More drivers question Nissan's Nurburgring time

[footie]

swamp,

I don't feel that Bruce is trying to defend me or my position, he is simply understand why I continue to disagree with your reasoning and your lack of logic. To you the world is very black and white, if the data is not presented to you then it is clearly wrong. It's a bit like the cat in the box, if you can't see it is it died or alive, only observing it can you be sure.

To assume that a 15 mph headwind is the reason for the ZR1's speed up that straight sounded logical to you because the data supported this, though at no point did you consider that full throttle wasn't used the entire time. But when someone else make a similar leap of faith with regards to the GTR's speed up that straight you totally knock them back and disregard this as BS.

We each believe what we want to believe, you see cheating even though everyone else is doing the same but that is because you are a black and white kind of a guy. I was openly told the GTR has approx 10% more power than quoted from a Nissan employee.

Now to Porsche own test of the two cars, their test had the GT2 posting a lap of 7:34 but only achieved 7:54 with the GTR that day. DR test both together and find the Nissan only 1 second slower on a damp track but find the Porsche a huge 14 seconds slower. If anything this shows how fake and bias Porsche's test was and I doubt Nissan would have been this petty and childish. I ask you who is more believable all things considered.

[Robin_NL]

I was a bit bored so I came up with this:

[graider]

footie, you will never be able to convince these guys because bmw and porsche are made in germany. Anything german is better than japanese in their heads.

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Due to the length of your rant, I need to cherry pick...

Originally Posted by swamp2

And praise the lord for the word of the holy OEMs they would never lie.

I get it that you are clueless about big companies, but I've already explained my reasoning: Too much to lose, not enough to gain in this case.

Originally Posted by swamp2

...Why don't you just tell Steved and Chris directly their opinion(s) and conclusions are "crap"?

Chris, you were so pitifully off the pace in this exercise that your conclusions are crap. Your fear was understandable, but it disqualifies you.

Originally Posted by swamp2

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...

The difference is that I freely admit to attacking, while you never do.

Originally Posted by swamp2

...You and footie are so unbelievably insecure and desperate to attack me and challenge my credibility...

My favorite part.

footie: I know, I know - but trust me, he actually believes this.

Swamp, I firmly believe that everyone should have their full share of ego, but I am reminded of the story of the flea, floating down the river on a leaf, in an, ahem, excited condition, shouting for the bridge to open...

Originally Posted by swamp2

[B]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...

footie, he's beginning to come around!

Originally Posted by swamp2

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.

Wherever you deserve it, I will.

Originally Posted by swamp2

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....

By all means. But understand that, more often than not, you begin the attacking pretty much whenever anyone disagrees with you. I know you don't believe that and probably never will, so we are doomed to continued bad behavior.

I can live with that, as long as actual content is involved - and between the three of us, that's most often the case.

Bruce

Edit: PS - I forgot to address "specifications". My belief is that a GTR, compliant with standard Nissan specifications, did the 'Ring in 7:29. The fact that stock GTRs seem to be rated about 10% low is a puzzle to me as to why that is so, but since they all seem to be that way, then that is the stock specification. Wordsmith as you like.

[footie]

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

Chris, you were so pitifully off the pace in this exercise that your conclusions are crap. Your fear was understandable, but it disqualifies you.

I wouldn't say that myself, he is a very skilled driver though not to the standard of Walter or Suzuki. But I reckon the reasons I gave would be understandable and might explain why the Nissan was slower.

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

The difference is that I freely admit to attacking, while you never do.

I don't attack, I only defend myself from the attacks that in my opinion belittle the person involved. I don't see your comments as attacking, maybe a subtle dig in the ribs now and then.

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

My favorite part.

footie: I know, I know - but trust me, he actually believes this.

Swamp, I firmly believe that everyone should have their full share of ego, but I am reminded of the story of the flea, floating down the river on a leaf, in an, ahem, excited condition, shouting for the bridge to open...

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

footie, he's beginning to come around!

Only when hell freezes over.

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

By all means. But understand that, more often than not, you begin the attacking pretty much whenever anyone disagrees with you. I know you don't believe that and probably never will, so we are doomed to continued bad behavior.

I can live with that, as long as actual content is involved - and between the three of us, that's most often the case.

Bruce.

I'm fine with that.

[Sedan_Clan]

Originally Posted by graider

footie, you will never be able to convince these guys because bmw and porsche are made in germany. Anything german is better than japanese in their heads.

I believe that this was a bit unnecessary. Origin isn't the issue here, and most will agree that performance Skylines are great vehicles.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

Due to the length of your rant, I need to cherry pick...

If you could stop the near obsession with each and every miniscule shortcoming of mine there would be no need for such lengthy posts.

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

I get it that you are clueless about big companies, but I've already explained my reasoning: Too much to lose, not enough to gain in this case.

Yeah, you're right big companies never misbehave. I really can't believe you are this naive. You do realize Nissan has a history here specifically with Ring times of Skylines. How about the LC issue? Yeah no bad behavior from Nissan on this either. What a joke.

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

The difference is that I freely admit to attacking, while you never do.

I will not admit that pointing out gross blatantly incorrect data that is habitually ignored and trying to get some response about it is "attacking". You both continue to ignore my points and will not address those questions. This leads to obvious frustration and an aggressive tone. How do I respond to questions about my work/posts? I do more work, offer more information, and generally clarify. And I certainly admit mistakes and rectify them. Sorry I know terrible form, shame on me. This distinct difference is quite apparent to any that follow any of this banter carefully and they know the difference. Not you, but your best pal footie needs to learn this technique and you should not be so quick to defend such quality. You give him near infinite slack and me none. I don't really care but you must live with your enormous double standards. The devil is always in the detail Bruce and you know better.

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

Edit: PS - I forgot to address "specifications". My belief is that a GTR, compliant with standard Nissan specifications, did the 'Ring in 7:29. The fact that stock GTRs seem to be rated about 10% low is a puzzle to me as to why that is so, but since they all seem to be that way, then that is the stock specification. Wordsmith as you like.

Wordsmithing? You call +50hp "within specification" and call me the wordsmith? Again massive hypocrisy and irony here. This is championship wordsmithing if I have ever seen it. I'm glad you can live comfortably with this massive contradiction. SAE allows 1% variation, no not 10%, 1%. Heck what is an order of magnitude among friends... It is pretty clear why the car is not SAE "certified power".

Again to me the case is fairly well closed. That being said I am always and unconditionally open to new data.

[Robin_NL]

Hey Swamp, no worries man. I'm going to bed. It's only internet. Nissan is cheating and Porsche is showing some hypocrecy as well. Nissan never was a saint in history and Porsche is behaving a bit childish on its own playground imo.

I do believe Chris and the DR opinion. And I'm waiting on sportauto carmag to come with the definitive answer. But that's just me. What other people think/may say...fine with me.If you wish to debate any longer, be my guest. I'd rather see more technical/racing talk than personal things.

Anyway, goodnight all of you.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by footie

I don't feel that Bruce is trying to defend me or my position, he is simply understand why I continue to disagree with your reasoning and your lack of logic. To you the world is very black and white, if the data is not presented to you then it is clearly wrong. It's a bit like the cat in the box, if you can't see it is it died or alive, only observing it can you be sure.

When it comes to data things can be pretty black and white. The grey or fuzzy comes in how you use them. Most of the time the data are not in question but the analysis is. In this particular case your data are flat our incorrect, hence your conclusions arrived at from the data are also very likely incorrect and you REFUSE to address this point. Your result may be correct in spirit but correct for the wrong reason. If you could reply directly to my post #75 where I tried to bring this up with no anger/attack/aggression etc. that would be a wonderful way to continue a reasonable debate.

By the way you don't have to lecture me on the quantum mechanical nature of Schrödinger's Cat. I'm well versed in this domain. I am not so sure you are.

Originally Posted by footie

To assume that a 15 mph headwind is the reason for the ZR1's speed up that straight sounded logical to you because the data supported this, though at no point did you consider that full throttle wasn't used the entire time. But when someone else make a similar leap of faith with regards to the GTR's speed up that straight you totally knock them back and disregard this as BS.

Nope, it is beacause GM reported strong winds. And no I did not consider the possibility of a lifted throttle on a long fast straight during a record breaking attempt - who would? Anything is possible you always have to ask is it likely or the most likely. There is a huge difference between a reasonable assumption and a leap of faith. I use the former and you seem to like the latter. Keep dredging the past, keep going, no need to focus on the ERRORS IN YOUR DATA when you can get into the minutia of my analysis where all of the data itself is SOLID.

Originally Posted by footie

We each believe what we want to believe, you see cheating even though everyone else is doing the same but that is because you are a black and white kind of a guy. I was openly told the GTR has approx 10% more power than quoted from a Nissan employee.

This seems to be more common for some FI cars. Just to being it more "back home" I seriously doubt the E9X M3 is in any way under nor over rated. This clearly is not something "everyone" is doing. That is utter nonsense. Many maufacturers are going SAE certified power across the board. What would you be saying if the M3 obtained the results it has and BMW advertised 365 hp? I know what position I would take and am pretty darn confident what position you would take as well.

Originally Posted by footie

I ask you who is more believable all things considered.

Keeping the big picture in mind and looking at the wealth of tests vs. specification I would say that Porsche is more believable than Nissan. Looking specifically at independent GT-R times I would say the 7:54 time from Porsche, the 7:55 time from DR and the 7:50 time from Horst are pretty darn consistent. Sure all a bit under ultimate potential but consistent. As well the wealth of opinion from talented folks who have driven the car at the Ring believe something in the 7:35-7:45 range is possible.

As I have mentioned in about 3 previous posts the entire LC issue does not give Nissan much credibility. You may choose to see these as completely separate issues but in the bigger picture they are actually very closely related.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by Robin Hood

Hey Swamp, no worries man. I'm going to bed. It's only internet. Nissan is cheating and Porsche is showing some hypocrecy as well. Nissan never was a saint in history and Porsche is behaving a bit childish on its own playground imo.

I do believe Chris and the DR opinion. And I'm waiting on sportauto carmag to come with the definitive answer. But that's just me. What other people think/may say...fine with me.If you wish to debate any longer, be my guest. I'd rather see more technical/racing talk than personal things.

Anyway, goodnight all of you.

A fair summary that I agree with. Thanks.

[ismelllikepoop]

a fair summary? only when someone agrees with you? i dont think mules are this stubborn. anyways im just curious to see what happens when nissan brings the gt-r back to the track. they should bring porsche along to inspect the cars.

[footie]

Originally Posted by swamp2

When it comes to data things can be pretty black and white. The grey or fuzzy comes in how you use them. Most of the time the data are not in question but the analysis is. In this particular case your data are flat our incorrect, hence your conclusions arrived at from the data are also very likely incorrect and you REFUSE to address this point. Your result may be correct in spirit but correct for the wrong reason. If you could reply directly to my post #75 where I tried to bring this up with no anger/attack/aggression etc. that would be a wonderful way to continue a reasonable debate.

I think I did answer your points in #75, there is speed trap points used by all the magazines on the straight and I can't believe that DR would do anything different. So I checked the video with the ZR1 to see the speeds at these points and made an educated guess on the Nissan car. Experience gives you the ability to judge things pretty accurately, ask any policeman.

Originally Posted by swamp2

By the way you don't have to lecture me on the quantum mechanical nature of Schrödinger's Cat. I'm well versed in this domain. I am not so sure you are.

I expected you to know this, why else would I have used it.

Originally Posted by swamp2

Nope, it is beacause GM reported strong winds. And no I did not consider the possibility of a lifted throttle on a long fast straight during a record breaking attempt - who would? Anything is possible you always have to ask is it likely or the most likely. There is a huge difference between a reasonable assumption and a leap of faith. I use the former and you seem to like the latter. Keep dredging the past, keep going, no need to focus on the ERRORS IN YOUR DATA when you can get into the minutia of my analysis where all of the data itself is SOLID.

And did GM report the direction of the wind? Also you comment that you assumed maximum throttle would be used the entire time but yet with the ACR lap the Viper stayed in the low gear and rid the limiter for most of the straight, that sort of goes against your earlier logic don't you think. It's a choice of words, one man's reasonable assumption is another's leap of faith. BTW this is the grey area that I was talking about.

Originally Posted by swamp2

This seems to be more common for some FI cars. Just to being it more "back home" I seriously doubt the E9X M3 is in any way under nor over rated. This clearly is not something "everyone" is doing. That is utter nonsense. Many manufacturers are going SAE certified power across the board. What would you be saying if the M3 obtained the results it has and BMW advertised 365 hp? I know what position I would take and am pretty darn confident what position you would take as well.

Finally you are starting to come round to what I have been saying for a life time. Forced induction engines have a wider variation in output figures that are dependent of temperature and air pressure/density. Most manufacturer chose to quote their outputs as the bare minimum possible, for Bugatti that meant the Veyron on most occasions would have been making 1100~1150hp. You might think of this to be cheating, I don't.

Originally Posted by swamp2

Keeping the big picture in mind and looking at the wealth of tests vs. specification I would say that Porsche is more believable than Nissan. Looking specifically at independent GT-R times I would say the 7:54 time from Porsche, the 7:55 time from DR and the 7:50 time from Horst are pretty darn consistent. Sure all a bit under ultimate potential but consistent. As well the wealth of opinion from talented folks who have driven the car at the Ring believe something in the 7:35-7:45 range is possible.

Sorry swamp, but I can't gloss over this the same way that you can. Porsche found their car to perform better than DP did and yet the GTR's time was consistent, I look at this as pure marketing on their part. Or put it another way, if their GT2 lap in 7:34 then the GTR should have be capable on a 7:36 with the dunlops or 7:41 with the Bridgestones. Like I said, no one would have questioned the GTR lap if this had been the case.

Originally Posted by swamp2

As I have mentioned in about 3 previous posts the entire LC issue does not give Nissan much credibility. You may choose to see these as completely separate issues but in the bigger picture they are actually very closely related.

What I understand is you have a major disliking for Nissan and the GTR in general. Their credibility has been shown to be rock solid in numerous group tests against cars that have been significantly quicker in acceleration. The best example of this happens to come from Driver Republic themselves, they tested the 997S with DPK against the GTR and found it to be slower around Silverstone by 4 seconds, that is a significant amount on a lap just over 2 minutes long and a track which is regarded as one of the quickest on the GP series. And yet the 997S with DPK has lapped the ring in 7:50, but we are all to believe that GTR is only capable of a similar lap time.

If you believe that then I ask, who is the more absurd here.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by ismelllikepoop

a fair summary? only when someone agrees with you? i dont think mules are this stubborn. anyways im just curious to see what happens when nissan brings the gt-r back to the track. they should bring porsche along to inspect the cars.

I'm entitled to my opinion. Many agree with me, some don't. Robin Hood pointed out negatives on both Nissans side and Porsches and I think that is "fair".

[ismelllikepoop]

that is a fair assessment. anyways hope you guys enjoy this debate further. i think im done, have a good thanksgiving

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by swamp2

...Again to me the case is fairly well closed. That being said I am always and unconditionally open to new data.

That'll have to wait until Spring. Assuming Porsche takes Nissan's offer, of course.

Although I'm apparently not open to new data, somehow I've fooled myself that I actually am - but I have the patience to wait a few months.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by footie

I think I did answer your points in #75, there is speed trap points used by all the magazines on the straight and I can't believe that DR would do anything different. So I checked the video with the ZR1 to see the speeds at these points and made an educated guess on the Nissan car. Experience gives you the ability to judge things pretty accurately, ask any policeman.

No, no and no. Here are my points again if you can address them directly that would be valuable.

Originally Posted by swamp2

Much of your "data" above are wrong as well. DR is talking minimum apex speed and for the ZR1 that value was 95 not 100 at Galgenkopf. The other crystal clear part of the ZR1 video is that is EXITED here at 109, precisely. To eliminate cornering/handling variable speed contests should be examined begining at corner exits or other places in a straight or near straight line under WOT.

Next, first bridge for the ZR1 was 143 mph and leading the 7:29 GT-R by 0.6 seconds from corner exit, not 0.3 sec.

Where the heck did you get the evidence that this GT-R was going 139.5 at this bridge? Did DR actually post video with speeds for the GT-R in this section? All I saw was the GT2 video in this section and without speeds.

Lastly your "1 second" ahead number is completely wrong as well (again if you are talking ZR1 vs. 7:29 GT-R). The figure is 0.7 seconds.

Points of maximum speed will certainly vary car by car. AFAIK there are no "standardized" measurement points at the Ring. Perhaps you can show this rather than state it? Whereas recording the actual peak speed is a much more simple exercise - it has no requirement as to what time or what distance it occurred. Again in my analysis I had direct video evidence across nearly 10 precise markers with speed and time for the ZR1 and times for the GT-R. My figures were accurate within about 1-2 mph and a fraction of a second! The difference in quantity, accuracy and quality of this data compared to yours is enormous, even incomparable. You have one point at an unknown distance and unknown time. Footie get real.

Originally Posted by footie

And did GM report the direction of the wind? Also you comment that you assumed maximum throttle would be used the entire time but yet with the ACR lap the Viper stayed in the low gear and rid the limiter for most of the straight, that sort of goes against your earlier logic don't you think. It's a choice of words, one man's reasonable assumption is another's leap of faith. BTW this is the grey area that I was talking about.

The comparisons among the cars on Döttinger Höhe in the first half or so of the straight, well before any possible lifting or rev limiters, with the totally reasonable assumption of WOT in all cars offers clear evidence of a massive power to weight discrepancy between Nissans claims and the observed performance. Much of the simulation and other assumptions are part of the larger effort and argument about exactly how much power the car actually had. I even provided some bracketing examples to place some limits on this. Despite these criticisms, which were worth discussing (then - and we did - nearly to death) the conclusion stands firmly, 530-560 hp and YOU DON'T DISAGREE. For christs sake - YOU DON'T DISAGREE! Please let's end this. We already agreed then, and agree now, but when I criticize you on anything you want to massively back pedal. It doesn't work.

Originally Posted by footie

Finally you are starting to come round to what I have been saying for a life time. Forced induction engines have a wider variation in output figures that are dependent of temperature and air pressure/density. Most manufacturer chose to quote their outputs as the bare minimum possible, for Bugatti that meant the Veyron on most occasions would have been making 1100~1150hp. You might think of this to be cheating, I don't.

SAE "certified power" makes no allowances for FI. This is the gold standard in this case and Nissan will not get the car certified because they can't.

Originally Posted by footie

Sorry swamp, but I can't gloss over this the same way that you can. Porsche found their car to perform better than DP did and yet the GTR's time was consistent, I look at this as pure marketing on their part. Or put it another way, if their GT2 lap in 7:34 then the GTR should have be capable on a 7:36 with the dunlops or 7:41 with the Bridgestones. Like I said, no one would have questioned the GTR lap if this had been the case.

This discussion is not really about Porsche lap times. Why would you ever expect perfect agreement between the DR GT-R and Porsches GT-R that they bought and tested. I am actually surprised by the close agreement as well. I would be willing to wager Porsche beat the living $hit out of that GT-R with top driving talent to get the best time possible. What do you think they did, pansy footed around the track with no practice or prep and called out Nissan directly in public based on such a weak attempt? Pure absurdity footie, pure absurdity. Look at this through Bruce's concept of how much is at risk. How much is at risk if they basically couldn't drive the car and flopped on getting a fair best time? Talk about major egg on ones face. They would be not only wrong, they would be known to have incapable drivers and would be seen as "crying wolf". Big, big risks. If the GT-R was in the range of 7:35 - 7:45, with honesty on power output, there would be LITTLE TO NO AGRUMENT across the industry, across the internet and across the entire enthusiast world.

Originally Posted by footie

What I understand is you have a major disliking for Nissan and the GTR in general.

This is absolutely, unconditionally, patently false. I have addressed this concern time and time again heaping loads of praise on Nissan and on the GT-R. Your adherence to this utterly false assumption does not speak well to your ability to listen, read nor accept very thorough and firm statements of personal opinion I have offered. This debate has NOTHING whatsoever to do with my opinions on Nissan nor on the GT-R. The case has been closed on this point so long ago but you adhere to it like a thin thread holding you above a tank of hungry sharks. It is nothing short of unreal. You can not tell me what my own opinion is on an issue that is solely about opinion. Nor can you point to a shred of evidence that supports your claim. Get over it foot, YOU ARE WRONG on this.

Originally Posted by footie

And yet the 997S with DPK has lapped the ring in 7:50, but we are all to believe that GTR is only capable of a similar lap time.

I have never ever said the best time the GT-R is capable of is in the 7:50 range. I have just said that many indivdual tests have consistently shown such a number. In each and every one of these cases there is solid evidence that the time was not optimal. Those variables have been brought up and deltas estimated for them. You still just can not get to 7:29 no matter how hard you push this type of analysis. After you get about 10 of these lap times lined up all with different drivers, all under different conditions and you begin to see the spread (the sigma!) you can make a better judgement about how real or possible the 7:29 is. Every report that comes in this far off of Nissans number the more it looses credibility - you can't really argue with that.

As I stated earlier the 7:50 time for the 997S with PDK is clear evidence of Porsche pushing the limits harder and harder and being less conservative with lap times. Nissans efforts and results with the GT-R is changing the way folks arrive at "the lap time". Please re-read my post #110 again in response to Mr. Poop. This is the essence of this situation it is a battle for public perception.

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by swamp2

...As I stated earlier the 7:50 time for the 997S with PDK is clear evidence of Porsche pushing the limits harder and harder and being less conservative with lap times. Nissans efforts and results with the GT-R is changing the way folks arrive at "the lap time". Please re-read my post #110 again in response to Mr. Poop. This is the essence of this situation it is a battle for public perception.

While there is no doubt that 'Ring times are getting more important to more manufacturers, you are wrong about this.

Mr.Rohrl's comments on how hard it was to get the 997S below eight flat were pithy indeed - and that was back in '94, I believe. That 7:59 involved a bunch of sweat, and possibly dry cleaning.

Bruce

[Robin_NL]

Goodmorning, I found this on a german forum, and maybe it's hard to understand, I think the plot thickens

Ich frag mich mal wie die GT-R Fans erklären das der GT-R in der Hand von einem 4fachen Formel 1 Weltmeister versagt?

Quattroroute Itlaien
Vergleich 997 GT2, F430 Scuderia, LP560-4, GT-R

Testfahrer... Alain Prost 4facher Formel 1 Weltmeister
Teststrecke Vairano Italien
Bei dem test stellte er einen neuen Rundenrekord für Produktionsfahrzeuge auf.

F430 Scuderia 1:15.159min
997 GT2 1:15.528min
LP560-4 1:15.714min
GT-R 1:17.600min

gefahren am selben Tag unter identischen Bedingungen von einem Weltklasse Vollprofi der als Franzose die Sache relativ neutral angehen konnte.

TopGear ist eine schlechte Referenz... die Strecke hat einfach zu unterschiedliche Bedingungen und da sie stehenden start haben sind alle AWD Fahrzeuge beim anfahren erstmal im Vorteil. Dort wurde nie der 997 GT2, 997GT3, 997 GT3RS getested... die letzte 911er Zeit die dort im trockenen gefahren wurde war der 996 GT3 RS mit 380PS.

Zu best motoring muß man nicht viel sagen, die Qualität der Fahrer ist einfach zu unterschiedlich. Wenn Herr Gan-San mitfährt ist er fast immer der schnellste egal in welchen Auto er sitzt. Wenn der im NSX-R sitzt gewinnt er damit gegen weit überlegene modern Supersportwagen. Sitzt er mal in einem 996 GT3 (wie beim Superbattle am Fuji raceway) ledert er damit einen NSX-R gefahren von einem anderen Japaner übelst ab(2 Sekunden schneller als der NSX-R).

Dazu kommt das fast überall der GT-R der internationalen Autopresse ein Jahr vor Markteinführung in Form von Pressefahrzeugen für Time Attack Rennen zur Verfügung gestellt wurde... in den USA, in UK, in Italien etc... ironischer weise wurde kein einziger GT-R der deutschen Autopresse zur verfügung gestellt. Sportauto durfte mal einen der drei Prototypen fahren und Horst von Saumar kam auf 7:50min am Ring... weder sportauto, sportscars, Autozeitung, powercar, auto motor und sport, Autobild etc. konnten Producktions GT-R Rennstreckentest machen.
Das in Deutschland wo mehr Autos von der Autopresse auf der Rennstrecke getestet werden als im rest der Welt zusammen.

www.fastestlaps.com

hat 2587Rundenzeiten von Serienfahrzeugen aus aller Welt gefahren auf 61Rennstrecken aufgelistet.... 1297Rundenzeiten stammen von deutschen Autozeitschriften und Autosendungen...

Da ist es schon erstaunlich das nicht ein einziger deutscher GT-R Rennstreckentest auftaucht..

In short, Alain Prost(4 times Formula 1 world champion) drove 4 cars at Vairano(I) and the stock GT-R was the slowest of the bunch.

Furthermore many carjournalists from the USA, Italy, the UK etc. have been given the opprtunity to try the pressvehicles(used for Time Attacks) GT-R out to tracktest, one year before Nissan launched it. ONLY Sportauto had the opportunity to testdrive one of the 3 prototypes(7:50) but none of the german carmags like sportauto, sportscars, Autozeitung, powercar, auto motor und sport, Autobild etc. have been given the opportunity to take a production GT-R for a spin at any testtrack...strange...
Though in Germany more than in any other part of the world(new) cars are being tracktested by carjournalists....

www.fastestlaps.com

has 2587 laptimes from productioncars from all over the world, at 61 tracks listed. 1297 laptimes are from german carmags and german car tv programmes...

Then it's just incredible that not even one german GT-R tracktest is listed...

The rest is not very important in my book(Topgear/Bestmotoring entertainment)



-------------------------------------

I don't hate Nissan and I am not a real Porsche freak, the car that won at Vairano is my favourite and I am not 'just'Ferrari biased either...a high revving V8 engine and rwd versus twinturbo/AWD hitech still does the trick LOL.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

While there is no doubt that 'Ring times are getting more important to more manufacturers, you are wrong about this.

Mr.Rohrl's comments on how hard it was to get the 997S below eight flat were pithy indeed - and that was back in '94, I believe. That 7:59 involved a bunch of sweat, and possibly dry cleaning.

Bruce

You believe I am wrong but I'm sure you have no evidence of it. Since neither of us will likely be able to rigorously "prove" our points I will simply offer the following clarifications. I don't doubt for a minute that Walter pushed that 997 quite hard to break 8 minutes. There surely was a psychological factor as well - the "magic" 8 minute barrier. It must have been a bit similar to the anticipation for that magic mark for the new M3. At the same time it is pure speculation to insist that this lap was any sketchier or higher in effort than any of dozens of other very fast laps by very good drivers each year at the Ring. Of course I am quite curious to hear any direct comments from him about this lap. It sounds like you have read/seen/know of them so you should be able to produce something.

What I seriously doubt is the the same overall level of effort and expense from the company, engineers, testers, facilities, mechanics, duration of testing, marketing involvement, number of trials, telemetry, etc., etc. was exerted by Porsche back in 1994 to get that time, compared to Nissan in this recent effort. I trust you have watched some of the videos showing their facility and the columns and columns of tires among other interesting "tidbits"?

Furthermore based on Porsches response to Nissan concerning the GT-Rs 7:29 time and them "getting beat" (if you can in any way call it a competition) on their "home turf" I think it is pretty darn obvious that they will enlist an even higher caliber of test driver and put forth a much larger effort to extract every second possible in future timed N'Ring laps for their production vehicles.

Lastly appealing a bit to reason. Most folks including yourself admit that the 7:29 time was a bit of an "alignment of the planets" type of event. How could Walters 7:59 run be the same sort of thing? Maybe the planets line up much more often than I thought. No actually I just don't buy it.

[footie]

Swamp,

There is a few area of the data and conclusions are wrong and I have highlighted this numerous times without you acknowledging them.

1/ Your belief that the ZR1 maintained full throttle during the entire straight in comparison to the 7:29 lap GTR.

It's the whole bases of your argument for the Nissan car being under rated in comparison to all other GTRs. Let me explain were your argument falls apart and thank god for the data supplied by DR to back up my opinion at that time with solid proof that I was right (like so many other occasions).

Check out the graph section with speed marker points supplied in the pages http://magazines.drivers-republic.co...c/thetruth030/ and you will see where those markers are in relation to both part of the corner. The first one is the clipping point on the first apex of the corner before the straight and the second is the other clipping point. With the first, both the ZR1 and the DR GTR post identical speeds but on the second point the ZR1 is 15mph quicker. For what every reason Chris could only maintain the speed, either due to track conditions or his commitment on the lap because of who owned the car or possibly a combination of the two, but what ever the reason the fact remains he was 15mph slower on entering the main straight.

Next point to concentrate on is the peak speed both car reached on the straight. Given your belief that the Vette driver had the throttle buried to entire time (after all it was a record lap you keep telling us) then logic would dictate that the ZR1 would be much quicker and post a much higher peak speed than this 'stock' GTR. But look what actually happened, the GTR turned a 15mph deficit to a 8mph one, it was actually accelerating quicker than the ZR1 up that long uphill-ed straight.

How can such a thing be possible without the ZR1 lifting for a significant part of that straight?

Next, the kink at the end of the straight, Chris lifted and lost 8mph to take the kink in the Nissan but the ZR1 maintained it's speed through this. Again this shows that Chris didn't have the same commitment for what ever reason that the Vette driver had. In fact when you watch the entire laps of both the ZR1 and the Suzuki lap in the GTR you can see how much more committed the two test driver were than Chris was, to the extent that I feel the 10 seconds he reckon Suzuki would have been quicker was a laugh.

I am more convinced than ever that give Suzuki in any other healthy GTR with the Dunlop tyres that on a day with similar conditions to the 7:29 lap one that he will be there or there about to the magical time.

P.S.
I never back pedal, I have always maintained that the GTR was producing about 530hp, the exact same as all other GTRs.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by footie

1/ Your belief that the ZR1 maintained full throttle during the entire straight in comparison to the 7:29 lap GTR.

Absolutely not so. I was always mentioning the odd behavior of the ZR1 in regards to its peak speed on Döttinger Höhe. What I believe is that for many of the 9 markers I analyzed that it was at full throttle. I would guess it was WOT somewhere into the 160-170 range. That is PLENTY of WOT, in more or less a straight line to get a relative power estimate for the car.

Originally Posted by footie

Check out the graph section with speed marker points supplied in the pages http://magazines.drivers-republic.co...c/thetruth030/ and you will see where those markers are in relation to both part of the corner. The first one is the clipping point on the first apex of the corner before the straight and the second is the other clipping point. With the first, both the ZR1 and the DR GTR post identical speeds but on the second point the ZR1 is 15mph quicker. For what every reason Chris could only maintain the speed, either due to track conditions or his commitment on the lap because of who owned the car or possibly a combination of the two, but what ever the reason the fact remains he was 15mph slower on entering the main straight.

We must be looking at different data. From DR: "Minimum speed 1st Apex Galgenkopf", GT-R = 82.1 mph. From the ZR1 video this value is clearly 81 mph. Note I am using the MINIMUM speeds as per DR statement. I am not trying to judge a clipping point arbitrarily (which you may be doing). For the second apex minimums the GT-R was as 89.3 and the ZR1 was at 95, a significant 6 mph faster but certainly no where near 15 mph. As far as entering the straight we have that data for the ZR1 and the value is 109 mph (right at the end of the curb) as per my original analysis. The corresponding value for the GT-R is absolutely UNKNOWN since there is insufficient telemetry. This makes an apples to apples comparison very difficult. You could assume they both drivers went WOT at the minimum speed point but it doesn't at all sound that way at all in the ZR1 video. Assuming WOT at curbs end is conservative and almost for sure the most accurate way to do this analysis.

Are we looking at the same data? If we can not agree on this we can not have a discussion on how to use these results.

The result of your conclusions are not meaningful in light of these serious data problems.

As far as speeds, distances and times above 174 (and again perhaps a bit lower) for the ZR1 something happened (lift, wind, commitment, vehicle, etc.) that results in clearly non WOT conditions and hence should not be used for gathering acceleration values nor power estimations. This point is very close to HALF WAY down Döttinger Höhe. After this point ALL comparisons are off. So the points where DR recorded peak speeds are certainly not directly comparable. I think this is nothing short of CRYSTAL CLEAR.

Originally Posted by footie

P.S.
I never back pedal, I have always maintained that the GTR was producing about 530hp, the exact same as all other GTRs.

An improper choice of words perhaps. I did not mean to imply that you change your ultimate top level stance. What I meant is that we get through one long argument (in this case my post about power estimates based on the videos), where you bring up objection after objection, all of which are discussed and many very reasonable but many of which are over turned. In the end, whether you agree with all of my assumptions or not, we end up agreeing on the final conclusion. In this case we agreed that the car had 530-560 hp. But then a mere week or so later, after I lay into you heavily on a totally different topic, you want to completely redredge the past and go back to all of the issues in the prior debate that we already beat absolutely to a dead bloody pulp. In addition to rehashing in this way you find it necessary to bring up any error I have ever made. Both tactics are childish and diversionary and cause such massive unneeded off topic diversions. You always do this when challenged instead of sticking to the challenge...

Which in this case still remains. Your data are wrong and you are trying to use points clearly inapplicable to an analysis.

Round and round we go. Will you directly address the mistakes I have pointed out and their consequences or just divert (again)?

[footie]

Originally Posted by swamp2

Absolutely not so. I was always mentioning the odd behavior of the ZR1 in regards to its peak speed on Döttinger Höhe. What I believe is that for many of the 9 markers I analyzed that it was at full throttle. I would guess it was WOT somewhere into the 160-170 range. That is PLENTY of WOT, in more or less a straight line to get a relative power estimate for the car.

Only if you say so, but if true then it's been and obscure position because for the most part your stance would suggest otherwise.

You wrote this only a short while ago which suggests different.

Nope, it is beacause GM reported strong winds. And no I did not consider the possibility of a lifted throttle on a long fast straight during a record breaking attempt - who would? Anything is possible you always have to ask is it likely or the most likely. There is a huge difference between a reasonable assumption and a leap of faith. I use the former and you seem to like the latter.

You see how difficult it is to know what you mean at any one time. Maybe that is why I keep repeating myself.

Originally Posted by swamp2

We must be looking at different data. From DR: "Minimum speed 1st Apex Galgenkopf", GT-R = 82.1 mph. From the ZR1 video this value is clearly 81 mph. Note I am using the MINIMUM speeds as per DR statement. I am not trying to judge a clipping point arbitrarily (which you may be doing). For the second apex minimums the GT-R was as 89.3 and the ZR1 was at 95, a significant 6 mph faster but certainly no where near 15 mph. As far as entering the straight we have that data for the ZR1 and the value is 109 mph (right at the end of the curb) as per my original analysis. The corresponding value for the GT-R is absolutely UNKNOWN since there is insufficient telemetry. This makes an apples to apples comparison very difficult. You could assume they both drivers went WOT at the minimum speed point but it doesn't at all sound that way at all in the ZR1 video. Assuming WOT at curbs end is conservative and almost for sure the most accurate way to do this analysis.

Are we looking at the same data? If we can not agree on this we can not have a discussion on how to use these results.

I believe we are in disagreement as to where the two points are being measured, I believe it's the middle of both apexes were as you think it's the entry point of the apex (i.e. when the car first touches the apex). As I said I believe it's the latter and thus the 15mph different I believe there is between the two cars.

Originally Posted by swamp2

The result of your conclusions are not meaningful in light of these serious data problems.

Well only if you believe we are looking at the data differently.

Originally Posted by swamp2

As far as speeds, distances and times above 174 (and again perhaps a bit lower) for the ZR1 something happened (lift, wind, commitment, vehicle, etc.) that results in clearly non WOT conditions and hence should not be used for gathering acceleration values nor power estimations. This point is very close to HALF WAY down Döttinger Höhe. After this point ALL comparisons are off. So the points where DR recorded peak speeds are certainly not directly comparable. I think this is nothing short of CRYSTAL CLEAR.

I suggested this right at the very beginning and I might add you laughed at this very thought. I told you it was an educated guess from experience though not of this track and it looks like after months of arguing you are starting to see the light, though you will never agree that I was right about this.

Originally Posted by swamp2

An improper choice of words perhaps. I did not mean to imply that you change your ultimate top level stance. What I meant is that we get through one long argument (in this case my post about power estimates based on the videos), where you bring up objection after objection, all of which are discussed and many very reasonable but many of which are over turned. In the end, whether you agree with all of my assumptions or not, we end up agreeing on the final conclusion. In this case we agreed that the car had 530-560 hp. But then a mere week or so later, after I lay into you heavily on a totally different topic, you want to completely redredge the past and go back to all of the issues in the prior debate that we already beat absolutely to a dead bloody pulp. In addition to rehashing in this way you find it necessary to bring up any error I have ever made. Both tactics are childish and diversionary and cause such massive unneeded off topic diversions. You always do this when challenged instead of sticking to the challenge...

As I already said, you never stick we the same opinion and not mean what you say so if I back pedal in the way you are thinking then it is a direct affect of your ever changing position on things.

Originally Posted by swamp2

Which in this case still remains. Your data are wrong and you are trying to use points clearly inapplicable to an analysis.

Round and round we go. Will you directly address the mistakes I have pointed out and their consequences or just divert (again)?

It is a simple disagreement in the reading of the data and it's meaning. You argue with anyone who disagrees on your opinion and I disagree with illogical reasoning.