2010 GTR loses launch control

[1º]

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

Is there proof the 'Ring times were doctored? Where?

Bruce

hey bruce,

porsche did their own testing, many will say its unfair or not real because it is porsche who did the testing, but its what started the claims about Nissan cheating.

http://carsguide.news.com.au/site/mo...t_nurburgring/


http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/did...rgring-record/

this was from 6speed

as to finding proof that they cheated? you will never find it. nissan probably destroyed the cars used on the ring by now. they will never admit to lying, their company's reputation is hurt bad enough.

[Radiation Joe]

Originally Posted by consolidated

How about just engineering a car to work without eating itself, that would be the no brainer.

Idiots will find a way to break anything. You can't engineer away stupidity.

[consolidated]

Originally Posted by Radiation Joe

Idiots will find a way to break anything. You can't engineer away stupidity.

'abuse' is quite different than just 'use'

[watrob]

Originally Posted by consolidated

'abuse' is quite different than just 'use'

+1

[ismelllikepoop]

interesting how everyone is making a huge hoopla about nissan dropping lc, when ferrari dropped it from us model f430's because of fear of lawsuits.

[watrob]

Originally Posted by ismelllikepoop

interesting how everyone is making a huge hoopla about nissan dropping lc, when ferrari dropped it from us model f430's because of fear of lawsuits.

Thats fine but Ferrari has not done what Nissan has done and that's upset there current GT-R owners, and Nissan actions has also caused a lot of people not to buy the GT-R, everyone is still buying the Ferrari.

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by 1º

...as to finding proof that they cheated? you will never find it. nissan probably destroyed the cars used on the ring by now. they will never admit to lying, their company's reputation is hurt bad enough.

OK. Your post was more or less unequivical in that there was actual proof that they cheated, when in fact there is no such thing, as far as I know. That's why I asked.

I personally feel that the 7:29 was and is absolutely legit, with an off-the-rack GTR. As far as I know, the engine/drive train mounts were modified after the 7:38 pass, presumably because Nissan spotted something in the telemetry.

Bruce

[adc]

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

I personally feel that the 7:29 was and is absolutely legit, with an off-the-rack GTR. As far as I know, the engine/drive train mounts were modified after the 7:38 pass, presumably because Nissan spotted something in the telemetry.

No engine mount I know of is worth 9 seconds on the Ring. (Unless it magically adds 50-60 HP or so).


I'll believe Nissan's claim after someone else - anyone else really - can duplicate the time with an off the shelf car. But I'm not holding my breath, I simply can't for so long.

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by adc

No engine mount I know of is worth 9 seconds on the Ring. (Unless it magically adds 50-60 HP or so).

Didn't mean to imply the mounts were responsible for a nine second difference - but now that you've mentioned it, there's no way anyone on this forum knows what those revised mounts were worth, including you, of course. Maybe nothing but driver confidence, maybe a lot.

Originally Posted by adc

I'll believe Nissan's claim after someone else - anyone else really - can duplicate the time with an off the shelf car. But I'm not holding my breath, I simply can't for so long.

If we all had the same opinions, we'd marry the same person and bet on the same horse.

Bruce

[footie]

This 7:29 debate will never end. I think I have shown based on the time DR did with a 'stock' GTR how it could approach that magical time.

Chris from DR says in his review a few pointers.

1: 5~6 seconds due to weather conditions can be expected and their 7:55 was done in piss poor conditions.

2: Nissan state that the Dunlop rubber shaves 5 seconds off the Bidgestones.

3: Chris state that someone of Suzuki's abilities could shave at least another 10 seconds. I reckon given the fact that the GTR he was driving was a mates and not supplied by Nissan he wouldn't be wanting to take any chances so another few seconds could be found there.

So 6 + 5 +10 = 21 seconds and say another 3 seconds for taking some extra chances, that makes a total of 24 seconds.

7:55 minus 24 seconds equals 7:31. Now that isn't too far off the magical 7:29 posted by Nissan on that day.

P.S.
If Driver Republic can match Porsche's time on a shitty, wet winter's day then what does that not say about Porsche commitment with the GTR compared to the time they did with the GT2. After what they posted Porsche lost all credibility with me.

[adc]

Originally Posted by footie

This 7:29 debate will never end. I think I have shown based on the time DR did with a 'stock' GTR how it could approach that magical time.

Chris from DR says in his review a few pointers.

1: 5~6 seconds due to weather conditions can be expected and their 7:55 was done in piss poor conditions.

2: Nissan state that the Dunlop rubber shaves 5 seconds off the Bidgestones.

3: Chris state that someone of Suzuki's abilities could shave at least another 10 seconds. I reckon given the fact that the GTR he was driving was a mates and not supplied by Nissan he wouldn't be wanting to take any chances so another few seconds could be found there.

So 6 + 5 +10 = 21 seconds and say another 3 seconds for taking some extra chances, that makes a total of 24 seconds.

7:55 minus 24 seconds equals 7:31. Now that isn't too far off the magical 7:29 posted by Nissan on that day.

P.S.
If Driver Republic can match Porsche's time on a shitty, wet winter's day then what does that not say about Porsche commitment with the GTR compared to the time they did with the GT2. After what they posted Porsche lost all credibility with me.

You are adding these numbers up like apples in a grocery cart - but they rarely follow the simple arithmetics in real life, on a real track.

There are no real anomalies on the times posted by the vast majority of cars - they truly fall on a curve that is predictable based on their HP/weight/grip ratios. Some cars really do a few seconds per lap better than expected, due to the perfection of the suspension, or even confidence they inspire in the drivers. But we're talking less than 10 seconds here, not 20 or 30.


What I am saying is that based on power, weight, traction etc. the GTR is expected to do in the 7:40 range - same as the Z06, GT3, 911T, etc. Of course the GT2 does 10 seconds better - it is measurably lighter, stronger and grippier. Just my opinion - I have no stake in this, I couldn't afford any of these cars, I'd love to but it isn't possible.


And I can assure you that once someone else other than Porsche and Nissan can do a lap in the 7:30 vicinity, the controversy will end. Forever.

[T Bone]

Even with the removal of launch control the GTR is still a nice car but Godzilla has been neutered.

The GTR was never meant to be a drag car, it is a track car, a damn good one that beats the 911 Turbo, fair and square.

Nissan corporate sucks donkeys, viral marketing of launch control, warranty void if used and then removal in the next model year. Cheezy and if I bought one, I would be pissed.

[footie]

Originally Posted by adc

You are adding these numbers up like apples in a grocery cart - but they rarely follow the simple arithmetics in real life, on a real track.

No I am not, these are simply statement from the article that Chriss Harris wrote.

Originally Posted by adc

There are no real anomalies on the times posted by the vast majority of cars - they truly fall on a curve that is predictable based on their HP/weight/grip ratios. Some cars really do a few seconds per lap better than expected, due to the perfection of the suspension, or even confidence they inspire in the drivers. But we're talking less than 10 seconds here, not 20 or 30.

Listen, there is simple facts that everyone with experience knows to be true. One is that a wet track cost a minimum amount of time per lap, over a 7~8min lap an improvement of 5~6 seconds is not excessive, in fact quite the opposite. Two that Nissan through extensive testing found that the grippier Dunlops improved the GTR's time by 5 seconds, Driver Republic's GTR with equipped with Bridgestones. Three is the fact that Chris though a very good driver admits that someone with the skills of Suzuki and his wealth of development knowledge of the GTR would amount to a minimum of 10 seconds based on his own estimates.

That is a total of 21 seconds, the other 3 seconds I reckon on was from his own admission that he didn't push as hard as he could and I believe the reason is the fact that the car wasn't a manufacturer's supplied car but a friend loaning his own ride. That takes a lot of faith in the pilot and likewise puts extra pressure on the driver to bring it back in one piece.

Originally Posted by adc

What I am saying is that based on power, weight, traction etc. the GTR is expected to do in the 7:40 range - same as the Z06, GT3, 911T, etc. Of course the GT2 does 10 seconds better - it is measurably lighter, stronger and grippier. Just my opinion - I have no stake in this, I couldn't afford any of these cars, I'd love to but it isn't possible.

I agree with you theory and method (power+weight+grip), the only difference is I believe the Nissan has more grip than either of the cars mentioned when the surface is as bumpy and unpredictable as it is on the Nurburgring.

Originally Posted by adc

And I can assure you that once someone else other than Porsche and Nissan can do a lap in the 7:30 vicinity, the controversy will end. Forever.

I would say anything more on my opinion on Porsche's comparison test.

[adc]

Originally Posted by footie

Listen, there is simple facts that everyone with experience knows to be true. One is that a wet track cost a minimum amount of time per lap, over a 7~8min lap an improvement of 5~6 seconds is not excessive, in fact quite the opposite.

Even in less than ideal conditions (but not truly atrocious), which if anything should give the GTR a massive advantage, the GT2 still was 6 seconds quicker. That's DR's conclusion as well.

All the rest of the speculation regarding Mr. Suzuki's driving abilities and hypothetical track times are just that - speculation. The author is a gentleman for giving credit, but I'm not as nice.

The GT2 was faster, in far from ideal conditions. I say it will still be faster - even more so, say about 10 seconds faster - in perfect conditions.

Bottom line - the GT2 was faster and - discounting both manufacturer's reported times as self-serving - so far I haven't seen a shred of evidence that says otherwise. Show me that evidence, not speculation, and I'll bow my head gracefully. Fair enough?

(Still won't have money for a GTR, unfortunately).


BTW, I'm curious - have you ever taken your car to the Ring?

[footie]

Give the GTR the same rubber and the two would be witin a second of each other, not the twenty plus seconds that Porsche would have us believe. Also one second on to Porsche's own GT2 time is not that far away from what I was suggesting.

[johnL]

Definitely not surprised by this. Friend of mine used his lc only 4 times and have been having trouble with the car ever since.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by footie

No I am not, these are simply statement from the article that Chriss Harris wrote.

Patently false. He never estimated a time from track conditions. He, however, say they he felt that TOGETHER Suzuki and the Dunlops could get 15 seconds better than his time, meaning 7:40.

Originally Posted by footie

the other 3 seconds I reckon on was from his own admission that he didn't push as hard as he could

Again, coveres in the 10-15 seonds stated above. You really do double count here.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by adc

There are no real anomalies on the times posted by the vast majority of cars - they truly fall on a curve that is predictable based on their HP/weight/grip ratios. Some cars really do a few seconds per lap better than expected, due to the perfection of the suspension, or even confidence they inspire in the drivers. But we're talking less than 10 seconds here, not 20 or 30.

It sounds like you may be keenly interested in some of the rigorous statistical work myself and member lucid have done in this area. A couple posts which have some of this analysis (and it is all related to the GT-R lap times) are here and here. This work establishes not only the linear relation between power to weight and lap times for various tracks but also establishes some great guidelines on how much variation in times above and below the mathematical prediction various cars will fall. In other words it really begins to pick true "outliers" (or errors) quantitatively. Enjoy.

[footie]

Originally Posted by swamp2

Patently false. He never estimated a time from track conditions. He, however, say they he felt that TOGETHER Suzuki and the Dunlops could get 15 seconds better than his time, meaning 7:40.



Again, coveres in the 10-15 seonds stated above. You really do double count here.

OK swamp, for you I will list what was said, you can make up your own opinion on this. I have mine.

Originally Posted by Chris (Driver Republic)

I’ve raced there (Nurburgring) seven times this year, and on days that seemed climatically identical but were months apart, cars have seen up to a five second discrepancy in lap time. Including ours.

To me this is saying that it's very possible that given the conditions a 5 second variation could have be likely.

Originally Posted by Chris (Driver Republic)

The GT-R belongs to a friend of DR. That's right, it needs to be a trusting and obliging friend to answer the question ‘Can we see how fast your GT-R is around the Ring?’ with the answer, ‘Oh, alright then.’ The car is factory standard running the Bridgestone tyre, which we already know is very impressive on track, but which Nissan claims is around 5-seconds slower at the Nordschleife than the sticky Dunlop.

Again I conclude that Chris will have been holding a little back because of who owned the GTR, I know I would have. Also here is mentioned about what Nissan claim for the difference in the two tyres.

Originally Posted by Chris (Driver Republic)

Well Walter’s time is 17 seconds faster than this, and having experienced the GT-“ at full-afterburner, I have no doubt that the car will achieve that time. I could show you where I’ve lost five seconds on just a handful of sections. In fact, I suspect that Herr Rohrl could go a little faster still.

Here we have Chris saying that he believes Walter was 17 seconds quicker, 5 was his own mistakes (possibly due to the conditions) which leaves 12 seconds of difference for Walter's ability and even then reckon Walter could have gone quicker means even more. But only affords Suzuki a 10 second improvement, is he being a little conservative given Suzuki's own racing achievements.

When everything is considered I think my guesstimates for a possible GTR time based on what Chris achieved and said is not to far off.

P.S.
You have to remember that what DR goal was to see which car was the quicker in their hands. That was the GT2 but when you considered the things stacked up against the GTR, like the wrong tyre choice (r-compound vs street rubber) and that fact it was not a factory supplied car but a mates it could have been possible with the right tyres and not the same concerns of possible damage that the GTR could have been the quicker on that day.

To me at least that means that if the GT2 could lap the ring in 7:32 then the GTR is very bit capable of at least matching that time with a 'stock' car. The final 3 seconds is the question mark I have over Nissan's car and for this I believe it's got a different suspension setup (possibly pre-production (a development spec setup)).

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by footie

To me this is saying that it's very possible that given the conditions a 5 second variation could have be likely.

Nice wordsmithing. Previously you claimed Chris said that the poor weather cost 5-6 seconds or that good weather could decrease times 5-6. That absolutely was not what he said. All he said was that on any given day with identical as conditions as possible on that day you will still see 5-6 second variations among repeated laps. This is absolutely not saying the same thing so thus your previous statement is still patently false. It is quite amusing to see how your own pro-Nissan bias affects your complete "reading in"/rewritting to what you want to hear, despite what was stated with perfect clarity.

Of course that being said water, track temp and air temp are very important factors that will each all push times positively in one direction or another.

[Doc]

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

Didn't mean to imply the mounts were responsible for a nine second difference - but now that you've mentioned it, there's no way anyone on this forum knows what those revised mounts were worth, including you, of course. Maybe nothing but driver confidence, maybe a lot.



If we all had the same opinions, we'd marry the same person and bet on the same horse.

Bruce

I need to get some of those mounts dude if it gives me 9 secs of confidence

Lets face facts - If Walther Rohrl cant match those times with an off the shelf car then nobody can. Nissan lied - accept it .. lets move on. The GTR is an awesome car and it shoots way above its price point but its not the supercar baiter everyone was led to believe. The V spec is another story though

The way they handled this LC affair is what puts a sour aftertaste on an amazing piece of engineering and thats why all car fans and owners are upset. They fucked up by putting it there in the first place and not putting any sort of limiter, like BMW and Porsche, to protect the tranny. Now they crying foul and pulling warrantees. Thats BS regardless of whether a guy did 10 launches or 1000 launches. They should sort out the few cars that are damaged and do a recall to introduce a limiter off sorts in good faith. Killing off LC completely just pulls the rug from under all new owners.

[footie]

Originally Posted by Doc

I need to get some of those mounts dude if it gives me 9 secs of confidence

Lets face facts - If Walther Rohrl cant match those times with an off the shelf car then nobody can. Nissan lied - accept it .. lets move on. The GTR is an awesome car and it shoots way above its price point but its not the supercar baiter everyone was led to believe. The V spec is another story though

The way they handled this LC affair is what puts a sour aftertaste on an amazing piece of engineering and thats why all car fans and owners are upset. They fucked up by putting it there in the first place and not putting any sort of limiter, like BMW and Porsche, to protect the tranny. Now they crying foul and pulling warrantees. Thats BS regardless of whether a guy did 10 launches or 1000 launches. They should sort out the few cars that are damaged and do a recall to introduce a limiter off sorts in good faith. Killing off LC completely just pulls the rug from under all new owners.

Wrong on so many counts.

1# It was not Walter driving the Nissan GTR is that comparison test conducted by Porsche which I might add I have no faith in.

2# Bruce was only saying that the mounts might have contributed to the 9 second improvement, not that it was the sole factor. That is pure speculation.

But he is correct that added confidence will improve your time considerably, think of lack of confidence as your first time at a new track and then think of added confidence as if you have covered 30 laps, you now know the course and how the car behaves. Your times have dropped considerably but the car hasn't changed one single bit.

P.S.
I don't know at what revs the system dumps the clutch in LC mode, if it was excessively high then that would put undue stress on everything but was probably the only way of achieving the desired times. I think it would have been better to lower the revs and save face but then they maybe thought that removing it was safer because there is always a software write around to increase it again and we all know how much some people love to modify their cars regardless of the warranty.

I don't agree with not covering the claims against them but if someone had clearly abused the thing to the extent that some clearly did I wouldn't want a repeat which would probably happen. After all he wouldn't be out of pocket and wouldn't care to repeat the exercise, maybe they should happen taken the car back and removed the LC system altogether.