speculation, very loosely supported by various testers comments, that these issues were addressed in the design of the E9X M3s systems. It could be some reality here it could be hopeless want as well. More importantly though than my opinion is that to a large extent each driver, only after some time really spent probing the limits in the car, will be able to decide this. And it will be a matter of opinion with a tremendous amount of subjectivity involved. Can we please, please stop the incessant questioning of motivation, re-hashing the past, credibility attacks, meta-posts, etc. It is really a bit of a circus and relies on essentially unverifiable speculation. We will disagree but neither of us can really prove many of these things. Our posts that are on topic must speak for themselves. If we can better stick to the issues, our own arguments and opinions, what we think about other's on topic arguments and opinions and then keep all of this primarily focused on cars and the E9X M3, everyone will be way better off. I have been requesting and suggesting this to you in many posts. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-22-2007, 04:02 AM | #188 |
Major General
1072
Rep 8,008
Posts
Drives: i4M50
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: No where fast
|
swamp,
I must say that ruff does give you a really hard time and like you said regardless of what answers you give in return. I actually think the times you have given for the M-DCT is as good as we can get given that there is currently no actual data and spec to work with. It's doubtful that BMW will alter the character of the M3 engine to this new gearbox though in fairness it would be a very simple thing to done and might be beneficial. Will the M3 with M-DCT match either the C63 or IS-F to 150mph, definitely NO against the C63, it extra power and way more torque will always win in such situations. As for the IS-F, that's a trickier one to answer, I reckon the IS-F will win but by the smallest of margins. On the track, sorry but there is no substitute for the engineering in the M3. |
Appreciate
0
|
12-22-2007, 05:53 AM | #189 | |
Lieutenant General
609
Rep 10,407
Posts |
Quote:
I think the 0-150 (and other) times will look something like this for M3 M-DCT, IS-F, C63: To clarify key assumptions (in case ruff is reading ). Almost everything is "default" in the sims except shift times. For the M3 and M3 M-DCT (.25 and .03 s respectively), for both the MB and IS-F I have assumed very fast shifting, high performance, low loss automatics (not as low loss as a std. MT though). For example Lexus claims the IS-F will shift in 100ms but I made up a reasonable engagement time to match (not very significant anyway). Lastly with the AMG I have used some known acceleration numbers to establish the under-rating of the car and then just ran with those more realistic figures for hp and tq. Also relevant:Simulation results at high speeds require detailed frontal area and drag figures, the latter of which is probably fudged quite a bit. For this reason the 150 mph times are likely less accurate than the 100 mph or less figures. What should be the most accurate is their order and relative differences. Last but not least BMW may have chosen different optimization goals than mine for the DCT gearing and if so there is no reason the IRL results could be expected to match my sims. However, that being said, I think I chose very reasonable gear optimization of simply asking for a bit more performance "everywhere". |
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-22-2007, 08:23 AM | #190 | |
Expert Road Racer
59
Rep 1,329
Posts |
Quote:
It's obvious you are a newbie to the 911TT v GT-R discussions that have been flying around the internet for quite awhile now, so until you have something new or enlightening to add, engaging in this discussion with you is like hitting my head with a hammer. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-22-2007, 10:02 AM | #191 | ||||||
Conspicuous consumption
97
Rep 1,183
Posts |
Quote:
Do you have the ability to simply admit you are wrong without saying another word? Your answer: How is one able to misinterpret this? Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Narcissism, sincerety, and sorry do not go together. Hard to have an honest and fair debate with someone who believes he is always right and others are always wrong, even when it comes to something as "flowery and "subjective" as steering, right? Quote:
So, do not try to kid yourself into believing I am so naive as to think that our perceptions and biases do not effect our interpretations of a cars performance numbers. Unless of course your are so naive to believe that it doesn't. Last edited by ruff; 12-22-2007 at 10:32 AM.. |
||||||
Appreciate
0
|
12-22-2007, 10:42 AM | #192 |
Conspicuous consumption
97
Rep 1,183
Posts |
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-22-2007, 06:31 PM | #193 | |||||||
Lieutenant General
609
Rep 10,407
Posts |
Quote:
Quote:
You did indeed miss the example of me being wrong, admitting it, thanking the fellow and moving right along didn't you? Please read, it is so tiring that you won't. This has happened (me being wrong) a few times in the past here and the same thing happens. Just because you can't point to an event between us does not make it universal fact. This is such a clear fallacy of a biased sample and guess what - YOU ARE WRONG. Quote:
You misinterpret and misrepresent the explicitly repeated and clarified meaning of my quotes and miss key questions that I ask you. It is painfully obvious that you simply DON'T READ MY POSTS. Give it a try, you might see much that renders 80% of your replies repitition, confusion and irrelevant. I am not going to give you the luxury of repeating my "KEY" question. It was labeled as such the first time I made it, it was painfully obvious and explicit, and if you will simply read you will see it. If you want to maintain any sense of dignity or ability to debate in a reasonable fashion you will answer the question. THE KEY QUESTION. When you do your inconsistency and fallacies will be highlighted. Quote:
Sure the Z06 whoops the M3 in performance big time (what a boring and foregone conclusion...) but I just can not figure out why you want to continue with these comparisons? Both the Z06 and GT-R are phenomenal cars for price to performance, besting European super cars costing twice as much. BUT IMO THEY ARE NOT CLOSE M3 COMPETITORS. How many times can I say this? As you know, they both are about $10k more expensive than the base M3. Some current estimates I have seen are estimating the GT-R to be going for $15k-$20k over sticker. If so, which I think is likely, this also makes these cars much more remote "competitors", if you can even still use that word. I have explained my own personal rationale and criteria for choosing a car to you over and over and over again. Literally a half dozen times on different threads. My criteria pushes me heavily toward the M3. What is the point? You have to like the looks before you get to an analysis of price to performance (well at least I do). As well, the car has to be in the basic size, type, class, price range etc. first before other important criteria are invoked. This is just my process and it is all so simple and obvious to me. Probably not that much different than most folks process. If you have a different process, different criteria, whatever, that's fine. If a Z06 or GT-R or Cayman S or C63 AMG or whatever it is tickles your fancy the most, BUY ONE. You can have your reasons and I can have mine and they will never be the same. Why the obsession with my criteria and rationale for choosing a car? I certainly don't exhibit the same obsession here as you. And, as long as this keeps going I will continue to claim that among its close competitors the M3 offers the best price to performance ratio you can find. It also equals or bests the performance of cars costing $25-$40k more. My list of these competitors roughly includes the following (RS4, C63 AMG, IS-F, Vantage V8, CTS-V, Jaguar XKR, 997S, R8). Again some are closer competitors with the E90 than the E92 and some are a bit more of a stretch than others (R8 based on size, seat count for example). This is my view of "close" competitors based on a combination of class, price, performance, size, etc. I suppose a reasonable argument based on price and performance could put the GT-R and Z06 in any list containing the 997S and R8 but those are cars are on the periphery anyway so sure, some subjectivity in involved. Everyone must have their own "lists". Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Sure it takes two to tango but I am very much in defense mode here and you know why - your attacks on the core of my beliefs, motivations, methods, etc. Science can indeed be full of bias, politics, hidden motivations and the like. My methods, analysis, interpretation, theories, conclusions and even my speculations are 100% open to scrutiny, yours, the forums, the net and the whole world. We'll simply have to agree to disagree, you think I am hopelessly biased, fudge and fake numbers, am a fanboy and do bad science. I believe the direct opposite and will let my posts stand for their content to be judged by this community. Many of which has explicitly appreciated their novelty, insight, accuracy and value. Period. Perhaps you can bring some of these things here other than whining, attacking, focusing on prose and entirely subjective issues. |
|||||||
Appreciate
0
|
12-22-2007, 09:18 PM | #194 | |
Captain
17
Rep 658
Posts |
Quote:
If it hasn't been released you're making comparisions based on estimates for the M3 price and any markup on the GTR. not really all that fact based is it? perhaps we can leave the value question out until we have some confirmed numbers. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-22-2007, 09:19 PM | #195 | |
Captain
17
Rep 658
Posts |
Quote:
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-22-2007, 10:32 PM | #196 | |||||||
Colonel
99
Rep 2,000
Posts |
Quote:
Quote:
This is like saying that quarter mile passes vary by the cube root of the power to weight ratio. That's also statistically true, but traction, gearing and weather absolutely screw up the results on a car by car basis. It's also pretty much like saying that the GT-R is Massively under-rated... I also have trouble with two of the the mitigating factors. Ace driver? Nobody's better than Rohrl, and his 7:40 Porsche Turbo time is proof enough. As for the tires, I'm willing to believe that Nissan and Bridgestone have established a higher performance plane for runflats, but up until now, nobody's done a runflat that will stay with, say, a PS2, Advan Neova or Falken Azenis. Let's say the new combo will run with those stalwarts and leave it at that. A PSC competitor? Not likely as yet. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I'd also question the power lost to a sophisticated awd system, The normally aspirated 911S vs the 4S shows very little difference in both quarter mile times and speeds, and since the Turbo uses the same system, it's likely to be very efficient as well. Note that very little power is transferred forward in these cars, and essentially none if traction isn't an issue - which it won't be for most of a quarter mile. If power isn't being transmitted, there's no loss, and these are lightweight parts indeed since they never transmit a lot of torque. I can't speak for the GT-R, but assume it will be at least as sophisticated. Quote:
Quote:
The other is in the form of a question. In this current day of no restrictions on Japanese cars and 500 and 600 horsepower cars coming out of Europe and the States, why on Earth would Nissan bother to lie, especially since they're going to face the SAE music shortly? Swamp, your list smacks of a biased train of thought. When I combine this with your commentary that's there's nothing special about this car, it makes me wonder about your motives. As fas as I can tell, pretty much everything is special about this car. Bruce |
|||||||
Appreciate
0
|
12-23-2007, 05:17 AM | #197 | |
Lieutenant General
609
Rep 10,407
Posts |
Quote:
My comments and contentions are: Our regression analysis as well as a bit of common sense showed that N'ring times are indeed dominated by power to weight. It is a fast track that obviously favors high hp just the same way the 1/4 mi run does. Tires, driver and other effects are obviously significant factors, and I think those two are the largerst after power to weight. Suspension can be a big factor but I suspect there is just ulimately too little variation in practice to see much of an effect here. I did add lateral g force (as an overall measure of tires+chassis+suspension) as a regression parameter and although it did have an effect it was quite small. So again lap times are absolutely dominated by power to weight. By the way do you recall the sensitivity study done with varying number of cars by lucid and another by me? Not only did that show very little effect, the large number of cars themselves represent a nicely semi-randomized group of events. Not perfect data, surely, but as good as we have and good enough to draw a solid conclusion from. What exact problem do you have with the ace driver point? This is a mitigating factor AGAINST an under-rating theory. With a top notch driver that Nissan had he could get a better time than most, certainly better than Horst, and this would be an effect that looks like an under-rating but then actually is not. It is simply an ace driver. On the tires, who knows, may be as good as a PS2, maybe a PSC+ maybe not a PSC, who knows. Given the history and what run flats have achieved to date I'll trust you that it is unlikely that these tires will perform as well as a PSC. Given the level of innovation we see in the car... I'm not sure exactly where I stand on the drive train losses of the GT-R vs tiptronic. The GT-Rs drivetrain loss is almost for sure > 997TT 6MT but do the extra cases and shafts balance out vs. the AT? Might be close. I think you are on to something here with the variable F/R torque split. A modern and sophisticated AWD is able to effectively limit power losses (and preserve good steering feel as well) to figures much closer to a TWD equivalent system when the transmission to the front wheels can be almost disenegaged. If the vast majority of the power is routed this way on acceleration this can make the car accelerate closer to a TWD equivalent. A quick check indicates Audis quattro system has a permanent 40/60 split F/R whereas the Carrera system can vary the split between 40/60 to 5/95. The GT-R varies from 50/50 to 2/98 and it makes adjustments every 20 ms! (Side note BMWs xDrive system can vary between 0/100 and 100/0 but I can not find how often it adjusts). Hence the characteristically high drive train loss we see on the RS4 and hence also the close acceleration times you have found comparing C4 vs C4S. Time for some more simulation! I need the ability to switch off the AWD after launch which I am having a hard time figuring out how to do immediately... Another important factor as far as handling and preventing torque steer during hard acceleration will be the further ability to split the power left to right as well as fore to aft and I suspect the GT-R does this nicely at both ends. I have never said that there is nothing special about the GT-R, period. What I have said is that it is unlikely that Nissan has entirely reinvented the sports car. I'll be the first to admit and congratulate Nissan for the technological prowess of the car (and have made these statements over and over and over again all over this thread and other places in the forum). The drivetrain is likely one of the most advanced around but the suspension being active/adjustable and user configurable is nothing particularly new and not something that has shown to be an enormous effect on laptimes nor on absolute grip level, etc. Do keep in mind the "lowly" Evo can adjust it's F/R torque split amost identically to the GT-R (a bit more control actually, 50/50 to 0/100) and does so actively as well. The question is can it adjust it as often or as quickly as the GT-R. I have heard the rumor that Nissan is shooting for SAE certification of "around" 480 hp. I posted the exact quote earlier in this thread. However SAE hp certification is 100% voluntary, correct? Thanks for some good points and definitely points that matter toward getting to the bottom of this issue. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-23-2007, 08:54 AM | #198 | |
Major General
1072
Rep 8,008
Posts
Drives: i4M50
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: No where fast
|
Quote:
I can't comment on whether Quattro loses more power than either Porsche's setup or Nissan's but I can't believe it's any worse then either because Autocar tested both the M3 and RS4, their split times at each speed segament right up to 150mph only place the two cars 0.3s apart and as both have identical power outputs and their torque figures on the most part are also very close one must assume that Quattro doesn't lose that much power at all. Also you have to remember that the RS4 weighs over 100kgs more in that test which is surely another disadvantage in terms to acceleration. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
Post Reply |
Bookmarks |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|