More drivers question Nissan's Nurburgring time

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by footie

I don't agree that the PSC will be dramatically better than the PSC+ in the dry. When you consider the development years between both designs and the advances in tyres technology I would be surprised if we are talking about anything more than a couple of percentage difference in the dry times.

It's the equivalent to saying the E46 should be quicker than the E92 because the newer car has a more comfortable ride. I know, stupid comparison but you get the point.

I also "...don't agree that the PSC will be dramatically better than the PSC+ in the dry". But I never said it was. The Tire Rack material that swamp pointed to seems to indicate that the PSC+ is a BMW OEM version of the PSC, with a thin groove around the outside shoulder. To me that indicates cornering would be "...extremely close indeed to the PSC, and pretty far removed from the PS2 or Pilot Sport", as I mentioned.

Swamp and lucid had previously thought that the PSC+ was more closely related to the PS2 max performance street tire, but now we know it's a DOT-legal track tire roughly equivalent to the PSC.

For me, that in turn means the M3 8:05 ring time turned by Horst on PSC+ sneakers and track pads is roughly equivalent to what a cockpit assassin might do on U.S.- spec pads and U.S. standard PS2s.

For whatever that's worth.

Bruce

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

Swamp and lucid had previously thought that the PSC+ was more closely related to the PS2 max performance street tire, but now we know it's a DOT-legal track tire roughly equivalent to the PSC.

Not so. Well not so for myself at least. My contention was that the MPSC (or perhaps previous models of it) did not have any specific design features; tread, grooves or dual compound construction to improve its wet performance. I thought it was a true all out DOT-legal track tire designed only for max dry grip. As well I thought (and seem to be correct) that the MPSC+ was a version of the MPSC with less dry performance and improved wet performance. The questions I still have are:

1. Was there ever a MPSC with no features specifically for improved wet performance?
2. If you rank the MPSC a 10 for ultimate dry grip where do the MPSC+ and MPS2 fall? I do think the gap between MPSC+ and MPS2 will be larger than the gap between MPSC and MPSC+.

[footie]

Originally Posted by swamp2

As well I thought (and seem to be correct) that the MPSC+ was a version of the MPSC with less dry performance and improved wet performance.

Where is your evidence of this?

Even if true your are basing everything on an opinion and no hard facts. Very un-swamp of you.

P.S.
What were the tyre choices for the ACR and ZR1 on their record runs? The reason I ask is because Porsche chose to use CUP+ on their most track oriented model the GT3RS, the very same tyre they chose for the standard GT3. One would have expected if there was another tyre choice available from either Michelin or someone else that proved to be better for such a track oriented car that Porsche would have chosen it. But no, instead they stuck with the CUP+, does that no explain something to you.

[southlight]

Originally Posted by swamp2

As well I thought (and seem to be correct) that the MPSC+ was a version of the MPSC with less dry performance and improved wet performance.
...
2. If you rank the MPSC a 10 for ultimate dry grip where do the MPSC+ and MPS2 fall? I do think the gap between MPSC+ and MPS2 will be larger than the gap between MPSC and MPSC+.

That's true on both counts.

Both PSC and PSC+ are currently available (even in the UK, footie: http://www.michelin.co.uk/michelinuk...312100263.html ). PSC+ indeed has better wet handling (no one doubts that I guess) but the common sense is that due to this improvement the dry performance somewhat has suffered. So for ultimate performance on a dry track the PSC is still a better choice than the PSC+.

BMW claims that the PSC+ should be considered as a better PS2 and nowhere near a real performance tire (P Corsa comes to mind). Nonetheless I agree that the gap between PS2 and PSC+ will be larger than between PSC and PSC+.

For some background of the used compound this short article E linked some months ago: http://www.reifenpresse.de/CDML007/e...97&RecID=14471


Best regards, south

[footie]

Originally Posted by southlight

That's true on both counts.

Both PSC and PSC+ are currently available (even in the UK, footie: http://www.michelin.co.uk/michelinuk...312100263.html ). PSC+ indeed has better wet handling (no one doubts that I guess) but the common sense is that due to this improvement the dry performance somewhat has suffered. So for ultimate performance on a dry track the PSC is still a better choice than the PSC+.

BMW claims that the PSC+ should be considered as a better PS2 and nowhere near a real performance tire (P Corsa comes to mind). Nonetheless I agree that the gap between PS2 and PSC+ will be larger than between PSC and PSC+.

For some background of the used compound this short article E linked some months ago: http://www.reifenpresse.de/CDML007/e...97&RecID=14471


Best regards, south

Thanks for that South, I don't knw how I missed that, especially when I was on that very page.

I noticed that there is three versions of CUP tyres, the original, the plus and the N0. The original covers the smaller rims sizes while the plus and N0 covering the larger sizes.

I try to discover the exact difference between them over the next few days, as I have a Michelin factory just a few miles away with a friend who is quite high up.

[southlight]

N0 are OEM Cup tires for Porsche models (like the * indicates BMW spec, for example PS2*). These might be slightly different from the original Cup tires.


Best regards, south

[Steved]

As many of you are aware we took a customer owned Nissan GT-R over to the 'ring last week and compared it against Porsche's familiar 997 GT2 press car.

Chris Harris who has raced throughout the season in the VLN set the lap times on Tuesday on a drying (but not fully dry track). The GT-R was wearing the same Bridgestone's as used in Nissan's filmed lap and the 997 GT2 was fitted with Michelin Cup + tyres.

You can probably guess that I'm not going to tell you the lap times until we publish the article, but it will perhaps settle this debate once and for all (famous last words...). Chris followed the same procedure for both cars, namely 3 laps comprising an out-lap and two flying laps, so each had the same opportunity to shine.

Chris' Column

Chris' initial thoughts are in his weekly column (above) and hopefully he's writing the article as we speak ready for publishing early next week.

We will have full videos of each lap plus telemetry readings and an explanation of where each had an advantage around the lap. We seem to be the first magazine to perform a back-to-back comparison, with a driver capable of extracting decent times, so we look forward to sharing the feature with you soon.

[jaiman]

In the next week or so, you will read about what the GT2 did at the ‘Ring – how it fared against a Japanese machine that has of late been stealing many headlines. But regardless of the outcome of that test, I now have to admit that were money no object, I would chose a GT2 Clubsport over the GT3 equivalent.

That leads me to believe that the GT-R was faster. Can't wait for the full test with tellemetry. I think the GTR will show a large advantage during highspeed cornering.

[footie]

Steved,

You know from your own telemetery that the GTR is a miracle worker in the corners. On Silverstone it was over 10mph slower on hanger straight yet still posts a quicker lap time than the GT2, and we both know that Silverstone is a power circuit like few others, if you are fast down the straights and handle moderately well you will post a good lap time.

Both the LP560 and the GT2 posted quicker hanger straight speeds proving just how much quicker they were in acceleration but both couldn't match the big Nissan in the corners and watching the way the GTR could change direction compared to the others was truly magical.

If it doesn't at least match the GT2 on the Nurburgring then I will be truly surprised.

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by footie

...If it doesn't at least match the GT2 on the Nurburgring then I will be truly surprised.

At a guess, I'm thinking the Porsche might eke out a slim lead, based on those Bridgestones...

Bruce

[footie]

I know some of us harp on about the important of either tyres or suspension or brakes. Well here is what TOPGEAR made of the subject with some surprises for those who feel tyres and brakes are king.

http://videos.streetfire.net/video/T...-22_199640.htm

The r-compound rubber on it's own was making only 2 seconds but when combined with the bigger brakes the car was still slower than the stock car with stock brakes and normal rubber. The only thing that made real inroads to improving the time was weight and suspension, with the latter making more than twice the improvement of r-compound rubber on it's own, though some of the thanks has to go to the rubber as well because it's the suspension allowing the rubber to work to the full.

Summary: R-compound by itself doesn't make the improvement some people believe and it takes the combination of suspension as well to make them work to their full potential.

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by footie

I know some of us harp on about the important of either tyres or suspension or brakes. Well here is what TOPGEAR made of the subject with some surprises for those who feel tyres and brakes are king.

The r-compound rubber on it's own was making only 2 seconds but when combined with the bigger brakes the car was still slower than the stock car with stock brakes and normal rubber. The only thing that made real inroads to improving the time was weight and suspension, with the latter making more than twice the improvement of r-compound rubber on it's own, though some of the thanks has to go to the rubber as well because it's the suspension allowing the rubber to work to the full.

Summary: R-compound by itself doesn't make the improvement some people believe and it takes the combination of suspension as well to make them work to their full potential.

As usual, another funny and informative piece from those Top Gear nutballs. Thank you.

Not sure what others believe, but my direct experience of "a fat second per minute" gleaned from r-compound rubber over good street rubber seems to be backed up by this piece.

Of all the modifications, my belief is that weight loss is king, followed by sticky sneakers, followed by brakes, followed by suspension bits, followed by power. We could obviously quibble about the exact order, but power will never be first, and weight loss will never be last.

Bruce

[lucid]

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

lucid, did you see my amended post about three back? Apparently we're at mixed signals, with me referring to the Pilot Sport and you referring to the Pilot Sport Cup.

I just did. Yes, we were clearly talking about different tires. I didn't know what to make of your response as I experienced a significant grip difference between the PS2s and PSCs at the track.

One thing I did not know is that the OEM version of the PSC were PSC+s, so thanks to South for that clarification.

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

Swamp and lucid had previously thought that the PSC+ was more closely related to the PS2 max performance street tire, but now we know it's a DOT-legal track tire roughly equivalent to the PSC.

I don't recall making this claim, so I am not sure what you are referring to. PSCs definitely use different compound. Why do you think I shelled out $1400 for them?

They patiently await the start of the next NE track/summer season in the basement, which is many months away...

[lucid]

Originally Posted by Steved

You can probably guess that I'm not going to tell you the lap times until we publish the article, but it will perhaps settle this debate once and for all (famous last words...).

You forget that this is m3post.com. We wouldn't agree on the density of water even if someone was to get solid volume and weight measurements taken by sensitive equipment.

[footie]

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

As usual, another funny and informative piece from those Top Gear nutballs. Thank you.

Not sure what others believe, but my direct experience of "a fat second per minute" gleaned from r-compound rubber over good street rubber seems to be backed up by this piece.

Of all the modifications, my belief is that weight loss is king, followed by sticky sneakers, followed by brakes, followed by suspension bits, followed by power. We could obviously quibble about the exact order, but power will never be first, and weight loss will never be last.

Bruce

I know we will all not agree on the order, but that is the fun in these debates, it's everyone elses opinion.

It's a shame they didn't do everything individually to show the differences between them, that way it would have answered the question of which is king. The funny thing was that I give the exact times for each mod they did and why to the brother who happened to come round and sat watching it with me. He was convinced that it was a repeat because of my comments but it's all experience and common sense really.

I know the brakes and rims would both add weight and the extra weight especially at the front with those huge disc and calipers would affect the steering and direction change. The rims/tyres would be heavier and the combination would clearly affect the time by 2 seconds.

The r-compound would regain the lost ground purely because of their extra grip when the stock suspension was in connect with the surface.

Here is my take on how much each mod affected the lap time based on this car on the TOPGEAR track

Brake : + 1.9s
Rims/sports rubber : +0.2s
R-Comp rubber : -1.9s (with no other suspension mods)+(an additional 0.8s from suspension fine tuning)
Weight lose : -1.8s (0.9s for every 80~100lbs)
Suspension : -2s
Power gain : -2s (1 sec for every 15%)
Aerodynamics : -0.5s (at moderate speeds)

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by lucid

...PSCs definitely use different compound. Why do you think I shelled out $1400 for them?

They patiently await the start of the next NE track/summer season in the basement, which is many months away...

Bummer, I know.

You may want to check out these folks for next year. Generally speaking, you get more track time at any given venue. They tend to do a lot of events at Lime Rock (as well as NHMS and others), so if you haven't done that track yet, you ought to. It's a joy (and maybe a little terror on the Downhill), and I guarantee it'll teach you how to be faster at NHMS.

Bruce

[lucid]

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

Bummer, I know.

You may want to check out these folks for next year. Generally speaking, you get more track time at any given venue. They tend to do a lot of events at Lime Rock (as well as NHMS and others), so if you haven't done that track yet, you ought to. It's a joy (and maybe a little terror on the Downhill), and I guarantee it'll teach you how to be faster at NHMS.

Bruce

I'll check them out. My main constraint is track insurance. The track insurance company I am using does not cover all clubs. And, I'm not taking a $60k to the track without insurance.

I might pick up a dedicated track car next year, and we'll see. Have you noticed how much depreciation the E46 M3s have seen recently? You can pick up a '02 with 70k miles for ~$18k in this environment. It'll only get worse, and I might pull the trigger on one at $15k. What do you think about a stripped E46 for a track car? What other car would you recommend at that price range (I confess that M3s are not the only capable performance cars out there)? Sorry, I'm going off topic here clearly.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by footie

Summary: R-compound by itself doesn't make the improvement some people believe and it takes the combination of suspension as well to make them work to their full potential.

If you believe this and believe that this silly TV show episode provides evidence for it then you have some issues.

What will work best for any given car is surely a function of the existing nature of the car and its state of tune. I guess we agree on this. If a car is "over" powered and severly under braked, brakes may be the best thing you can do. Secondly, power and weight are nearly the same factor, as I have shown time and time again, but it is their ratio that matters most. However, weight gets the ultimate advantage as lower weight helps power to weight, hence acceleration (and hence track times), but also helps handling significantly.

Tires can certainly provide big gains but of course if your suspension is so far away from a sport/track oriented suspension and it is unable to control the contact patch, vehicle roll, wheel camber through the travel etc. then the tires will be unable to help as much as they can. The existing lack of sportiness of the Renaults OEM suspension was great enough that the tires did not seem to help. However, even under these conditions with careful apples to apples comparison, I'd bet you could prove the car faster with only the track tires as the single mod. The 1-2 seconds per minute rule of thumb for serious tires has been known, observed and validated by enthusiasts, amateur and serious racers, depending on car, track, state of tune, etc.

[footie]

Swamp,

I thought that is basically what I have been saying from the word go. Tyres on the own can't provide the huge gains talked about, the suspension is the all important link that keeps the rubber in contract with the road surface thus allowing the rubber to do it's thing.

PTW can't defy physics, if the car is heavy then the rubber and suspension can only take it so far, reducing weight is a necessity. And there comes a point where (and I am talking road cars here) too much power becomes a disadvantage unless that power can be fully transferred to the road and then the argument comes right back to the likes of the GTR.

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by lucid

I'll check them out. My main constraint is track insurance. The track insurance company I am using does not cover all clubs. And, I'm not taking a $60k to the track without insurance.

I might pick up a dedicated track car next year, and we'll see. Have you noticed how much depreciation the E46 M3s have seen recently? You can pick up a '02 with 70k miles for ~$18k in this environment. It'll only get worse, and I might pull the trigger on one at $15k. What do you think about a stripped E46 for a track car? What other car would you recommend at that price range (I confess that M3s are not the only capable performance cars out there)? Sorry, I'm going off topic here clearly.

Will Turner just called me back, and he thinks you might want to consider an E36 M3 as a good starting point for a track car, as opposed to an E46. He shares the idea that the E36 is basically more fun to drive (on track or off), and of course is less money. Then start outfitting it for track use as time and finances permit. They do two or three of these a year for guys like yourself, basically starting with safety modifications and taking care of a number of things that are likely to annoy you on track days. Meaning brakes and other items that take time away from driving. Then over time, you can decide what a natural progression would look like.

The basic idea here is to have the pros who have been there done that take care of the things they know about, saving you the trouble.

Apparently Kevin is his guy for these projects (never met him), and if you're interested, he can help you find a good M3 to start with, and make those first changes to ensure you have a good, safe, maximum track time car suitable for harassing everybody else out there. If you're interested, give Kevin a call.

Bruce

PS - My idea (advanced before) of starting with a 325 is apparently not the hot tip. Will says it'll cost you less to begin with, but as you progress, the costs will go way up compared to the M3, because the M guys did a bunch of work up front.

My other idea (of purchasing an out-of-date race car from Turner Motorsports) is also not the hot tip. Not only doesn't he have any at the moment, but the last one he sold went for $85K.

PPS - If you're dead set on an E46, they do those as well.

[lucid]

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

Will Turner just called me back, and he thinks you might want to consider an E36 M3 as a good starting point for a track car, as opposed to an E46. He shares the idea that the E36 is basically more fun to drive (on track or off), and of course is less money. Then start outfitting it for track use as time and finances permit. They do two or three of these a year for guys like yourself, basically starting with safety modifications and taking care of a number of things that are likely to annoy you on track days. Meaning brakes and other items that take time away from driving. Then over time, you can decide what a natural progression would look like.

The basic idea here is to have the pros who have been there done that take care of the things they know about, saving you the trouble.

Apparently Kevin is his guy for these projects (never met him), and if you're interested, he can help you find a good M3 to start with, and make those first changes to ensure you have a good, safe, maximum track time car suitable for harassing everybody else out there. If you're interested, give Kevin a call.

Bruce

PS - My idea (advanced before) of starting with a 325 is apparently not the hot tip. Will says it'll cost you less to begin with, but as you progress, the costs will go way up compared to the M3, because the M guys did a bunch of work up front.

My other idea (of purchasing an out-of-date race car from Turner Motorsports) is also not the hot tip. Not only doesn't he have any at the moment, but the last one he sold went for $85K.

PPS - If you're dead set on an E46, they do those as well.

I appreciate the feedback Bruce. Falls in line with what others track gurus have told me so far, and how I assessed the situation myself. I understand that one can pick a up nice rust free "southern" E36 M3 for ~$10k these days, and once the known and expected issues/systems are dealt with/upgraded, you have a fun track monster in your hands that you can tow around. A part of me still wants the more powerful engine in the E46 though. Yeah, I know you end up with a heavier chassis that is harder to toss around and all that, but you know what I mean...

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by lucid

...Yeah, I know you end up with a heavier chassis that is harder to toss around and all that, but you know what I mean...

For me, the most fun is driving a "slower" car around the "faster" guys.

Bruce