Porsche accuses Nissan GT-R of cheating the "Ring":

[swamp2]

^

Hmmm, so you are so invested with your opinion that the car HAD to be a UFO/genius/over achiever that you can not be objective in the face of evidence for a significant under rarting? Got it. Pot, kettle, black.

Interesting view of "analysis". I call this long recounting a view of your ability to simply observe and regurgitate facts as opposed to making any novel predicitons.

Sub par definition of "go nuts" for sure. If you call providing a novel analysis combining evidence, solid estimations, video evidence and physics based simulations to yeild a conclusion consistent with much of the evidence then I guess you are right. I am absolutely nuts, bonkers, insane.

Glad you at least acknowledge my early hypothesis as correct. Hopefully we will see if it will go 1-1 or 2-0.

[ismelllikepoop]

goddammit watching videos on youtube and making guestimations is not objective science.

[footie]

Originally Posted by swamp2

I am not talking about trap speeds at the end of a section. I am and have been talking about a neck and neck race from ~100 to ~175 in a straight section being a pure power to weight war. Not sure how many bloody times I have to say this.

The new ZR1 reuslts are no surprise and not all that relevant to the ZR1 vs. GT-R debate in a drag or rolling start drag situation.

Keep trying and keep babbling.

Never babble, only try to explain where your basic reasoning is going wrong.

First, 100~175 is the figure that the ZR1 got to, not the GTR. The reason I know this is the time and distance difference between the two when the ZR1 reached the bridge over 1 second ahead of the GTR.

Now when Motortrend recently tested both the GTR and the ZR1 their respective 1/4mile times were only 0.4s apart but the ZR1 was travelling over 10mph quicker, back to the ring debate now, you have to remember that the ZR1 reached it's peak speed (or there abouts) a lot earlier than the bridge, meaning it sat at that speed for a few seconds, allowing the GTR to continue to accelerate and start catching up. I think Bruce can help here to determine what speed the GTR will be doing when it's at least 1 second down on the ZR1 that at a given point (bridge) and doing 176mph at this point. I'm guessing the GTR is doing no more than 170mph but I would like that confirmed. I would also like to say that when the ZR1 reached the 172mph mark (about 2/3 of the way along the straight) I would reckon the GTR was doing 160mph.

P.S.

So far not to many people are coming to your aid, not that a bad brave boy like you needs any help but it's awful lonely when you are a voice of one.

[T Bone]

Originally Posted by footie

Third,

T Bone is now adding that Nissan were cheating by working the ECU chip.

Whoa tiger, look at what Swamp wrote....I ddin't accuse Nissan of cheating but if they were using beta software, there are lots of legimate reasons for test escapes that would allow for more power.

For example, if their altitude compensation program wasn't working, the stock ECU with stock maps could easily delivery more than 20% power.

We will never know because we don't have access to the data and we are all speculating.

With the GTR now in production, people (if they cared) would be able to get a very accurate view of how the GTR adapts for various conditions to delivery optimal power.

If Porsche really wanted to prove this thing, they would contract an independent party have them buy a GTR and 911 Turbo and then run the tests..... But the more energy Porsche spends on this, the more effective the Nissan marketing campaign.

[Sedan_Clan]

Originally Posted by footie

P.S.

So far not to many people are coming to your aid, not that a bad brave boy like you needs any help but it's awful lonely when you are a voice of one.

Not that I'm trying to mitigate this hot debate, but the fact that swamp2 has a knowledge that most others don't/can't relate to renders him alone in this argument (...'alone' meaning: the only one who can effectively argue his point-of-view).

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by swamp2

^

Hmmm, so you are so invested with your opinion that the car HAD to be a UFO/genius/over achiever that you can not be objective in the face of evidence for a significant under rarting? Got it. Pot, kettle, black.

Interesting view of "analysis". I call this long recounting a view of your ability to simply observe and regurgitate facts as opposed to making any novel predicitons.

Sub par definition of "go nuts" for sure. If you call providing a novel analysis combining evidence, solid estimations, video evidence and physics based simulations to yeild a conclusion consistent with much of the evidence then I guess you are right. I am absolutely nuts, bonkers, insane.

Glad you at least acknowledge my early hypothesis as correct. Hopefully we will see if it will go 1-1 or 2-0.

Swamp, you presented your evidence-that-is-not-proof, and on request (since you had apparently forgotten), I re-presented my evidence-that-is-not-proof. I admit the references to you were merely chronological, and not to be construed as evidence.

Relax. We may learn something.

Bruce

PS - Speaking of relaxing, lighten up a bit about "credibility" on the Internet, will you? You mention this a fair bit, and it's silly. There's no such thing. As far as I am concerned, I have no credibility on the Internet; each of my posts may or may not have credibility, and that's that. You have no credibility, either - except post by post, of course.

[T Bone]

Originally Posted by Sedan_Clan

Not that I'm trying to mitigate this hot debate, but the fact that swamp2 has a knowledge that most others don't/can't relate to renders him alone in this argument (...'alone' meaning: the only one who can effectively argue his point-of-view).

This is a good point.

Good arguments / data / analysis / conclusions / theories need only to be espoused by one person. Look at Everett vs. Bohr & gang.

Eventually the truth will come out.

[watrob]

Isn't this old hat now that the ZR-1 is now the quickest at 7.22.

[ismelllikepoop]

Originally Posted by T Bone

This is a good point.

Good arguments / data / analysis / conclusions / theories need only to be espoused by one person. Look at Everett vs. Bohr & gang.

Eventually the truth will come out.

yeah but the issue that i have is the data is gathered from watching youtube videos and modeling the variables to prove his point. and to argue that that is good science is a crock

[lucid]

Originally Posted by Sedan_Clan

...I'm curious about the backgrounds of a few major contributers:

• Bruce
• Footie
• Swamp2
• Lucid

I find it quite interesting to read the varying perspectives from the four of you. All of you seem to make valid points for that which you've chosen to defend/criticize.

I don't know that the background matters a whole lot; meaning, to me, it's the idea/contribution that counts rather than the specific background/credentials (that's what I love about this country and why I moved here in my late teens). I do have my fair share of credentials, but I'd rather not get into those for the reason I just outlined. I just enjoy shooting crap on the forum--most of the time. And when someone asks me why, my answer is simply "because", which is often the best answer to that question in general.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by ismelllikepoop

goddammit watching videos on youtube and making guestimations is not objective science.

You are entitled to your opinion. It is weak and drastically simplified in this one liner but you are entitled to it. Perhaps you missed the entire other regression analysis. I expect you just didn't understand it.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

Relax. We may learn something.

...

PS - Speaking of relaxing, lighten up a bit about "credibility" on the Internet, will you? You mention this a fair bit, and it's silly.

I agree we may learn something, eventually...

Credibility is not my focus at at all. In the recent context someone asked and I felt no problem obliging. But once again pot, kettle, black. You incessantly attack my credibility, motivations, objectivity, conclusions, evidence, methods, background, etc. Nearly everything I have to offer. Your hypocrisy is truly stunning. Lighten up yourself.

[ismelllikepoop]

Originally Posted by swamp2

You are entitled to your opinion. It is weak and drastically simplified in this one liner but you are entitled to it. Perhaps you missed the entire other regression analysis. I expect you just didn't understand it.

ok it's not like regression analysis is rocket science. you are trying to use jargon to make ppl think your point is valid when in fact like i said before, you are gleaning whatever you can from f-ing video clips to prove "science." if you can use your model to estimate what a car's horsepower should be according to videos and get dynoed results that confirm your model then i'd think you have something, but being an armchair quarterback does not make for good science, nor will it ever convince me that your model works.

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by swamp2

I agree we may learn something, eventually...

Credibility is not my focus at at all. In the recent context someone asked and I felt no problem obliging. But once again pot, kettle, black. You incessantly attack my credibility, motivations, objectivity, conclusions, evidence, methods, background, etc. Nearly everything I have to offer. Your hypocrisy is truly stunning. Lighten up yourself.

Guilty on most charges, and of course from my point of view, you deserve everything you get from me - but note that when I said you were not credible on this issue, that was very carefully worded indeed.

For me, that issue became a closed one due to your reaction in regard to the short track utter nonsense. The wording was carefully specific, though.

Bruce

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by ismelllikepoop

if you can use your model to estimate what a car's horsepower should be according to videos and get dynoed results that confirm your model then i'd think you have something

And touche' right back at you. If you think dynos are the end all be all exact result for a cars power output you know less than I even expected.

By the way I am not sure how many times I have to repeat that regression CAN NOT be used to precisely match power (power to weight) to a track time. I never claimed this and as much as regression is not anything close to "rocket science" it is a powerful tool which you still don't get.

[footie]

If you hadn't made your brief to sound factual, as it did when you posted your comments regarding the final straight as confirmation that Nissan were using a car with more power than stock then God knows how many posted wouldn;t have to have been written.

I have only tried to highlight the errors in your opinion based on some fundamental problems in your simulations.

1/ unknown wind speed on the ZR1 lap and it's direction and affect on the straight in question.
2/ unknown wind speed on the GTR lap and it's direction and affect on the straight in question.
3/ unknown exit speed of both cars.
4/ the gradiant of the straight and what the combined affect of it and the possible wind might be.

Also you haven't giving a reason why if both cars are so closely matched as you said that the GTR is well over a second slower to the same point on the straight (the bridge) and what possible affect it has on your original finding. Again I have highlighted other examples of cars which huge differences in power to weight and yet achieved identical speeds on this very section and in the same day. Still no word of this. These are things which can't be brush under the carpet and disregarded.

I have continued to state that the GTR is underated on power and by an estimated 10%, both myself and Bruce are in agreement on this and even by your own admission you are estimating the ring car to be only another 5% more than this. One might think that this 5% is too small to have such an on going debate but the problem I have with you and continue to have is that you believe this GTR is different than all others in terms of output and I disagree. And the reason for the disagreement in the factual errors I have highlighted above.

Without those nuggets of data you are pissing into the wind.

[lucid]

I honestly have not had the time to read through Swamp's analysis and the associated data and simulation files. I have no reason not to believe that he indeed did what reported he did. I'll also trust that he has done what he has done accurately. I am confused about the back and forth though; I've simply lost track of the different positions. Isn't everyone pretty much saying the GTR that did the incredibly fast lap has more power than the GTR that is available for sale in the US? Is the debate simply about how much more power?

Also, to Swamp's credit, he has documented the assumptions behind his analysis, which is the right thing to do, and there is absolutely nothing inherently invalid about using youtube video records in a way that makes sense in this case. Data are data. They are almost always messy, and the analyst needs to make assumptions and interpretations in arriving at conclusions. That is the scientific process.

However, it seems that some of Swamp's assumptions are debatable. Also, as have been pointed out earlier on several occasions, there are probably more variables that need to be taken into account that might contribute to the GTR’s the incredible lap other than power.

The fact that Swamp's "estimate" has produced so much debate indicates that his analysis is thought provoking, so I don't see the point of the random dismissive post/comment.

[footie]

Originally Posted by lucid

I honestly have not had the time to read through Swamp's analysis and the associated data and simulation files. I have no reason not to believe that he indeed did what reported he did. I'll also trust that he has done what he has done accurately. I am confused about the back and forth though; I've simply lost track of the different positions. Isn't everyone pretty much saying the GTR that did the incredibly fast lap has more power than the GTR that is available for sale in the US? Is the debate simply about how much more power?

Also, to Swamp's credit, he has documented the assumptions behind his analysis, which is the right thing to do, and there is absolutely nothing inherently invalid about using youtube video records in a way that makes sense in this case. Data are data. They are almost always messy, and the analyst needs to make assumptions and interpretations in arriving at conclusions. That is the scientific process.

However, it seems that some of Swamp's assumptions are debatable. Also, as have been pointed out earlier on several occasions, there are probably more variables that need to be taken into account that might contribute to the GTR’s the incredible lap other than power.

The fact that Swamp's "estimate" has produced so much debate indicates that his analysis is thought provoking, so I don't see the point of the random dismissive post/comment.

I am not arguing for the sake of it. Only highlighting that to make such a thought provoking statement that this is a ringer over a stock GTR based on evidence which I think I have highlighted to either have errors or don't match other examples shows that you can't just say something like this and not expect people to pull holes in it.

Ignoring the tit or tat stuff that myself, swamp and Bruce do (which might be classed as amusing to some), there is enough lack of evidence in swamp's simulations to say it wrong. In fact I analyzed the entire lap, breaking it down into different sections, slow parts, fast parts and when you look over all of it the car (GTR) is definitely slower in acceleration than the ZR1. But without telemetry it hard to know exactly how much slower on the straights and without this we can't accurately determine if this car is that far removed for a stock GTR, or whether the ZR1 is stock either. After all, not only Nissan's credibility is in question, who's to say GM or any other are not at their work.

[lucid]

Originally Posted by footie

Ignoring the tit or tat stuff that myself, swamp and Bruce do (which might be classed as amusing to some), there is enough lack of evidence in swamp's simulations to say it wrong.

The conclusion Swamp has drawn might very well be false (since I haven't read his post in detail, I don't have a position on that one), but that doesn't mean the simulations he ran, or his overall approach, which involves using whatever footage was available on the Ring laps, was inappropiate or wrong. For those folks who do not agree with his conclusion, I think it is best, after highligting the issues, to suggest ways of making improvements to the model as opposed to negating the relevance of the entire approach (I am not saying you are doing this Footie, but some others have). Or, if one thinks his model is fundemantally flawed, one should offer an alternative model and analysis to explain the difference.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by footie

If you hadn't made your brief to sound factual, as it did when you posted your comments regarding the final straight as confirmation that Nissan were using a car with more power than stock then God knows how many posted wouldn;t have to have been written.

I have only tried to highlight the errors in your opinion based on some fundamental problems in your simulations.

1/ unknown wind speed on the ZR1 lap and it's direction and affect on the straight in question.
2/ unknown wind speed on the GTR lap and it's direction and affect on the straight in question.
3/ unknown exit speed of both cars.
4/ the gradiant of the straight and what the combined affect of it and the possible wind might be.

Also you haven't giving a reason why if both cars are so closely matched as you said that the GTR is well over a second slower to the same point on the straight (the bridge) and what possible affect it has on your original finding. Again I have highlighted other examples of cars which huge differences in power to weight and yet achieved identical speeds on this very section and in the same day. Still no word of this. These are things which can't be brush under the carpet and disregarded.

I have continued to state that the GTR is underated on power and by an estimated 10%, both myself and Bruce are in agreement on this and even by your own admission you are estimating the ring car to be only another 5% more than this. One might think that this 5% is too small to have such an on going debate but the problem I have with you and continue to have is that you believe this GTR is different than all others in terms of output and I disagree. And the reason for the disagreement in the factual errors I have highlighted above.

Without those nuggets of data you are pissing into the wind.

You really need better diction and better reading comprehension. If you read my post, carefully look at the language and word choice you will see how many things are probabilistic, tentative and rely on my assumptions, which were very meticulously laid out. If you thought I was making a firm conclusion, that was simply your misinterpretation, plain and simple.

As to your numbered points above:

1. Yes I made an assumption, but one that is completely consistent with the cars specification and observed performance. That is what is known as a good assumption.
2. Discussed ad inifinitum previously. No wind in my initial simulations for the GT-R and tail wind analysis was added just to explore the option.
3. Factually incorrect. The ZR1 has a speedometer and the video evidence show very close corner exit speeds.
4. Grade issue discussed. When the cars are as close as they are the gradient will equally affect the acceleration of each car at any given instant.

Paragraph below: I keep saying that although I tracked time to the bridge that is not the end point I believe to be relevant since the ZR1 stopped accelerating and wandered up and down in speed. This makes any comparison with simulation impossible. The time difference between the two cars at the point in the section when the ZR1 reached 174 mph was NOT over 1 seconds, it was 0.7 seconds. I have corrected you on this at least three times now. This difference is accounted for in the 550 hp estimate.

With simulation tools you simply have to look at period of WOT only. If you are interested in such an analysis to compare other vehicles it needs to be done in the same fashion. This is why many other cases you bring up are simply not entirely relevant and I don't bother responding.

Next value judgement and factually incorrect statement of yours: I believe the GT-R to be different than all others. I have never said this, not once. The wider issue of other cars being under rated is really not the point. It is just with the GT-R many individual pieces of evidence all point to a significant under rating, 10%, 15% whatever. Why do you think this is such a hot topic all over the internet, magazines, etc.?

So your factual errors are absolutely not factual errors. They are your errors, judgements, biases and misstatements. Again calling this "pissing in the wind" shows nothing more than your misunderstanding, misreading, assumptions and mistakes. Keep up the good work.

[footie]

swamp, I am not going to start a debate on diction or reading comprehension, it's childish and we are both beyond such things.... I hope.

You disregard the CXX and Enzo data mainly because it goes against everything that your trying to say about the GTR vs ZR1, namely that for the Nissan to keep up with the ZR1 it's got to be packing more than stock. And this asumption centres around the times that different magazines have supplied.

Lets me provide some extra data on the recent Enzo (650hp) vs CXX (900hp)lap.



Hatzenbach
Enzo 99.2mph G Force 1.60 - CXX 89.1mph G Force 1.29

Flugplatz
Enzo 100.3mph G Force 1.56 - CXX 104.0mph G Force 1.39

Schwedenkreuz
Enzo 170.5mph - CXX 175.4mph

Aremberg
Enzo 63.9mph G Force 1.38 - CXX 62.3mph G Force 1.33

Fuchsrohre
Enzo 160.2mph - CXX 157.9mph

Metzgelsfeld
Enzo 99.7mph G Force 1.52 - CXX 97.2mph G Force 1.45

Exmuhle
Enzo 68.8mph G Force 1.71 - CXX 65.4mph G Force 1.60

Bergwerk
Enzo 68.1mph G Force 1.67 - CXX 65.6mph G Force 1.57

Kesselchen
Enzo 159.6mph - CXX 157.5mph

Hohe Acht
Enzo 66.9mph G Force 1.52 - CXX 69.3mph G Force 1.53

Brunnchen
Enzo 65.7mph G Force 1.46 - CXX 65.9mph G Force 1.52

schwalbenschwanz
Enzo 58.1mph G Force 1.59 - CXX 63.3mph G Force 1.55

Galgenkopf
Enzo 98.5mph G Force 1.59 - CXX 97.9mph G Force 1.55

Dottinger-hohe
Enzo 189.2mph - CXX 190.0mph

These final two highlighted in red are the exit corner on to the straight and just after the bridge. I ask you, how is it possible for a car packing 250hp less and weighing the same can possibly match the other over this straight when we know each car had the same weather and driver.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by footie

swamp, I am not going to start a debate on diction or reading comprehension, it's childish and we are both beyond such things.... I hope.

You disregard the CXX and Enzo data mainly because it goes against everything that your trying to say about the GTR vs ZR1, namely that for the Nissan to keep up with the ZR1 it's got to be packing more than stock. And this asumption centres around the times that different magazines have supplied.

Lets me provide some extra data on the recent Enzo (650hp) vs CXX (900hp)lap.


Hatzenbach
Enzo 99.2mph G Force 1.60 - CXX 89.1mph G Force 1.29

Flugplatz
Enzo 100.3mph G Force 1.56 - CXX 104.0mph G Force 1.39

....
....

These final two highlighted in red are the exit corner on to the straight and just after the bridge. I ask you, how is it possible for a car packing 250hp less and weighing the same can possibly match the other over this straight when we know each car had the same weather and driver.

Diction and reading comprehension are absolutely key points here. All you have on line (or in most places) are your words and they need to be chosen carefully with regards to their meanings. If you are sloppy you end up being incorrect as you have been here time and time again. The devil is in the details and you consistently get them wrong and nearly always change the topic when directly confronted. It simply continues here with more and more diversions.

The data above are single points with single values of LATERAL acceleration and a speed. This has very little to do with tracking a speed vs. position precisely over a variety of identical data points spread through a large distance and large range of speeds. I just don't see how you can confuse these things. I have always been talking about WOT over the conditions described above. I am not talking about corner exits speeds, entrance speeds, single speeds at the end of straights, etc. Most of these will correlate only very loosely if at all with a cars power. Time to distance is the basis of my comparison from which you can calculate acceleration.