GT-R breaks its own Ring record

[footie]

Originally Posted by southlight

Great! So we can start talking about the differences between the European and the US and/or the Japanese version, don't we?


Best regards,
south

I just hope this finally puts to bed the nonsense that somehow Nissan were cheating. If nothing else it puts Porsche's original claims and the times they achieved on the day with their GT2 and Turbo compared to the GTR in a different perspective, maybe go as far as to say that they didn't like the pressure of what Nissan had achieved and felt the best course of action was to put doubt of those times by Suzuki.

Discredit might be the wrong word but for the best part of a year most felt that it was fake so Porsche were successful but now things have changed with this time by Horst and the spot light is back round on them once again.

[Garissimo]

Originally Posted by footie

7:38

Horst von Saurma has just achieved this time within the last few days and it will be in the next SportAuto magazine next month.

Once again my estimates of what should be achievable based on Andy's time is right on the money and only 1 second slower than I believe should vindicate the times that Nissan/Suzuki achieved last year.

As I said, I am on a roll. Back to you Garissimo.

I think I know what your source is:

http://www.rennteam.com/forum/index.html?vs=6

I still don't believe this "vindicates" Nissan/Suzuki as it's 11 seconds slower than Nissan's official time and HvS's comments from that thread indicated that the car in stock form might have a few seconds left in it, at best. But your estimates about what could be expected from HvS based on Andy's times appear to be spot on. You were right.

[EDIT: ADD] Now that I think of it, that time is identical to the time Suzuki ran back in late 2007. This is before Nissan went back and started tweaking the suspension and using the Clubsport wheel & tire package from the VSpec car. This can not be a coincidence. I think this should rule out any claim that there is a huge talent gap between Suzuki and HvS, especially one on the order of 10 seconds.

[footie]

You are wrong on the source but no matter.

You are right that the time is identical to the 7:38 lap Suzuki did but on that lap he did have wet sections. I relayed my opinions on what I believe Suzuki could do with a stock(showroom) example to Southlight, which I believe is still comfortably ahead of either the GT3 or the Turbo.

P.S.

You are still trying to twist things with the 11seconds slower. The stock example with stock rubber and rims did a 7:29 lap and that puts Horst not 11secs slower but 9secs, one more than what I believe would completely rule out cheating, if as I believe, the 7:29 lap had suspension tweaks then you could allow 3secs for than alone.

That would mean Suzuki's additional skill and knowledge would account for 5-6secs or basically 0.8sec per minute.

Which ever way you look at it you have been proven wrong and as for myself ........

[Garissimo]

Originally Posted by footie

You are wrong on the source but no matter.

You are right that the time is identical to the 7:38 lap Suzuki did but on that lap he did have wet sections. I relayed my opinions on what I believe Suzuki could do with a stock(showroom) example to Southlight, which I believe is still comfortably ahead of either the GT3 or the Turbo.

P.S.

You are still trying to twist things with the 11seconds slower. The stock example with stock rubber and rims did a 7:29 lap and that puts Horst not 11secs slower but 9secs, one more than what I believe would completely rule out cheating, if as I believe, the 7:29 lap had suspension tweaks then you could allow 3secs for than alone.

That would mean Suzuki's additional skill and knowledge would account for 5-6secs or basically 0.8sec per minute.

Which ever way you look at it you have been proven wrong and as for myself ........

I believe my claim was "wait for SportAuto's official results before rushing to judgment" . From day 1, you've accepted Nissans' factory claim as if it were the word of God itself and judge the validity of independent sources based on their ability to approach that time. Sorry, but that is backwards. I don't think it's twisting things to reiterate that even if these rumored times are true, no-one has come within 10 seconds of Nissan's published time for a stock GTR.

As for a GTR being comfortably faster than the new GT3, strange that the GT3 won the only heads up test to date. If they are only separated by 2 seconds (per SA) on the ring, it's a driver's race. It's pretty amazing what Porsche has managed to pull off with their ultimate NA 911.

[footie]

Originally Posted by Garissimo

I believe my claim was "wait for SportAuto's official results before rushing to judgment" . From day 1, you've accepted Nissans' factory claim as if it were the word of God itself and judge the validity of independent sources based on their ability to approach that time. Sorry, but that is backwards. I don't think it's twisting things to reiterate that even if these rumored times are true, no-one has come within 10 seconds of Nissan's published time for a stock GTR.

I did indeed believe in Nissan's time and totally seen through what Porsche were trying to do, it's a shame that you believed their BS. Oh and sorry but it is within 10secs, it's actually 9secs now for a similar looking car (same rubber and rims) but in my opinion the 7:29 time was achieved with suspension tweaks which I said months ago, I actually think a totally showroom GTR in Suzuki's hand would lap in 7:31-32.

Originally Posted by Garissimo

As for a GTR being comfortably faster than the new GT3, strange that the GT3 won the only heads up test to date. If they are only separated by 2 seconds (per SA) on the ring, it's a driver's race. It's pretty amazing what Porsche has managed to pull off with their ultimate NA 911.

Don't be so silly as to use Andy's lap in the GTR as a true reflection of what he could have achieved given similar familiarity as he will have in Porsche GT3s.

[Garissimo]

Originally Posted by footie

I did indeed believe in Nissan's time and totally seen through what Porsche were trying to do, it's a shame that you believed their BS. Oh and sorry but it is within 10secs, it's actually 9secs now for a similar looking car (same rubber and rims) but in my opinion the 7:29 time was achieved with suspension tweaks which I said months ago, I actually think a totally showroom GTR in Suzuki's hand would lap in 7:31-32.

a) We don't yet know what SA's official time is. Everyone is assuming 7:38

b) Nissan's latest published times for the GTR are in the 7:27 neighborhood. You yourself posted an update on this.

That's where I'm getting the 10 second number. I think its obvious Nissan's suspension tweaks explain the majority of that gap. If you wanna believe Suzuki is that much a better driver than HvS, feel free. Most disagree.

Originally Posted by footie

Don't be so silly as to use Andy's lap in the GTR as a true reflection of what he could have achieved given similar familiarity as he will have in Porsche GT3s.

I'm using results from the same driver, same track, same day. This is widely accepted as the best method of comparing relative performance, not playing a guessing game of what one of the cars could-have, should-have, would- have done. I can make those same arguments in favor of the trickier to drive, RWD GT3 and in fact they are more compelling.

[footie]

Yet my guesswork was indeed point on, fun how a bit of experience can work wonders. I said Horst need to produce a time of better than 7:40 based on what Andy achieved and I was proven right.

P.S.

You felt that Horst would be no better than the rest who achieved only 7:50 something, I suggested that if Horst only did that good based on Andy then he wasn't good enough to hold the position he has. I did hint what he would need to do to redeem my opinion in his ability and position and he didn't disappoint.

You felt safe in another 7:50 because in my opinion you have consistently disbelieved in the GTR's abilities and once again you are wrong, just like the peak speed argument and will probably be wrong on future discussios about the GTR. Best accept it is an exceptional car and get with the programme.

[Garissimo]

Originally Posted by footie

Yet my guesswork was indeed point on, fun how a bit of experience can work wonders. I said Horst need to produce a time of better than 7:40 based on what Andy achieved and I was proven right.

P.S.

You felt that Horst would be no better than the rest who achieved only 7:50 something, I suggested that if Horst only did that good based on Andy then he wasn't good enough to hold the position he has. I did hint what he would need to do to redeem my opinion in his ability and position and he didn't disappoint.

You felt safe in another 7:50 because in my opinion you has consistently disbelieved in the GTR's abilities and once again you are wrong, just like the peak speed argument and will probably be wrong on future discussion about the GTR. Best accept it is an exceptional car and get with the programme.

I felt safe in another 7:50 because that's what all independently obtained data to date had supported. Please bear in mind that 7:38 is still not confirmed and is a time obtained from the 2010 GTR, with revised suspension and ECU settings.

As far as the peak speed argument, you swore there was no way Suzuki hit a 180mph in his 7:29 run until confronted with the GPS data, and you laughed at the notion that a speedometer reading could be used to help calculate real time speed. You were wrong about both of those so please drop the "Bob is all-knowing" act.

I have never doubted the GTR is an amazing car and would make an unbelievable driver for the vast majority who will probably never track it. I don't believe Nissan's ring claims any further than I can throw Suzuki-san, though and I don't think it'll be nearly as stout a track tool as a GT3 based on the number of threads about limp modes on the GTR boards. Nissan's lengthy warranty disclaimer section doesn't exactly give one warm and fuzzies, either.

[footie]

My argument about the speed was it could never had made that speed before the bridge, which I might add I was correct.

Admit it, all the GTRs used by Nisaan were standard in output and only these latest times (7:26 & 7:27) have different rims & rubber and we can finally put this argument to bed, once and for all.

P.S.

Not 'Bob the all knowing' but I do happen to be correct more times than not.

[Garissimo]

Originally Posted by footie

My argument about the speed was it could never had made that speed before the bridge, which I might add I was correct.

Admit it, all the GTRs used by Nisaan were standard in output and only these latest times (7:26 & 7:27) have different rims & rubber and we can finally put this argument to bed, once and for all.

P.S.

Not 'Bob the all knowing' but I do happen to be correct more times than not.

I admit Nissan invited a lot of well deserve scrutiny once they started tweaking the suspension and using wheels and tires from the VSpec car. I still have no compelling reason to buy into the fact that the car used to produce the sub 7:30 times was not a ringer.

I further believe SA to be the most credible independent authority and if they say a truly stock, 2010 GTR is a 7:38 car and no more, I believe them. Unlike Nissan, they don't have an agenda.

If nothing else, this will ( probably has ) lit a fire under Porsche's feet to make the 997.2 Turbo pretty spectacular.

[footie]

Not only Porsche but BMW, Audi, Ferrari, Lamborghini, etc, etc, the list goes on. This car will affect all would-be sportscars in future.

[MTROIS]

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by SoreHead

It's still stock.
They are mods that anyone can do to their car without any hassle.

So is a chip tune that can add 100 hp and insane/unsafe boost. This POV just doesn't hold water. A "mod" that requires jacking up the car, removing the wheels, tweaking the suspension, putting the car on an alignment rig, lots of mechanics tools, etc., etc. is not really something "anyone" can do and they certainly will not have access the the undoubtedly special alignment rig the car requires.

Originally Posted by SoreHead

Showroom stock for an M3 is throttle at least aggressive, shocks at softest and steering at lightest.

Incorrect. A minor point but when you have EDC the factory setting is normal or medium. It is rumpored to be the fastest setting for the N'Ring as well and given that the track is a fairly rough and unsettling course this makes sense. EDC on the Sport setting is probably only faster for really flat and perfectly "groomed" tracks.

[swamp2]

There has been some good discussion here. 7:38 is a bit surprising. I always expected 7:4X from Horst allowing for better track conditions and a bit more experience from his previous runs. Can anyone confirm positively the exact differences for the 2010 model vs. 2009?

Nonetheless many keep missing the key points here:

1. Most evidence still leans to a roughly 50 hp under rating.
2. The latest time is with special wheels and tires likely only available in one country.
3. The latest time is with suspension adjustments by factory experts (probably in a try, time, adjust, repeat cycle).

It becomes a matter of interpretation and opinion but I steadfastly continue to call this cheating. It is not just one thing they have done, it is a methodology that amounts to dishonesty when taken as a whole. Even if you do not call it cheating there is not indication that this is anywhere close to standard procedures for generating such times, by OEMs, Sportauto or others. It also becomes even down right comical in light of the fact that any track use voids your warranty. I guess Nissan doesn't have to worry about the complete lack of warranty on their own cars. Now that is the irony here...

[SoreHead]

Originally Posted by swamp2

So is a chip tune that can add 100 hp and insane/unsafe boost. This POV just doesn't hold water. A "mod" that requires jacking up the car, removing the wheels, tweaking the suspension, putting the car on an alignment rig, lots of mechanics tools, etc., etc. is not really something "anyone" can do and they certainly will not have access the the undoubtedly special alignment rig the car requires.

I will need someone on here that owns a GTR to confirm this but as far as I'm aware there is no alignment rig and not many tools involved in making the tweaks to the suspension. Owners please comment.

There is no comparison between altering existing settings and chipping a car. Nothing is being added or removed from the car and warrantee is unaffected (at the minute although they might add that to the list of things that does void it). Chipping a car is totally different. No comparison whatsoever. The car is no longer standard and warrantee is definitely voided. A standard part has been removed and replaced. Two completely different scenarios.

My point on the M3 is that you can alter throttle map, suspension and steering rates. The fact that it can be done with a button doesn't change the fact that it's being done and changing the way the car leaves the showroom. The point is that if a modification is available on a car as standard then it is not cheating to use it, regardless of how hard it is to set up. It's a feature that's available to all and of course they are going to use it to achieve the best times for any given track. Why the hell wouldn't they?? You can do it with the GT3-RS. Do you think Porsche didn't set that up to get the best times??? Did they leave it with showroom settings because someone would think they were cheating by using a feature on the car??? I didn't think so.
They used a feature to extract the best performance on a given day. They didn't add anything or remove anything.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by SoreHead

There is no comparison between altering existing settings and chipping a car. Nothing is being added or removed from the car and warrantee is unaffected (at the minute although they might add that to the list of things that does void it). Chipping a car is totally different. No comparison whatsoever. The car is no longer standard and warrantee is definitely voided. A standard part has been removed and replaced. Two completely different scenarios.

I mostly agree here and that was the point! You stated explicitly if the owner can easily do it themselves then it is still factory/showroom stock and I vehemently disagree. Chipping is the obvious counter example. A part is not replaced and sometimes even nothing has to be removed, it is simply different software. Now perhaps this is not generally owner achievable on the GT-R, because as I have heard their encryption is pretty good. Nonetheless the counter example, as a general point stands.

Originally Posted by SoreHead

My point on the M3 is that you can alter throttle map, suspension and steering rates. The fact that it can be done with a button doesn't change the fact that it's being done and changing the way the car leaves the showroom.

If you don't and can't draw a line between an adjustment that takes mechanical tools and permanently alters the handling and tire wear (until equivalently undone, again by a similar mechanical process) and pressing a single button, designed to be pressed at will by the operator, I don't think there is much point in continuing the debate.

"Showroom stock" is absolutely clear and precise to 99% of folks out there. The Nissan apologists, of course will twist and clear definition to vindicate Nissan.

[SoreHead]

Originally Posted by swamp2

I mostly agree here and that was the point! You stated explicitly if the owner can easily do it themselves then it is still factory/showroom stock and I vehemently disagree. Chipping is the obvious counter example. A part is not replaced and sometimes even nothing has to be removed, it is simply different software. Now perhaps this is not generally owner achievable on the GT-R, because as I have heard their encryption is pretty good. Nonetheless the counter example, as a general point stands.



If you don't and can't draw a line between an adjustment that takes mechanical tools and permanently alters the handling and tire wear (until equivalently undone, again by a similar mechanical process) and pressing a single button, designed to be pressed at will by the operator, I don't think there is much point in continuing the debate.

"Showroom stock" is absolutely clear and precise to 99% of folks out there. The Nissan apologists, of course will twist and clear definition to vindicate Nissan.

You don't seem to be able to tell the difference between using an existing, standard means of making an alteration (regardless of how difficult it is to do) and something that is clearly not from the manufacturer and not on the car from the showroom. At least I'm speaking of something that IS AVAILABLE ON THE SHOWROOM CAR and not something that is being done to alter the car beyond any manufacturer's specification and beyond standard equipment.

I clearly stated each time that the mods to suspension were a hell of a lot more work than pressing the button but the point is you are not doing anything to the car that is not available to every other owner of a GTR straight out of the showroom.

You are the one that seems to have the problem with the difference between what is standard on a car (suspension adjustment) and not standard on a car (chipping or remapping). They are two totally different things. 100% different. No comparison. Standard and non-standard has no relation to easy and not easy. It's easy to change wheels and tyres to slicks but it's not standard.

Changing wheels and tyres is cheating as they are obviously not available to every owner on every showroom car and are therefore giving an advantage that is not there when you buy the car. Chipping is the same. Making alterations to an existing, standard part regardless of how difficult is not cheating. It's making the most of the available equipment settings.

I can understand you saying that you think that because they used a team of engineers to do the work means they gained an advantage that a normal punter doesn't have but every manufacturer does that when they test their cars and do record attempts. Every one of them. Do you say that Porsche are cheating making similar alterations to the GT3-RS?

I should also point out that I have never owned a Nissan nor do I give a shite about them as a company but I'm not a fanboy who can't accept that Nissan might have produced a fantastic car and I can accept that ALL manufacturers make the most of their cars when it comes to producing the figures they will use to see the cars.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by SoreHead

You don't seem to be able to tell the difference between using an existing, standard means of making an alteration (regardless of how difficult it is to do) and something that is clearly not from the manufacturer and not on the car from the showroom. At least I'm speaking of something that IS AVAILABLE ON THE SHOWROOM CAR and not something that is being done to alter the car beyond any manufacturer's specification and beyond standard equipment.

I clearly stated each time that the mods to suspension were a hell of a lot more work than pressing the button but the point is you are not doing anything to the car that is not available to every other owner of a GTR straight out of the showroom.

You are the one that seems to have the problem with the difference between what is standard on a car (suspension adjustment) and not standard on a car (chipping or remapping). They are two totally different things. 100% different. No comparison. Standard and non-standard has no relation to easy and not easy. It's easy to change wheels and tyres to slicks but it's not standard.

Why is your "line in the sand" based on a change of part? It is very arbitrary. Again, for the third time, showroom stock means showroom stock, not only in regards to the actual physical pieces of the car but also with regards to the adjustments of those components - all adjustments. There is no qualifier on "100% showroom stock" it does not mean stock parts and what essentially amounts to an aftermarket tune. Just because the suspension is capable of adjustment does not mean those adjustments are the showroom condition of the vehicle, they absolutely are not. I really think 99% of folks will agree with me on this. Modifications are modifications, period, parts, tune, adjustments, software, ANYTHING. It is not about what is available stock it is about how it IS delivered stock.

I'm done with this part of this discussion, we clearly disagree and are not going to close the gap.

[footie]

Though I have never driven the new GTR I am pretty sure that it too has a throttle re-mapping switch, suspension adjustment switch and most if not all the gizmos that the M3 offers.

What Nissan have done is to fine tune the geometry of the suspension exclusively to the characteristics of the ring. This may be a easily doable thing for the engineers at your local GTR garage but I bet it's costly and time consuming.

I agree with swamp that it amounts to cheating but still stand by the opinion that all the cars used by Nissan were stock, especially the 7:29 car, it may well had the suspension tweaked but everything on it was stock as comes out of the showroom.

And by the way, some of you may be aware but an Audi test driver recorded a lap of 7:58 in a stock RS4 yet Horst only managed 8:09, so maybe awd cars are not his speciality and others may well do better, and that's a full 11 seconds slower in that case.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by footie

I agree with swamp that it amounts to cheating but still stand by the opinion that all the cars used by Nissan were stock, especially the 7:29 car, it may well had the suspension tweaked but everything on it was stock as comes out of the showroom.

How the heck is it cheating if the car is stock? I'm thoroughly confused by this.

I say they cheated because showroom cars do not have the power they claim and becuase the Ring cars are not adjusted as they are from the factory.

[footie]

Originally Posted by swamp2

How the heck is it cheating if the car is stock? I'm thoroughly confused by this.

I say they cheated because showroom cars do not have the power they claim and becuase the Ring cars are not adjusted as they are from the factory.

Swamp,

All GTRs regardless of whether they were the ones used by Nissan at the Nurburgring on their record runs or the ones you walk in and buy in the showroom produce approximately 10% more power than quoted. In my opinion as VAG and BMW do the exact same thing with their 2.0TFSI and N54 then Nissan are not doing anything wrong, they haven't somehow tweaked the engines of their ring cars beyond what you can buy.

The cheating I am referring to is the suspension tweaks. I have long since held the opinion that even the 7:29 lap had a different suspension setting, you know this because I relayed that opinion months ago, but the long standing argument was about power and how in your opinion those cars had 10% more than stock, in my opinion this 7:38 lap is vindicating that to not be the case.

The simple truth is the GTR is so exceptional that it defies logic, the regression data will still show it to be the biggest outer by some margin. The really important question that needs to be asked is whether Nissan are making money from the GTR. If it's a yes then we will have to see the rest upping their game by quite some bit, if not and it was simply a PR exercise to improve Nissan's world image then I think this will be a bit like a Bugatti Veyron moment, when the competition watch on in amazement and then continue to do the same products that they did before with small improvements and nothing truly ground breaking.

Bob

[michaeldorian]

Either way, 7:38 makes the GTR one heck of car.