GT-R breaks its own Ring record

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by Garissimo

"a = F / m" comes to mind. I don't know why this needs to be spelled out for you as you're the same guy who preaches that power to weight ratio is the only thing that matters in a straight line speed contest. The ring has an awful lot of straight, or semi-stragiht lines, in case you hadn't noticed.

It has a lot of curves, as well.

Again, can you quote any physical laws that have been broken? Nobody else can, but I have hope for you.

[Garissimo]

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

It has a lot of curves, as well.

Again, can you quote any physical laws that have been broken? Nobody else can, but I have hope for you.

I occasionally like to throw grenades from the sidelines. The problem with grenades is that they're not the most precise things. What I meant by my comment about Nissan overcoming the immutable laws of physics, is that I will never believe the lap times they are currently reporting are from a factory stock GT-R, even accounting for Nissan's obvious hp underrating. The power-to-weight ratio of a factory-stock car, and the grip from tires on a factory-stock car bracket it within a certain range of probable lap times.

You are a pretty scientific minded guy. You should know that an experiment is not considered valid unless it can be repeated. Both Driver's Republic, and Porsche themselves (hardly neutral I understand, but the Germans are usually pretty conservative about these matters) have attempted to duplicate the results of Nissan's driving experiment and neither have come close. In Porsche's case, they actually flew a U.S. spec GT-R off the showroom floor, and onto the ring. There are also various other "non ring" tests that show where the GT-R stands in the pecking order. Here's another one to chew on:

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...lap_times.html

[footie]

I don't want this to degrade into an argument or slagging match, I doubt anyone does so I agree with South's comments to reign in and keep it mature.

Garissimo, I don't know your background but Bruce is right, the ring is unlike almost another track, the amount of curves is incredible, over 70 and every one among the most difficult anywhere in the world. If you feel that Nissan are somehow cheating then it's your right to voice that opinion, but I don't happen to agree with that opinion and don't agree that the ring is solely a track that is all about horsepower because it isn't.

Bob.

P.S.

Porsche are claiming 7:40 from their new GT3 with only 435hp and a weight of 1470kg when the 75kg is added as BMW quote for their figures.

997.2 GT3 - PTW=300hp/T
GTR - PTW=280hp/T (Nissan quoted output)
GTR - PTW=309hp/T (530hp we believe it actually has)

So I ask you directly, how much a difference can Nissan's technically most advanced AWD system and an F1 driver make?

[Garissimo]

Originally Posted by footie

[...] If you feel that Nissan are somehow cheating then it's your right to voice that opinion, but I don't happen to agree with that opinion and don't agree that the ring is solely a track that is all about horsepower because it isn't.

Bob.

And independent source should be capable of reproducing, or at least approaching a manufacturer's claimed ring time. Period. Until Sport Auto, or someone else can get an honest-to-God factory stock GT-R around the ring in 7:35 or less, I claim shenanigans.

Originally Posted by footie

P.S.


Porsche are claiming 7:40 from their new GT3 with only 435hp and a weight of 1470kg when the 75kg is added as BMW quote for their figures.

997.2 GT3 - PTW=300hp/T
GTR - PTW=280hp/T (Nissan quoted output)
GTR - PTW=309hp/T (530hp we believe it actually has)

So I ask you directly, how much a difference can Nissan's technically most advanced AWD system and an F1 driver make?

Not enough to put ring times for a "factory-stock" car within a whiff of a ZR-1 and a Ferrari Enzo, which is what Nissan would now have us believe. I'm also willing to wager an outside source can come close to Porsche's 7:40 claim for the 997.2 GT3 without going to the extreme measures apparently needed to duplicate Nissan's GT-R claims.

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by Garissimo

...You are a pretty scientific minded guy. You should know that an experiment is not considered valid unless it can be repeated. Both Driver's Republic, and Porsche themselves (hardly neutral I understand, but the Germans are usually pretty conservative about these matters) have attempted to duplicate the results of Nissan's driving experiment and neither have come close. In Porsche's case, they actually flew a U.S. spec GT-R off the showroom floor, and onto the ring. There are also various other "non ring" tests that show where the GT-R stands in the pecking order...

Please disregard the Porsche results, for completely obvious reasons. Nissan's reply (that they would be glad to show Porsche how to do it in their car) was perfect.

As to DR, if memory serves, the Nissan was two seconds* off the Porsche on that day, and neither car came close to what their respective manufacturers claimed. Furthermore, the driver claimed fear. Nothing proved other than the two cars were close indeed - which is a good data point in my opinion.

Nissan claims the various cars that have shown these outstanding results were all stock as a stove, and I believe them. It wasn't just some tech wienie saying it, it was the big guns. Ghosn even mentioned it.

Way too much to lose if they're lying. It's the entire corporate reputation on the line.

Nissan has put together a world-class assault on the 'Ring, and it's paid off. But no matter what they do, some folks will never believe it. An idiot even said he'd attack a tender part of his anatomy with a knife rather than believe it, in fact. Wow.

Bruce

* The Nissan was actually seven seconds off the pace, but with tires that Nissan had previously claimed were five seconds off the pace.

[Irb Digital]

Originally Posted by Garissimo

And independent source should be capable of reproducing, or at least approaching a manufacturer's claimed ring time. Period. Until Sport Auto, or someone else can get an honest-to-God factory stock GT-R around the ring in 7:35 or less, I claim shenanigans.

Wrong. The effort that a billion $ company is going to put into what its world beating, flagship sports car, with millions invested, is capable of doing will far exceed what some independent magazine will do. According to your logic, privateers should have no problem matching manufacture backed teams in sanctioned racing. This simply does not happen.

[M3WC]

Originally Posted by Irb Digital

Wrong. The effort that a billion $ company is going to put into what its world beating, flagship sports car, with millions invested, is capable of doing will far exceed what some independent magazine will do. According to your logic, privateers should have no problem matching manufacture backed teams in sanctioned racing. This simply does not happen.

I fail to see how that analogy works. We are talking about a completely stock vehicle.

Some mag/publication should find the Nissan test driver. Provide an independent 100% stock GTR. And see how he does.

That will end the discussion.

[swamp2]

The direction of the discussion here regarding the variable of the driver is not correct on the behalf of the Nissan "defenders".

Each and every car has a ultimate limit - a faster time on a given track (with all else equal) just can not be achieved. This limit is in fact independent of the driver - it is all about the car itself. What separates amazing drivers from world class/elite/F1 drivers is actually very small margins. The air gets very rarified up in this zone. This point has been discussed previously and around a course like the Ring the variation between experienced, solid driving journalists with some racing background (such as the much discussed Horst von Saurma) and factory aces with significantly more ability is on the order of 1 second per minute, maybe only 1/2 second, but almost certainly not 2 seconds/min.

We can see this limit pretty well in the progression of the GT-R times (from Nissan): 7:29, 7:27, 7:26. There simply is not going to be a 7:20, not even from Nissan with Jesus driving. This is an asymptotic limit and they are at the end.

With this in mind we can conclude that the independent efforts should be much closer to Nissans time. Much closer. The non Nissan GT-R times thus far are:

7:54 Porsche Test Driver
7:50 Horst von Saurma
7:55 Chris Harris

We certainly know none of the above laps were in perfect conditions and none had a driver like Suzuki but someone simply has to get a lot closer eventually.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

Nissan claims the various cars that have shown these outstanding results were all stock as a stove, and I believe them. It wasn't just some tech wienie saying it, it was the big guns. Ghosn even mentioned it.

Way too much to lose if they're lying. It's the entire corporate reputation on the line.

It always comes back to the same key question... Since the cars doing these laps are undoubtedly a long way from matching the factory claimed power specification what is "stock" exactly? Does it simply mean that all cars rolling off the line have the same output? I guess the absurdity of the "stock" claim becomes obvious when factory quoted specs are meaningless.

I guess Ghosn's and Nissan's entire corporate reputation are just about as good as the truth value of 530 = 480...

[footie]

Originally Posted by swamp2

The direction of the discussion here regarding the variable of the driver is not correct on the behalf of the Nissan "defenders".

Each and every car has a ultimate limit - a faster time on a given track (with all else equal) just can not be achieved. This limit is in fact independent of the driver - it is all about the car itself. What separates amazing drivers from world class/elite/F1 drivers is actually very small margins. The air gets very rarified up in this zone. This point has been discussed previously and around a course like the Ring the variation between experienced, solid driving journalists with some racing background (such as the much discussed Horst von Saurma) and factory aces with significantly more ability is on the order of 1 second per minute, maybe only 1/2 second, but almost certainly not 2 seconds/min.

We can see this limit pretty well in the progression of the GT-R times (from Nissan): 7:29, 7:27, 7:26. There simply is not going to be a 7:20, not even from Nissan with Jesus driving. This is an asymptotic limit and they are at the end.

With this in mind we can conclude that the independent efforts should be much closer to Nissans time. Much closer. The non Nissan GT-R times thus far are:

7:54 Porsche Test Driver
7:50 Horst von Saurma
7:55 Chris Harris

We certainly know none of the above laps were in perfect conditions and none had a driver like Suzuki but someone simply has to get a lot closer eventually.

I would agree that if you threw a driver of Horst's caliber in the GTR and someone from the Elite F1 caliber and I would expect a 1 sec per minute improvement. But when you also add in that the F1 driver in question helped develop the car and spend a lot of this development time on the track in question then I believe another 0.5 sec per minute is at least a possibility.

I believe Horst himself reckon that on a perfect lap he would have shaved at least 8~10 sec off that time. The DR was conducted on a damp track where neither car got close to their respective lap record and the GTR was on the wrong tyres, something that Chris admitted. As for Porsche well they wouldn't have wanted the GTR to be as quick as their cars and on that occasion the 997tt did do it's lap within a second or so of it's best which if true proves just how much of a difference knowing and spending time developing the car can provide to it's potential lap time.

One thing I would like to add is that Nissan are highlighting the fact that it lap time was completed with the use of a European spec car and not an American spec car as Porsche used for their test, maybe there is more of a difference than we think. I know from pass experience that American spec suspension is vastly different and in general doesn't offer anything like the handling ability that Euro spec does.

On a final note, we are beating the power quotation of Nissan's to death, I have already been told by a Nissan representative that the true figure is 10% more than that, so it's time to except that this is indeed the case and base all opinions on this figure.

Bob.

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by swamp2

...I guess Ghosn's and Nissan's entire corporate reputation are just about as good as the truth value of 530 = 480...

How about a post trashing BMW and every other manufacturer over the years who have underrated their cars? Not up to it?

Note: Saying you don't like the fact that BMW has underrated some of their cars is not the same as saying Nissan and Ghosn are liars - although it's clear you are constitutionally incapable of being that Nasty to BMW.

It's that credibility thing again.

[Garissimo]

Originally Posted by Irb Digital

Wrong. The effort that a billion $ company is going to put into what its world beating, flagship sports car, with millions invested, is capable of doing will far exceed what some independent magazine will do. According to your logic, privateers should have no problem matching manufacture backed teams in sanctioned racing. This simply does not happen.

Interesting angle, but why is it that privateers are able to match or approach the ring times Porsche and BMW and Chrysler (Viper) advertise, but not Nissan's? If a manufacturer's published performance metrics are only capable of being duplicated by a monumental factory-backed effort, they aren't particularly relevant, IMNSHO.

[Garissimo]

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

Please disregard the Porsche results, for completely obvious reasons. Nissan's reply (that they would be glad to show Porsche how to do it in their car) was perfect.

Porsche's results happen to fall directly inline with what the other two independent sources clocked (DR, SA) so while it would be convenient to toss them out, they look to be yet another chink in Nissan's armor.

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

As to DR, if memory serves, the Nissan was two seconds* off the Porsche on that day, and neither car came close to what their respective manufacturers claimed. Furthermore, the driver claimed fear. Nothing proved other than the two cars were close indeed - which is a good data point in my opinion.

Nissan claims the various cars that have shown these outstanding results were all stock as a stove, and I believe them. It wasn't just some tech wienie saying it, it was the big guns. Ghosn even mentioned it.

Way too much to lose if they're lying. It's the entire corporate reputation on the line.

Nissan has put together a world-class assault on the 'Ring, and it's paid off. But no matter what they do, some folks will never believe it. An idiot even said he'd attack a tender part of his anatomy with a knife rather than believe it, in fact. Wow.

Bruce

* The Nissan was actually seven seconds off the pace, but with tires that Nissan had previously claimed were five seconds off the pace.

Bruce, please refer to the test:

http://magazines.drivers-republic.co...c/thetruth030/

As far as "driver fear", Harris said that was only an issue with the GT2. He said he felt he was able to extract more from the GT-R than the GT2. And the comparison proved quite a bit of useful info beyond the fact that the two cars turned in somewhat close lap times. It revealed that the GT-R was slightly faster into corners because it was more settled under hard braking. Both were equal in the turns. The GT2 was faster out of the turn and on all the straights, and that turned out to be the real difference. That you can just wave off this test as a slightly interesting data point surprises me.

Also note that the telemetry data shows the GT-R in the DR test was slower than Sukuki-san's GT-R at the end of long straights by some 8mph or more. This wasn't attributable to faster exit speed, tailwinds, or ambient conditions either, so what does that lead one to believe? It would seem that the definition of a "stock" GT-R varies all over the board. Car and Driver's early testing of the car seems to back this up.

[EDIT] Even more insight on the heads up comparison at the ring, here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jq1UZzJk6mw

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

How about a post trashing BMW and every other manufacturer over the years who have underrated their cars? Not up to it?

Note: Saying you don't like the fact that BMW has underrated some of their cars is not the same as saying Nissan and Ghosn are liars - although it's clear you are constitutionally incapable of being that Nasty to BMW.

It's that credibility thing again.

Just as I am not aware of much Nissan under rating outside of this and other Skylines I am not aware of much under rating by BMW outside of the 335i. Some ignorance here is quite possible. I have stated my feeling about BMW and under rating on multiple occasions. Quite frankly I am a bit less concerned about the 335i case as compared to the GT-R. Why, well it should be painfully obvious. Nissan has made an incredibly aggressive marketing blitz out of the GT-R lap times. It simply deserves more attention and criticism. Recall my oft used quote that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". Have you heard anyone besides Sportauto make a peep about the 335i Ring time? They didn't even really make a peep about it other than testing and reporting the time. Secondly have you seen any evidence of 335i's performing inconsistently? Didn't think so. It is an awfully boring car and boring situation compared to the GT-R.

Either way you slice it dishonesty and lying is dishonesty and lying and it should be harshly criticized and BMW in this regard is just as guilty as Nissan. The regression analysis shows the effect of the 335i under rating as it being an enormous 0.4 sigma over performing, this translated to 4 seconds better than regression. Uh oh, call the National Academy of Science! Perhaps I will see how much interesting discussion and debate I can get started about the 335i's under rating and its Ring time over at Nagtroc... Not.

Both credibility and skepticism do not require universal application to every possible case of suspicion. As long as the point is not proffered that such dishonesty is unique when it isn't then it is simply not a question of credibility. It is your near obsession with my credibility that is the problem here, not my credibility.

Of course we can never forget who was right from day 1 on this and the SAE thing and who wasn't. Whose credibility is in question? Well to be fair perhaps I should say whose power of supposition is in question.

[footie]

Originally Posted by Garissimo

Porsche's results happen to fall directly inline with what the other two independent sources clocked (DR, SA) so while it would be convenient to toss them out, they look to be yet another chink in Nissan's armor.



Bruce, please refer to the test:

http://magazines.drivers-republic.co...c/thetruth030/

As far as "driver fear", Harris said that was only an issue with the GT2. He said he felt he was able to extract more from the GT-R than the GT2. And the comparison proved quite a bit of useful info beyond the fact that the two cars turned in somewhat close lap times. It revealed that the GT-R was slightly faster into corners because it was more settled under hard braking. Both were equal in the turns. The GT2 was faster out of the turn and on all the straights, and that turned out to be the real difference. That you can just wave off this test as a slightly interesting data point surprises me.

Also note that the telemetry data shows the GT-R in the DR test was slower than Sukuki-san's GT-R at the end of long straights by some 8mph or more. This wasn't attributable to faster exit speed, tailwinds, or ambient conditions either, so what does that lead one to believe? It would seem that the definition of a "stock" GT-R varies all over the board. Car and Driver's early testing of the car seems to back this up.

[EDIT] Even more insight on the heads up comparison at the ring, here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jq1UZzJk6mw

Were is the evidence that DR's GTR was 8mph slower, I have looked at the 7:29 lap on Youtube but it contains no speedo reading.

Also where does the DR's lap time in the GT2 mean it's more in tune with what Porsche got from their lap time? Porsche got 7:32 compared to DR's 7:48~9 and just because Chris said he felt that he could of improved the GT2's time by a handful of seconds is not the same as doing it. It's also a fact that the Dunlops improve the GTR by 5 seconds and if the DR GTR had the right rubber then it would have did a 7:50 lap so though that would still have placed it slower then the GT2 it isn't out of the ball park that a different GTR may have found more time in this GTR and placed it ahead.

Remember that around the Silverstone track a different GTR actually lapped quicker by 1 second than the GT2.

Bob

P.S.

We all seem to be going round in circles with none of us giving an inch.

[footie]

Originally Posted by swamp2

Just as I am not aware of much Nissan under rating outside of this and other Skylines I am not aware of much under rating by BMW outside of the 335i. Some ignorance here is quite possible. I have stated my feeling about BMW and under rating on multiple occasions. Quite frankly I am a bit less concerned about the 335i case as compared to the GT-R. Why, well it should be painfully obvious. Nissan has made an incredibly aggressive marketing blitz out of the GT-R lap times. It simply deserves more attention and criticism. Recall my oft used quote that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". Have you heard anyone besides Sportauto make a peep about the 335i Ring time? They didn't even really make a peep about it other than testing and reporting the time. Secondly have you seen any evidence of 335i's performing inconsistently? Didn't think so. It is an awfully boring car and boring situation compared to the GT-R.

Either way you slice it dishonesty and lying is dishonesty and lying and it should be harshly criticized and BMW in this regard is just as guilty as Nissan. The regression analysis shows the effect of the 335i under rating as it being an enormous 0.4 sigma over performing, this translated to 4 seconds better than regression. Uh oh, call the National Academy of Science! Perhaps I will see how much interesting discussion and debate I can get started about the 335i's under rating and its Ring time over at Nagtroc... Not.

There is little doubt that the 335i is under rated but while BMW might not be shouting about it, it's results are having an effect on potential customers. After all when a 335i seems to match the old M3's times in acceleration and also match it's S5 rival with a supposed 48hp short fall then it's enough me to agree with Bruce and say that what BMW are doing is no different to that of Nissan. The only real difference is instead of shouting about it's potential themselves as is the case with Nissan, they are letting the press do that for them.

Bob

P.S.

I might add that I am under the impression that Audi are taking a leaf out of both BMW and Nissan's book with the new S4, because the acceleration times it's producing are truly incredible.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by footie

what BMW are doing is no different to that of Nissan. The only real difference is instead of shouting about it's potential themselves as is the case with Nissan, they are letting the press do that for them.

Sure as I have said over and over lying is lying. However if you think the 335i and GT-R situation are "no different" then we will never see eye to eye on that. I know you actually don't even believe that in your heart.

[footie]

Originally Posted by swamp2

Sure as I have said over and over lying is lying. However if you think the 335i and GT-R situation are "no different" then we will never see eye to eye on that. I know you actually don't even believe that in your heart.

Actually I do. I have read too many comparison tests where the reviewer praise the 335i for it's incredible performance and think to myself 'but they are f'ing lying about it's output figures'.

In a way their lying is almost worse because staying quiet about the car's potential gives them the air of respectibility and to some people believe they aren't cheating. But when you look at the times that some M cars produced in early tests then you now have to question all those previous results and I am now convinced that they have always done it.

Cheating it cheating and I am now seeing Audi resorting to the same methods which is plain wrong.

[Brianrg]

Considered buying a GTR until I saw one in person and sat in it.
Need to have a car seat in the back and definitely not an option if you are taller than 5.8
Dealership was freaking arrogant as well.

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by footie

We all seem to be going round in circles with none of us giving an inch.

Good point (as usual).

I'm gone.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by footie

Actually I do. I have read too many comparison tests where the reviewer praise the 335i for it's incredible performance and think to myself 'but they are f'ing lying about it's output figures'.

In a way their lying is almost worse because staying quiet about the car's potential gives them the air of respectibility and to some people believe they aren't cheating.

And some (rather idiotic) folks don't believe Nissan is cheating either. So what.

Originally Posted by footie

But when you look at the times that some M cars produced in early tests then you now have to question all those previous results and I am now convinced that they have always done it.

Cheating it cheating and I am now seeing Audi resorting to the same methods which is plain wrong.

Are you implying under rating is common among M cars? I haven't seen any drag or lap times from M cars that stand out as demonstrating any likely under rating. Either way we are on some small portion of the same page becuase cheating is cheating.

[lacerdaschoon]

WoW these M3 forums are out of control, i dont see the big deal in getting so over hyped up over something so irrelevant to your daily life.. GTR is a great car irrespective of your presumed HP ratings and other issues you put forward. Facts are facts times are times. Heres another review of the porsche up against the GTR driven by a GP2 driver Bruno Senna