More drivers question Nissan's Nurburgring time

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by th3Stig

So are any of you all engineers or test drivers? Or is this all just assumption based upon the programs on your computer in front of you and your sweet driving M3?

Degrees in math and physics, worked for years as a mechanical engineer doing brakes and suspension on high end mountain bikes. For quite a few years, after "crossing to the dark side", have been doing sales and marketing of engineering software. Test driver? I wish I had that much skill behind the wheel.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by footie

I guess we will all agree to disagree on this. I personally disagree and will continue to disagree that the 7:29 was producing different power an all the others.

But to be clear you did agree with me that the 7:29 car was under rated and likely producing in the neighborhood of 530 hp. Again what is 50 hp among friends

If you then also believe that the DR car had the same 530 hp I would say their lap time was poor at best.

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

[footie]

Originally Posted by swamp2

But to be clear you did agree with me that the 7:29 car was under rated and likely producing in the neighborhood of 530 hp. Again what is 50 hp among friends

If you then also believe that the DR car had the same 530 hp I would say their lap time was poor at best.

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

swamp,

The evidence is there in DR's data and the matched ZR1 vs GTR final straight video which I might add you built your entire debate/argument on. We don't have to be rocket scientists to make a close guess on the speed the GTR was doing up that straight in relation to the ZR1 and as I said the DR's GTR all but matched the Nissan GTR.

Now for the DR's lap time with their car. Chris felt confident that someone of Suzuki's skill could post a 7:40 in that car on that day (7:55 minus 10s for driver + 5s for tyres), improve the conditions could drop this still further. The question is how close to the 7:29 would be possible with that car.

Say for argument's sake that this particular car with ideal conditions could drop this another 4s that would be a theoretical 7:36 and that is close enough in my mind to believe that a race suspension setup could possibly pull the final seconds. A misrepresentation by Nissan that a stock car did the time in question but not to the extent that a stock car couldn't be made to recreate the lap without any real modifications.

P.S.
A 7:36 lap is only between 1~2% slower than the 7:29 lap.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by footie

swamp,

The evidence is there in DR's data and the matched ZR1 vs GTR final straight video which I might add you built your entire debate/argument on. We don't have to be rocket scientists to make a close guess on the speed the GTR was doing up that straight in relation to the ZR1 and as I said the DR's GTR all but matched the Nissan GTR.

Now for the DR's lap time with their car. Chris felt confident that someone of Suzuki's skill could post a 7:40 in that car on that day (7:55 minus 10s for driver + 5s for tyres), improve the conditions could drop this still further. The question is how close to the 7:29 would be possible with that car.

Say for argument's sake that this particular car with ideal conditions could drop this another 4s that would be a theoretical 7:36 and that is close enough in my mind to believe that a race suspension setup could possibly pull the final seconds. A misrepresentation by Nissan that a stock car did the time in question but not to the extent that a stock car couldn't be made to recreate the lap without any real modifications.

P.S.
A 7:36 lap is only between 1~2% slower than the 7:29 lap.

Absolutely typical reply. No proof and avoiding the questions.

1. Please provide ANY proof based on multiple time vs. distance or speed vs. distance markers that the DR GT-R matched the 7:29 lap. What you have provided in the past is so weak and full of incorrect inputs it is really quite embarrasing. I would call it speculation more than "logic" or "analysis" or even opinion. I am more than willing to look at data and an analysis but you have not provided anything. DR did not supply equivalent nor useful data in this regard so the terms fabrication and imagination come to mind.

2. YES OR NO only the 7:29 car had in the neighborhood of 530 hp? You must answer "yes" here because you have stated this absolutely explicity many times in our previous debates. This leads me to ask you to simply refer back to my previous post. 7:55 sucks for 530 hp and this chassis/tire/tranny/AWD system/etc. and of course you can not have your cake and eat it to.

Race suspension, better day, 1-2%, etc. all pretty irrelevant and purely speculative. These are diversions my friend, diversions. However, if you want to admit the 7:29 car did that achievement with both 530 hp and a suspension vastly different than OEM that is fine with me. More evidence Nissan lied and cheated. But hey, I didn't say it.

[matt beard]

Originally Posted by swamp2

Poor technique as usual. I am not immune from mistakes and like I always do when they happen I quickly and graciously admit them. This small mistake was no different. Heck I even redid my analysis and showed everything to be consistent. I believe this improves my credibility. When you are questioned all you seem to be able to do is get defensive and stand by your "logic". The questions were both your data and your logic and it seems you can not defend either.



I firmly question this. This is a pretty important piece of the puzzle in my opinion. There are certainly multiple questions here, but one really big one is were the 7:29 car and this car closely matched on the straights. First I would say there is not enough apples to apples comparison to do any sort of analysis. What you did is completely riddled with bad data and super loose "logic". You must have multiple markers with time and or speed to do this analysis and we have neither here when the cars were both under WOT, PERIOD.

Now if we want to make some conclusions about power and under rating from lap times I think we can do this, it is just that it is not as strong of a case as the straight line/WOT comparison technique. Good lap times require power to weight, period. This car essentially got a 7:40. Sure hypothetical "best conditions" but call this the time. Doing this with 480 hp and this weight is still, based on regression analysis, just barely possible (our friend sigma is at 2.4). I'd say "impossible" but I think 3 sigma is really that limit. Doing it at 530 hp (your previous estimate and my low estimate for the 7:29 car) is quite possible (sigma = 1.8) and even reasonable for this advanced chassis and the ease at which one can really push the car.

So we are back to the contradiction. Based on expert opinions, those who have driven the car on the Ring, my analyses, both regression and straight line performance and now this test, the 7:29 car was not "stock". Although they don't address under rating in this particular test the implication is certainly there. We already agree that the 7:29 car had between 530-560 hp. I believe this particular DR car had between 500-530 hp. Either way you slice is they are cheating and lying and the two cars were almost for sure not identical.

Continuing.... South has you heartily beat in the contention that DR stated anything explicitly about track conditions or made any exceptions for them. They said,



If that does not cover ALL of the variables such as driver, tires, track conditions etc. then I'm a monkeys uncle. I don't know how it could be more explicit. They are comparing directly to the 7:29 time which may or may not have had ideal track and weather conditions but for sure the conditions were DIFFERENT. So the implication is pretty darn clear that all variables are under consideration including the track conditions and weather. if they meant on that particular day of their test they would have said so. We can obviously ask SteveD for his interpretation.

I get considerable flak here on the GT-R issue for bias, having conclusions before data, not accepting new results, etc. Of course I deny those accusations (less one infamous premature/poorly worded post title...). It is really entertaining to see the faithful on the side of Nissan be so amazingly hypocritical and doing the exact same thing.

Anyone who believes that this article concludes or provides evidence of:

1. The 7:29 time being possible with the cars stated specifications.
2. This "DR" GT-R is per stated specifications.
3. Those two cars are identical (less tires).

Is really missing the point and looking through blinders. Time to wake up guys.

Nice work.

[Sedan_Clan]

I must say that I enjoy the banter within this thread. It really is an interesting read!

[footie]

Originally Posted by swamp2

Absolutely typical reply. No proof and avoiding the questions.

Do I believe the Nissan GTR had 530hp, yes, I have said that numerous times.

Originally Posted by swamp2

1. Please provide ANY proof based on multiple time vs. distance or speed vs. distance markers that the DR GT-R matched the 7:29 lap. What you have provided in the past is so weak and full of incorrect inputs it is really quite embarrasing. I would call it speculation more than "logic" or "analysis" or even opinion. I am more than willing to look at data and an analysis but you have not provided anything. DR did not supply equivalent nor useful data in this regard so the terms fabrication and imagination come to mind.

swamp, I don't need a simulation program to know a rough estimated speed, that is called experience what some here can call upon. In fact even without your simulator I knew your data on the 60~130mph comparison between the DCT and manual was off and gave the exact estimate for that comparison. Something I might add you got hugely and spectacularly wrong, even when all the data was plain in front of your nose. So who's estimates are more right.

It's simple logic is one car (ZR1) reaches a point ahead of another (GTR) and it posts a certain speed than the other car is slower. It my educated guess on the speed that this GTR did at each of these points and remember you aren't that great at read data so my estimate is probably more correct than your own.

Originally Posted by swamp2

2. YES OR NO only the 7:29 car had in the neighborhood of 530 hp? You must answer "yes" here because you have stated this absolutely explicity many times in our previous debates. This leads me to ask you to simply refer back to my previous post. 7:55 sucks for 530 hp and this chassis/tire/tranny/AWD system/etc. and of course you can not have your cake and eat it to.

Race suspension, better day, 1-2%, etc. all pretty irrelevant and purely speculative. These are diversions my friend, diversions. However, if you want to admit the 7:29 car did that achievement with both 530 hp and a suspension vastly different than OEM that is fine with me. More evidence Nissan lied and cheated. But hey, I didn't say it.

I will repeat, I believe the GTR has approx. 530hp (ALL OF THEM). As for Chris's lap in comparison to Suzuki's lap, I wouldn't want to knock another person's driving skills but when viewed together you can plainly see that Chris is nowhere near as committed, probably the fact that it's a friend's car and not one supplied by the manufacturer held him back a bit, I know it would if it were me driving. To be honest I think 10 seconds is the bare minimum of an improvement that Suzuki would have made.

Would a suspension set up for track use solely have made the 1~2% improvement I am suggesting, you are bloody right it would. Anyone who has sampled a road car and even a group N car will know how much of a difference suspension can make.

The only difference I see between us is the belief that all GTRs have approx 530hp, I believe they have. So for your final question of do I believe a stock (530hp) GTR with tweaked suspension is capable of the 7:29 lap, then the answer is YES. Is the tweaked suspension class as breaking the rules, I don't know, it most definitely would be a serious bend on the rules. One would have to prove that the suspension couldn't be tuned to this spec on stock parts, but then all of these questions are stabs in the dark as only Nissan know the real truth behind that lap.

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by footie

Do I believe the Nissan GTR had 530hp, yes, I have said that numerous times.

swamp, I don't need a simulation program to know a rough estimated speed, that is called experience what some here can call upon. In fact even without your simulator I knew your data on the 60~130mph comparison between the DCT and manual was off and gave the exact estimate for that comparison. Something I might add you got hugely and spectacularly wrong, even when all the data was plain in front of your nose. So who's estimates are more right.

It's simple logic is one car (ZR1) reaches a point ahead of another (GTR) and it posts a certain speed than the other car is slower. It my educated guess on the speed that this GTR did at each of these points and remember you aren't that great at read data so my estimate is probably more correct than your own.

I will repeat, I believe the GTR has approx. 530hp (ALL OF THEM). As for Chris's lap in comparison to Suzuki's lap, I wouldn't want to knock another person's driving skills but when viewed together you can plainly see that Chris is nowhere near as committed, probably the fact that it's a friend's car and not one supplied by the manufacturer held him back a bit, I know it would if it were me driving. To be honest I think 10 seconds is the bare minimum of an improvement that Suzuki would have made.

Would a suspension set up for track use solely have made the 1~2% improvement I am suggesting, you are bloody right it would. Anyone who has sampled a road car and even a group N car will know how much of a difference suspension can make.

The only difference I see between us is the belief that all GTRs have approx 530hp, I believe they have. So for your final question of do I believe a stock (530hp) GTR with tweaked suspension is capable of the 7:29 lap, then the answer is YES. Is the tweaked suspension class as breaking the rules, I don't know, it most definitely would be a serious bend on the rules. One would have to prove that the suspension couldn't be tuned to this spec on stock parts, but then all of these questions are stabs in the dark as only Nissan know the real truth behind that lap.

footie, first a comment on your throwing swamp a bone:

I in fact thought it possible that Nissan might go so far as to tweak the suspension settings (not parts) for max track performance (negative camber, reduced toe, etc), but in their official response to Porsche, they claim the car was completely standard in terms of specification. This means stock settings for everything, and I believe them for reasons stated previously.

Second, it's clear that Chris didn't have his heart in it that day, to put it kindly. He admitted his fear going in. As far as his evaluation of how much he got out of each car's potential, that's just crap. In spite of swamp's typical style of using a quote he likes (he used Chris's 27 second quote without also quoting that Chris said he didn't know if the GTR could go that fast), there is simply no way of knowing how fast the cars are through Chris's fairly poor relative performance - except of course that the GTR was slower by seven seconds while using tires that are responsible for five of those seconds - net two seconds, with obvious implications.

Third, your evaluation of similar speeds between the DR car and the 7:29 car at a given track point is clearly evidence, despite swamp's shouted attack. In fact, it might actually point to the DR car as having more power than the 7:29 car, since it performed as well after coming out of a corner on a cold track.

Fourth, your assertion in regard to swamp's evaluation of numbers is spot on. He's very comfy with numbers (remember him demanding numbers from you the first time you pointed out some interesting facts about the relative performance of the GTR vs ZR1?), but has nothing intuitive in terms of how they relate to the actual planet.

Your example was a good one, but also remember that he thinks he's actually successful at modeling a quarter mile pass of a car if he gets the ET fairly close, and not so close on the terminal speed. Ridiculous.

Fifth, I believe that Porsche's GTR reaction was unfortunate, but genuine.

So was Nissan's.

In their official statement, they offered education to Porsche and other companies in regard to how you get the GTR to really hum. In the U.S., that statement was widely regarded as a smack in the chops, but Nissan is a Japanese company, and I believe the offer was tendered honestly and without irony. It's further evidence that Nissan is confident of the car's spectacular times, else they get completely humbled should Porsche or others take them up on it next Spring and the cars don't perform.

Lastly, none of this matters in the slightest to swamp. He is so committed to the idea of Nissan cheating that nothing will sway him, and his bias is there for all to see. Remember how he gave credibility to the idea that nissan ran a short lap on their record run, while filming it for all to see?

It probably makes sense to defend yourself, but remember who's doing the attacking, and his lack of credibility on this topic.

Bruce

[matt beard]

Originally Posted by Sedan_Clan

I must say that I enjoy the banter within this thread. It really is an interesting read!

Yea, much like a CD that irritatingly continues to skip...and skip...and skip....

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by footie

I don't need a simulation program to know a rough estimated speed, that is called experience what some here can call upon. In fact even without your simulator I knew your data on the 60~130mph comparison between the DCT and manual was off and gave the exact estimate for that comparison. Something I might add you got hugely and spectacularly wrong, even when all the data was plain in front of your nose. So who's estimates are more right.

It's simple logic is one car (ZR1) reaches a point ahead of another (GTR) and it posts a certain speed than the other car is slower. It my educated guess on the speed that this GTR did at each of these points and remember you aren't that great at read data so my estimate is probably more correct than your own.

It seems I have to repeat and repeat myself about my own mistakes. Absolutely typical of what is required to debate with you. Yes I make them, no I am not perfect (I know hard to believe), yes I admit them graciously and move along. You can not argue that I can not be trusted nor correct on all issues when incorrect on one. That is a classic logical fallacy. And I will remind you that brain farts such as that one from me are few and far between. That is more than I can say for the frequency of yours. Lastly my "data" was not off, half of my analysis was incorrect. You really need to learn the difference between data and analysis. It is really a key point. Data are often simply observed numbers that go into a calculation (an analysis) that likely contains certain assumptions.

If you honestly believe you can make an "educated guess" on a single top speed at an unknown single marker and compare that to two other cases where we have speed vs. distance at a variety of DIFFERENT markers and times vs. distance at the same multiple markers for another car and then make power comparisons among the three cars then I'll simply call our "debate" over. As well I keep pointing out your flawed data in your original post #68 and my reply in #75. YOUR INPUT "DATA" to your "educated guess" ARE FLAT OUT INCORRECT. Please go read my corrections again in #75.

I presented a detailed accounting and analysis of a bunch of this data for the ZR1 vs. GT-R in the other thread and the only points you could really criticize were the GT-R corner exit speed estimates and a possible tail wind helping it out. That analysis stood extensive scrutiny and still stands now.

How about I just say every car that is faster than any other car around the Ring is faster at every single point and therefore has more power? How about I just say that I "estimated" the E92 M3 reached 190 mph at some point on its 8:05 Ring lap. How about I say I have a frickin flying pig as a pet? Your statement of an "educated guess" is just about on an equitable level of quality and accuracy as these statements.

By the way I'm glad we have got to the point that the GT-Rs 7:29 time is possible with:

1. +50hp (and nearly the same + torque advantage)
2. The better of two tire possibilities
3. A serious Ace driver
4. Perfect weather and track conditions
5. A factory tuned/tweaked/modified suspension

We finally agree, I just think it had a bit more power than that.

[watrob]

Ok, so after 5 pages & 98 posts we are back to where we started with what everybody has been saying all along, they cheated, it's not a standard off the floor model as they would like you to believe!

We all new that, so why do what they did, a marketing ploy! Even Top Gear said it was sus!

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by watrob

Ok, so after 5 pages & 98 posts we are back to where we started with what everybody has been saying all along, they cheated, it's not a standard off the floor model as they would like you to believe!

We all new that, so why do what they did, a marketing ploy! Even Top Gear said it was sus!

Not everybody. Nissan says it's legit, and so do I.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

Not everybody. Nissan says it's legit, and so do I.

Talk about out of context. You readily admit that most GT-Rs are putting our in the neighborhood of 530 hp. If this is your definition of legit and by the specs then again I have to chuckle with the obvious reply... "What is 50 hp among friends". And you call me biased. Unreal Bruce, simply unreal.

[graider]

i was reading the argument on autoblog and it appeared that the gtr in this test was running on bridgestone tire. Nissan repeatedly said that this tire is 5 secs slower than the dunlop on the ring. So if this gtr was running on dunlop, then it would have match the time of the gt2. On this test, both the gt2 and gtr were 15+ secs slower than the manufactor claim. So this prove that the gtr on standard dunlop tire is neck and neck with the gt2 on the ring on any given weather condition. So nissan claim of 7:29 is legit IMO.

[footie]

Something I forgot to comment on with regards to the DR article and by no means is this proof positive or anything, it's just an observation.

Chris the previously been racing the DR sponsored 997 Cup car, so was not only familiar with the track but more familiar with the odd balance of the Porsche's setup on this track. Should this have any bearing on the results? I think when you combine this with the wrong tyre choice, the fact that it's a friend's own car which if wrecked would be a hard pill to swallow and even harder to explain all contribute to the slower than GT2's lap time.

Imagine what we would have all been saying if it had of been a factory supplied GTR with the right tyres and a more committed Chris who would have probably posted a quicker than GT2 lap time. Well I know what swamp would have thought, in a word 'FIX', and then the next breath would have been it was still 17 seconds slower than factory claims so shouldn't be possible without much more power.

Chris also highlighted the fact that on different days of racing that was conducted throughout the seasons produced up to 5 second variations per lap. So even using Chris's rule of thumb that on that particular day with that GTR, someone with Suzuki's skill could have been able to post a 7:35 lap (7:55 minus 10s + 5s for driver and tyres and a further 5s for perfect conditions). Things are starting to look the more likely that Nissan's lap is a true one.

[watrob]

Originally Posted by footie

Something I forgot to comment on with regards to the DR article and by no means is this proof positive or anything, it's just an observation.

Chris the previously been racing the DR sponsored 997 Cup car, so was not only familiar with the track but more familiar with the odd balance of the Porsche's setup on this track. Should this have any bearing on the results? I think when you combine this with the wrong tyre choice, the fact that it's a friend's own car which if wrecked would be a hard pill to swallow and even harder to explain all contribute to the slower than GT2's lap time.

Imagine what we would have all been saying if it had of been a factory supplied GTR with the right tyres and a more committed Chris who would have probably posted a quicker than GT2 lap time. Well I know what swamp would have thought, in a word 'FIX', and then the next breath would have been it was still 17 seconds slower than factory claims so shouldn't be possible without much more power.

Chris also highlighted the fact that on different days of racing that was conducted throughout the seasons produced up to 5 second variations per lap. So even using Chris's rule of thumb that on that particular day with that GTR, someone with Suzuki's skill could have been able to post a 7:35 lap (7:55 minus 10s + 5s for driver and tyres and a further 5s for perfect conditions). Things are starting to look the more likely that Nissan's lap is a true one.

But you have to add the same variable to the Porsche then as well, so the GT-R will never be faster. Plus the Porsche laps are consistantly faster and are of a consistant time. Using the variable of 15sec take that off a Porsche time!

The GT-R's times are consistantly slower than the 7:29, so even if it did manage that time it is a once of, it does not consistantly do that lap time, otherwise Nissan would have shown all there lap times and they would be all around 7:30. When I see a GT-R doing those sort of times consistantly I will believe it!

[ismelllikepoop]

Originally Posted by swamp2

Talk about out of context. You readily admit that most GT-Rs are putting our in the neighborhood of 530 hp. If this is your definition of legit and by the specs then again I have to chuckle with the obvious reply... "What is 50 hp among friends". And you call me biased. Unreal Bruce, simply unreal.

Is the fact that 335's regularly output more than their rated 300 mean bmw cheats too? i dont get this argument at all. now if it was a lone mickeyed car like the edmunds test 335 which had a ton of boost then yeah i understand your point, but from what i've read is that gt-r's are underrated across the board. and talk about taking something out of context.

also i suppose i have to add something to the argument to make my post count here, is that DR acknowledges that the different tires on the gt-r could have a 5 second differential to the times, making the actual lap times now a less than 2 second spread. I understand that they felt the gt2 had more "potential" but what does that matter when they couldn't muster anything more than a marginal difference in times. There's a lot of things i could potentially do but that doesnt mean it's gonna happen

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by ismelllikepoop

Is the fact that 335's regularly output more than their rated 300 mean bmw cheats too?

Want to play nice now and discuss intelligently? Good me too.

I have stated my opinion on this in the past. But if you never saw those posts yes. I do believe the 335i is under rated and that BMW is cheating in this regard. Does FI give you the right to cheat? As well 10% is 10% but 50 hp is a lot more than 30, no denying that.

[ismelllikepoop]

so they are cheating by giving customers a higher rated car? im not sure i get it. so if nissan comes out and says hey guys the "gt-r actually outputs closer to 530, sorry we lowballed the number" then their claims become legitimate?

[footie]

Originally Posted by watrob

But you have to add the same variable to the Porsche then as well, so the GT-R will never be faster. Plus the Porsche laps are consistantly faster and are of a consistant time. Using the variable of 15sec take that off a Porsche time!

Maybe I see things differently than you but I do get your point. There are some factors that need to be taken into account when comparing both times that Chris did.

1/ Who supplied the cars. I know that though I would not want to wreck either of these priceless motors, the one which I would show most care over would be that of my friend. Most likely Porsche would help with the bill if this occurred but doubt if said friend would be as willing.

2/ Tyre choice. One was equipped with the stickiest rubber but the other was not, so this test though entertaining don't show a true or fair reflection of how the test could have played out.

3/ Chris had more experience of driving the Porsche around this track than he did the Nissan. He felt that he had gotten more out of the GTR than the GT2, this is something we will never know but I do know how he feels because awd cars generally do give the impression that they are easier to control and thus you find you did better with fewer mistakes. This is not always the case though.

Originally Posted by watrob

The GT-R's times are consistantly slower than the 7:29, so even if it did manage that time it is a once of, it does not consistantly do that lap time, otherwise Nissan would have shown all there lap times and they would be all around 7:30. When I see a GT-R doing those sort of times consistantly I will believe it!

We do have two laps that are known, a 7:29 in ideal conditions where everything went perfectly and a lap of 7:38 when there where damp patches. When you consider the time scale between them and the conditions, it is very possible that a combination of suspension fine-tuning and bone dry track could possibly improve this time down the 9 seconds required.

As with everything it takes a little leap of faith, much the same for the moon landings.

[swamp2]

Ugh here we go. So much BS, so much hypocrisy, not enough time.

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

I in fact thought it possible that Nissan might go so far as to tweak the suspension settings (not parts) for max track performance (negative camber, reduced toe, etc), but in their official response to Porsche, they claim the car was completely standard in terms of specification. This means stock settings for everything, and I believe them for reasons stated previously.

And praise the lord for the word of the holy OEMs they would never lie. Not about safety, not about recalls not about life threatening issues even when they know they are "wrong. If the bean counters and lawyers say "quiet" or lie they will. This above is, at its heart, quite absurd reasoning. Trust the OEMs (any of them)? About as far as I can throw em. Nissan wants a crown jewel and will do a lot to get it. As well you must realize their history of this exact sort of thing with this cars direct elders?

Heck if it means it will cause other manufacturers to adopt similar procedures to obtain "absolute best" Ring times that is fine with me. Having a Sportauto time and factory ace time under perfect conditions is simply more good and useful data. I do think this is where things will head. Mark my prediction.

Let's remember your word "specification" above. We will get to that much much later...

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

Second, it's clear that Chris didn't have his heart in it that day, to put it kindly. He admitted his fear going in. As far as his evaluation of how much he got out of each car's potential, that's just crap. In spite of swamp's typical style of using a quote he likes (he used Chris's 27 second quote without also quoting that Chris said he didn't know if the GTR could go that fast), there is simply no way of knowing how fast the cars are through Chris's fairly poor relative performance - except of course that the GTR was slower by seven seconds while using tires that are responsible for five of those seconds - net two seconds, with obvious implications.

It is another data point and all data points are meaningful. Each has conditions and assumptions and deltas you can use to ask "what ifs". But to call this useless, even worse "crap" is to be blind to a good comparison simply because of your own forgone conclusions. Why don't you just tell Steved and Chris directly their opinion(s) and conclusions are "crap"? Seems like you already have. As for the quote it is direct, clear in intent and near the end of the article, obviously serving and a concluding type of remark. Most seem to agree on that but you just can't accept it.

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

...but [he] has nothing intuitive in terms of how they relate to the actual planet.

... but also remember that he thinks he's actually successful at modeling a quarter mile pass of a car if he gets the ET fairly close, and not so close on the terminal speed. Ridiculous.

Keep up the attacks, it won't strengthen your arguments nor weaken mine.

The above statements are simply not correct. Your ability to bring up the past over and over and over again shows your desperation and is frankly a bit pitiful. I guess I'll continue to play ball though....

Obviously if a certain tool has a certain strength and other weaknesses improvements should be sought in terms of the inputs (which I have done with your help) and the actual algorithms (which in this case I can not do since I don't have access to the source). I have always noted that my simulation tool of choice simply makes more accurate ET predictions than trap predictions. Although those have been greatly improved. My tool of choice has been validated again and again but your misunderstanding of simulation in general and random and deterministic errors during testing won't allow you to see that. We've been down this road for pages and pages in the past so why do you want to dredge? Well I guess I already answered that in the couple sentences just above this unfortunate but required diversion and defense.

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

Lastly, none of this matters in the slightest to swamp. He is so committed to the idea of Nissan cheating that nothing will sway him, and his bias is there for all to see. Remember how he gave credibility to the idea that nissan ran a short lap on their record run, while filming it for all to see?

It probably makes sense to defend yourself, but remember who's doing the attacking, and his lack of credibility on this topic.

Yep, pot, kettle, black like you always do and always get called out on. Who exactly is attacking who, for the third time, in a single post, right here above? That would be you Bruce. Attacking is not at all what I have done. I have been very harsh and very critical of footies data and his "logic" but I have not attacked him. Pointing out massive errors in observation, data and analysis is hardly an attack. It is called civilized, educated debate. Sure I had some harsh words, but you just can't seem to leave such debates between him and I. Superman Bruce to the rescue, also typical. You simply can't erase nor undo his clear factual errors right there in black and white and neither of you want to stick to the importance of, nor attempt to resolve these errors. Always typical; forget the facts, forget correct numbers, no big worry... unless swamp is off by a bit. Then all hell breaks loose. The double standards here are absolutely absurd and the hypocrisy just gets deeper and deeper.

And who is so firmly committed to their own ideas that new information will not change their minds? Again that would be you Bruce. A small bout of ignorance (in which I felt uncertain enough to not fully commit to, knowing it was a bit radical) says very little about my overall credibility. You and footie are so unbelievably insecure and desperate to attack me and challenge my credibility on such miniscule points then extrapolate that to the absurd such that it is impossible for me to be correct on anything. Your desperation and (near obsession) does not show itself well. About all we see from Bruce "Mr. Practicality" is A-B comparisons between the GT-R and various P-cars and quickly concluding - well it's all possible. Not very thorough, original nor strong arguments in my book.

I am willing to believe there is a very small chance that with 530 hp, the best tires, an Ace driver and absolutely perfect conditions you may, just may be able to get close to or even at 7:29. How are we so far apart here? The fact is we are not. You have already admitted this. Nonetheless you want to have your cake and eat it too, just like footie. You simply can not reconcile this agreement we have with your contention that the 7:29 car achieved this completely in specification. Face the contradiction here Bruce. Whether or not one calls this "cheating" or dishonesty is perhaps up to each individual. To me +50 hp is a big cheat and Nissan are lying. I don't give a rats a$$ if BMW also lies about the 335i, it doesn't make it right. Nissan is trying to make the common man believe that the technology of the car gives it near UFO like capabilities (while being a tank with only 480 hp and a terrible power to weight ratio). The launch control fiasco is further evidence of this exact same "get the spec whatever the cost" attitude and tell me that hasn't back fired as well? Oh well US drivers don't care about 0-60 times...

By the way whatever happened to your guarantee that we would see SAE power certification at 480 from Nissan? You were wrong on that, does it make you wrong on everything nor make you generally non-credible, clearly not. Give me some slack for crying out loud.

In conclusion...Let's please try to stick to data, interpretation, comparison, simulation, real world knowledge, reliable sources, quoting good journalists, good testing, etc. There is so much more to talk about than the incessant attacks. I'm not sure how many times I have to say it but consistency and truth are so much more important to me then brands or brand loyalty and brand criticism.

To me this one is pretty well decided you are the one left with clear contradictions. In my world everything is (and has been for some time) consistent.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by ismelllikepoop

so they are cheating by giving customers a higher rated car? im not sure i get it. so if nissan comes out and says hey guys the "gt-r actually outputs closer to 530, sorry we lowballed the number" then their claims become legitimate?

Think just a bit more. Sure there is no problem in terms of a customer getting more than the specification. It is more about intellectual, engineering and marketing honesty and the deception they are running. Since my "novel" above is probably too long and boring for most (and frankly much of it is irrelevant bickering and defense) I will simply offer this excerpt from it.

Nissan is trying to make the common man believe that the technology of the car gives it near UFO like capabilities (while being a tank with only 480 hp and a terrible power to weight ratio). The launch control fiasco is further evidence of this exact same "get the spec whatever the cost" attitude and tell me that hasn't back fired as well? Oh well US drivers don't care about 0-60 times...

To many the evidence is crystal clear. The car IS a UFO in capability:

• The car does 0-60 in 3.2 seconds.
• It laps the N'Ring in 7:29.
• It has 480 hp.
• It costs less than $70k USD.

All of the above are now either false or completely grey areas.

• LC is the only way to get times anywhere near the best 0-60 times and LC voids your entire warranty. Ugh!
• Does it, with 480 hp? That seems to be a big question.
• To me this one seems pretty well decided, it doesn't.
• Well it did, but generally you could not get it at that price due to markup and shortly after launch the price was raised about $7k.

How much legitimacy do you see in all of this?