Estimate of THE 7:29 GT-Rs power based on Nurburgring straight sections

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by footie

The point I was trying to make is you can't assume anything just because it's not mentioned. As I said on listening to all the video, the only car which revs keeps increasing right to the bridge was the GTR, the Viper's were capped, that was plain to hear, the Vette sounds to me like it all but stop accelerating 2/3 of the way which matches the theory of head wind. But the GTR kept acceleration which leads me to think it had a tail wind of decent amount.

If you combine a better exit speed (3mph > ZR1) with a tail wind it is possible to match the results in the video.

That is my opinion and nothing will change that.

Why continue to believe things that are unlikely? Have you ever heard the expression that the simplest explanation is most often the correct one? Apparently not. I just did the analysis for you with a hypothetical tail wind. What part of that did you miss? The GT-R continues to accelerate because it's top speed is well in excess of the speed the ZR1 stopped accelerating. One puzzle still remains though, the ZR1 should have a top speed even in a 15 mph head wind of greater than 175 mph.

Perhaps you can support your fairly interesting claim above, "If you combine a better exit speed (3mph > ZR1) with a tail wind it is possible to match the results in the video." This is not about OPINIONS, it is about reality and proof. As well I am assuming you mean with 530 hp in addition to the exit speed and tail wind? The basic problem I have with this theory is that IF the GT-R exited that fast it would show as being ahead at the early markers such as the overhead banner. IT DOESN'T! This does away with the exit speed part of your argument.

Carry on footie, keep up your opinions that can not be changed. This represent the essense of dogmatism which will never support the truth and flexibility of science, my method of choice.

[heavychevy]

We see in C&D the Z06 beat the GT-R from 100-150 by 5 SECONDS!!!! And the altitude is identical.

We see on the ring, the headwind only slows the ZR-1 down to only a little faster than the Z06 is going with Horst driving.

The exit speed from Galkenkopf is a little over 100 mph and the bridge comes up at about 145 mph. So there is sufficient time for the ZR-1 to gap the GT-R, yet it's only 1 second ahead while still going faster than a Z06 with no headwind. What gets better is that the ZR-1 seperates another second for the first part of the stretch and then the GT-R catches and passes it in a matter of a couple hundred feet. They end up even by the time they reach the black sign at the end and then the ZR-1 takes Dottinger hohe faster than the GT-R and gains a second back through the turn.


To top that off, we'd also have to assume the GT-R conditions were that much greater than the ACR, Z06, and Zonda's as well because all of their respective times add up for the weight/power ratios and gearing.

Funny how everyone else acceleration makes sense OTHER than the GT-R. So you can come up with all the excuses in the world but only one thing makes sense and that's the GT-R had much more power than any stock one that's been sold.

[footie]

Originally Posted by swamp2

Why continue to believe things that are unlikely? Have you ever heard the expression that the simplest explanation is most often the correct one? Apparently not. I just did the analysis for you with a hypothetical tail wind. What part of that did you miss? The GT-R continues to accelerate because it's top speed is well in excess of the speed the ZR1 stopped accelerating. One puzzle still remains though, the ZR1 should have a top speed even in a 15 mph head wind of greater than 175 mph.

Well spotted Doctor Watson.

OK, I am sure that the GTR exited the corner a little quicker, call it guts feeling, but the ZR1 catch it and over took it before the banner. Well that is easy to explain, everyone knows the ZR1 can out accelerate a GTR, especially when traction is taken out of the loop as will be the case when both cars are over 100mph, but the thing is the head wind and possible tail wind, this only really takes affect after about 145mph so after this speed the GTR will be playing catch up which it will do. Weight plays less of a role as speed increases but wind resistance has the opposite effect and where did the 15mph head wind come from, was that what the ZR1 team said or was it the figure which happened to work for the sim. And another thing, when was it possible to shift gear in a vette in 0.3s, most of the stuff I have seen makes the gear change look to be very slow compared to normal manuals from the likes of Porsche and BMW.

Originally Posted by swamp2

Perhaps you can support your fairly interesting claim above, "If you combine a better exit speed (3mph > ZR1) with a tail wind it is possible to match the results in the video." This is not about OPINIONS, it is about reality and proof. As well I am assuming you mean with 530 hp in addition to the exit speed and tail wind? The basic problem I have with this theory is that IF the GT-R exited that fast it would show as being ahead at the early markers such as the overhead banner. IT DOESN'T! This does away with the exit speed part of your argument.

I thought I made it clear about the 10% extra power, I know I have said it often enough but obviously it was not made clear enough. YES the GTR is underrated and YES it's not playing fair but they all do it........... get over it.

Originally Posted by swamp2

Carry on footie, keep up your opinions that can not be changed. This represent the essense of dogmatism which will never support the truth and flexibility of science, my method of choice.

I understand you are a man of science and everything is explainable given enough facts, but on this one you don't have all of the facts and are making up simulations based on limited data. You know that ZR1 team reported winds that day and found 15mph to work to the simulation but at no point did you allow for the incline or know exactly how long a gear change is. Is this new argument to disprove the GTR's lap time or say that it's got ??? amount of power?

I have personally matched both the GTR and ZR1 laps together and on the straights the ZR1 has a definite advantage but in the corners the GTR pulls yards out of the Vette. Best watch the section between Bergwerk and Klostertal, here is a much better gauge of the performance gap between the two cars, again the GTR comes out of the corner on to this long high speed section in the lead but by the end it's a good 2.5~3 seconds down. The 530hp estimates for all GTR and this one are about right.

By the way after this section, in the twistie and more demanding section between Karussell and Galgenkopf the GTR regained the 3 seconds lost to the ZR1 but then re-lost almost half of this between Dottinger Hohe and the finish line.

By all means view the videos and match the two cars in each section I have listed, you will find I am right on this. But the most telling section is the high speed one between Bergwerk and Klostertal, the tree coverable would allow for little wind to affect either car and the evidence is clear that the ZR1 is considerably quicker in acceleration than the GTR in this section. I am confident that the GTR is as stock as any other out there based on this.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by footie

OK, I am sure that the GTR exited the corner a little quicker, call it guts feeling, but the ZR1 catch it and over took it before the banner.

Footie, this is simple, your gut and observations are inconsistent with the facts of the video. Either way I did explore the possibility of a few mph here or there and it did not change my conclusion.

Originally Posted by footie

I understand you are a man of science and everything is explainable given enough facts, but on this one you don't have all of the facts and are making up simulations based on limited data. You know that ZR1 team reported winds that day and found 15mph to work to the simulation but at no point did you allow for the incline or know exactly how long a gear change is.

As I said, analysis with incomplete information is an art and science and those that can do it well can succeed in many diverse fields from business to science and much in between. I am not "making up simulations" I am conducting simulations to find agreement between observations and physics. This is a very important disctinction. I think the incline (or decline or both) on this section is not enough to worry about. Either way that affects all cars equally. The only effect this would have would mean my transmission loses are off pretty much EQUALLY among the simulations. The couple of fractions of a seconds if a gear change takes .4 instead of .3 seconds is also not so relevant. The full advantage of the GT-R DC system is in the simulations.

Originally Posted by footie

Is this new argument to disprove the GTR's lap time or say that it's got ??? amount of power?

Hmmm not sure how many times I have to emphasize the point. There is no argument that A GT-R did a 7:29. Anyone who would argue that doesn't have much to stand on. THE POINT is how much power does it take to do this and therefore how under rated is the car. This is the most interesting question to me.

Originally Posted by footie

I have personally matched both the GTR and ZR1 laps together and on the straights the ZR1 has a definite advantage but in the corners the GTR pulls yards out of the Vette. Best watch the section between Bergwerk and Klostertal, here is a much better gauge of the performance gap between the two cars, again the GTR comes out of the corner on to this long high speed section in the lead but by the end it's a good 2.5~3 seconds down. The 530hp estimates for all GTR and this one are about right.

By the way after this section, in the twistie and more demanding section between Karussell and Galgenkopf the GTR regained the 3 seconds lost to the ZR1 but then re-lost almost half of this between Dottinger Hohe and the finish line.

By all means view the videos and match the two cars in each section I have listed, you will find I am right on this. But the most telling section is the high speed one between Bergwerk and Klostertal, the tree coverable would allow for little wind to affect either car and the evidence is clear that the ZR1 is considerably quicker in acceleration than the GTR in this section. I am confident that the GTR is as stock as any other out there based on this.

Footie, get real, talk about a massive DIVERSION. If you call these sections straight I don't know what I can say. Sure they are faster and more straight than other sections, but these are littered with curves. Likely small advantage = GT-R perhaps simply based on how confidence inspiring and easy to drive it is. Do recall the official specs as well here for the skidpad, GT-R = 0.95g, ZR1 = 1.05 g! Let me quote part of my orginal post since you never seem to read much but talk and talk and talk.

Let's simply consider the raw acceleration of this car when exiting a fast corner (around 100 mph at Schwalbenschwanz, at around km 16.5) and on to the long stretch (Döttinger Höhe). We surely can all agree that this is nothing but a speed contest, a rolling start drag (granted a pretty fast rolling start) and a hp war.

Frankly this discussion is getting boring.

No comments about the regressions I see? Funny how this is consistent (barely) with 550 hp. Do you have any idea what 3+ sigma means compared to 1.6 sigma? Well I'll tell you - just for a hands on guy. It is loosely like flipping a coin and getting 10 heads in a row.

[M3 LUST]

Originally Posted by ismelllikepoop

quite the wordsmith i see. i was merely pondering the quantity of time that the OP doth contain in his hands whence writing such musings. i wasn't trying to insult anyone, but the amount of time needed for the analysis and everything seems like it would be fairly substantial tho it is a hobby. either way it is pretty impressive.

No vocabulary there that's markedly abstruse.

Despite any errors that others might identify (when they have copious time of their own to analyze and deconstruct his hypothesis and conclusions), Swamp obviously understands how to conduct a reasonable empirical analysis given the limited tools that "real-world" situations provide.

As the anecdotal observations of other forum members illustrate far better than I can describe, not every member of this forum is gifted with the analytical skills of PencilGeek, Swamp, or Lucid, to name a few.

[!Xoible]

swamp... too much time on hand?

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by ///Mantis

swamp... too much time on hand?

Says the biggest post whore on m3post.com (and perhaps e90post.com). What a hypocrite. At least I have something that represents some work and value, which is in stark contrast to 99% of your "posts".

[footie]

Originally Posted by swamp2

Footie, get real, talk about a massive DIVERSION. If you call these sections straight I don't know what I can say. Sure they are faster and more straight than other sections, but these are littered with curves. Likely small advantage = GT-R perhaps simply based on how confidence inspiring and easy to drive it is. Do recall the official specs as well here for the skidpad, GT-R = 0.95g, ZR1 = 1.05 g! Let me quote part of my orginal post since you never seem to read much but talk and talk and talk.

It's not a diversion swamp, I am only highlighting another example which shows a different result where the wind will have little or no bearing and both cars should be on a level playing field. It's a shame you can only except one possibility and disregard the other more likely reason, the one I am telling you and have showing you here.

You want to except that the GTR is putting out 550hp+ because it works closer to your simulations but I am telling you that on a course like the ring things don't always work to a plan. The first section I showed the GTR lose 3 seconds, all high acceleration work required but regain all of this on the twistie sections. How is that difficult to understand.

If you need another example of this acceleration difference in action look no farther then near the start, the section between Quiddelbacher and Flugplatz, coming on to this straight the GTR is well ahead but the ZR1 has caught the Nissan on entering the corner. There is examples of this all over the lap.

Originally Posted by swamp2

Frankly this discussion is getting boring.

Well, me too and I doubt we will ever see eye to eye on this.

Originally Posted by swamp2

No comments about the regressions I see? Funny how this is consistent (barely) with 550 hp. Do you have any idea what 3+ sigma means compared to 1.6 sigma? Well I'll tell you - just for a hands on guy. It is loosely like flipping a coin and getting 10 heads in a row.

Funny that, I just got 12 heads in a row. What's the odds in that.

[footie]

To save anyone doing the donkey work I viewed the comparison videos of the ZR1 and the GTR and here is the sections broke down into where the GTR loses time to the ZR1.



Yellow section ZR1 was ahead by 0.7s
Orange section ZR1 increased this to 1.3s
Plum section ZR1 improved this to 1.9s
Dark Orange Section ZR1 loses a whole second in the final turns at Adenauer Forst, dropping to 0.9s
Yellow Section #2 ZR1 improves again to 1.7s
Green section All high speed, ZR1 improves to 3.6s (most of this improvement is between Bergwerk and Klostertal)
Dark Orange section #2 The twistiest section on the track, GTR pulls back 1.5s dropping the gap to 2.1s
Light Blue section ZR1 gains another 0.5s to the finish, ending the lap 2.63s ahead.

At least now we can all discuss where each car is gaining and losing it's time.

[ruff]

I am entertained by the banter this thread has spawned.

[footie]

Originally Posted by ruff

I am entertained by the banter this thread has spawned.

ruff,

As a Porsche man, what's you take on the Porsche vs Nissan thing or the comments that Nissan were cheating?

[McLuVan]

can someone sparknote this all for me

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by footie

To save anyone doing the donkey work I viewed the comparison videos of the ZR1 and the GTR and here is the sections broke down into where the GTR loses time to the ZR1.

...

At least now we can all discuss where each car is gaining and losing it's time.

Diversions, diversions, diversions. Unreal. Oops, I mean par for the course with you. We all know the end result, the two cars car very close judged by their final times. Some sections are done better by each car. Not a surprise in that at all (especially for a 550 hp version of the GT-R). Seeing what you have found with a 480 hp GT-R would be like an E92 M3 and Honda Civic (with a really trick suspension and tires and maybe AWD system too) trading off in winning sections on the Ring. And I am not kidding here, this is fairly close to for the respective power to weight ratios, ratioed! Do you not find that absolutely impossible?

My, point, again, for about the fifth time, is to examine a section that is as straight and as as long as possible to examine a fairly pure power to weight war between the two cars. As well to examine one where exit speeds were close.

Keep trying to change the topic, and avoid the central issue. Not a good effort though really.

[ruff]

Originally Posted by footie

ruff,

As a Porsche man, what's you take on the Porsche vs Nissan thing or the comments that Nissan were cheating?

I am not really a huge Porsche guy, just read my commentary about Porsche on the thread: "The best thing that ever happened to the M Division." That being said, I love the Cayman's light weight minimalist approach and mid engine design, and who couldn't love the GT3. On the flip side, I hate Porsches price gauging. By the way, like you, I am a big fan of the R8. The V10 version is going to smoke just about everything.

I have commented on the Nissan Porsche dispute before. First of all, I am excited Nissan built the new GT-R. Every sports car manufacture now has to wake up and smell the roses in a brand new world order. The GT-R is a supercar built by Nissan, of all people, at quarters to the dollar supercar prices. The Germans have been forced to re-evaluate and refocus their engineering efforts just to try and catch up to Nissan.

Like almost anything, I am sure there are truths to both of Nissan and Porsche complaints towards one another. However, what most people are missing is the fact that Nissan has forced Porsche back on their heels. Only a year or so ago, Porsche's arrogance would of dictated that they totally ignore what lowly Nissan had to say about anything, especially anything about Porsche's product cachet. Which begs the question, if the good folks in Maranello can hear the pounding at the castle gates.

[footie]

Originally Posted by swamp2

We all know the end result, the two cars car very close judged by their final times.

NO, what I have done is show how each car got to that end resulting time difference and where and what sections each car performed better on.

Originally Posted by swamp2

Not a surprise in that at all (especially for a 550 hp version of the GT-R).

So we finally have your verdict on the power figures you believe this GTR had. Well if that is true then it's true for all of them.

Originally Posted by swamp2

Seeing what you have found with a 480 hp GT-R would be like an E92 M3 and Honda Civic (with a really trick suspension and tires and maybe AWD system too) trading off in winning sections on the Ring. And I am not kidding here, this is fairly close to for the respective power to weight ratios, ratioed! Do you not find that absolutely impossible?

Sorry swamp but the M3 is not in the same league as the GTR, even if the M3 had 480hp would it get close.

Originally Posted by swamp2

My, point, again, for about the fifth time, is to examine a section that is as straight and as as long as possible to examine a fairly pure power to weight war between the two cars. As well to examine one where exit speeds were close.

The section I showed where the ZR1 really pulled clean air between them is a more realistic reflection of the two cars differing PTW figures. What you have in that section is zero wind effect, long sections joined by equally quick curves. This section shows PTW far better and the times show that.

Originally Posted by swamp2

Keep trying to change the topic, and avoid the central issue. Not a good effort though really.

Just because I am showing you something that you happen to disagree with does not mean it isn't correct.

Remember the M3 DCT debate in the M5Board videos.

[swamp2]

My god, it is always the same, like talking to a brick wall. Do you READ?

Originally Posted by footie

NO, what I have done is show how each car got to that end resulting time difference and where and what sections each car performed better on.

Agreed, what does that have to do with straight line performance? Corners = chassis, AWD, suspension, tires, downforce, etc. For the most part straights = power to weight. How many times does that have to be repeated?

Originally Posted by footie

So we finally have your verdict on the power figures you believe this GTR had. Well if that is true then it's true for all of them.

For the 10th time. I believe THIS GT-R had around 550 hp. What you are saying above is utter nonsense and absolutely false given the huge range in performance the various cars have exhibited. Please tell me you do not believe that all GT-Rs for which we have seen performance results reported have identical power. My other regression analysis continues this point. You simply won't comment on that. I DO NOT think both of those cars had 550 hp. Definitely not.

Originally Posted by footie

Sorry swamp but the M3 is not in the same league as the GTR, even if the M3 had 480hp would it get close.

FU&#%ING READ, PLEASE!! I am not comparing the M3 and GT-R nor an M3 with 480 hp. The point is this a ZR1 compared to a GT-R with 480 hp is much like an E92 M3 compared to a Honda Civic with trick tires and suspension. PLEASE READ. Save us your useless drivel by reading and thinking before you type so much.

Originally Posted by footie

The section I showed where the ZR1 really pulled clean air between them is a more realistic reflection of the two cars differing PTW figures. What you have in that section is zero wind effect, long sections joined by equally quick curves. This section shows PTW far better and the times show that.

How is P/W better represented in curvy sections? That is a new one for me. What you mean is that your view of the smaller under rating is better reflected in a section you hand picked to agree with your opinion. Too funny. You are really unbelievable. Also, haven't you barked enough about wind situation not to make a 100% assumption of wind in this other section. Heck at least I was working off of facts, GM reported winds, period.

Originally Posted by footie

Just because I am showing you something that you happen to disagree with does not mean it isn't correct.

Remember the M3 DCT debate in the M5Board videos.

Likewise. This is a matter of analysis not inductive reasoning about the honesty of m5board.com videos. Just becuase your guess was correct and mine wrong bears nothing on this particular analysis. Didn't your parents teach you more manners to rub defeats in the face of your opponents? I very quickly admitted I was wrong there simply both because I show respect and because frankly, it was just a guess/suspicion. This is physics, analysis, simulation, regression and a lengthy argument. Totally different.

Please, please, please do this. Show me how any given section supports your claim of 10% under rated. Please use some numbers, some analysis, some calculations, something. You just keep using feelings, opinions and instincts. These don't show anything. The problem is that you are not capable of such an analysis, hence eveything is a feeling or opinion. Perhaps such things belong better at a place like http://www.wetv.com/community/index.html . Please stop spouting your drivel until you can show us a single calculation that supports your 10% figure.

[footie]

Originally Posted by swamp2

My god, it is always the same, like talking to a brick wall. Do you READ?

Likewise.

Originally Posted by swamp2

Agreed, what does that have to do with straight line performance? Corners = chassis, AWD, suspension, tires, downforce, etc. For the most part straights = power to weight. How many times does that have to be repeated?

The point I keep repeating is that in the corners the GTR is better but on the straights the ZR1 clearly has a major advantage, the reason why on this section the ZR1 has such a huge advantage over the straight section between Dottinger Hohe and Antoniusbuche is that the ZR1 has hit a brick wall due the wind that day and it's acceleration advantage seems to be greater up to the 150mph mark (the sort of speed achieved in the section I highlighted). On this section I used (Wehrseifen to Klostertal) there should have been enough curves for the GTR to have held station with the ZR1 if your opinion was correct 'Corners = chassis, AWD, suspension, tires, downforce, etc.' but the fact is that the ZR1 is miles faster from the 80~150mph mark than the GTR, the very speed variation that this section will be using.

Originally Posted by swamp2

For the 10th time. I believe THIS GT-R had around 550 hp. What you are saying above is utter nonsense and absolutely false given the huge range in performance the various cars have exhibited. Please tell me you do not believe that all GT-Rs for which we have seen performance results reported have identical power. My other regression analysis continues this point. You simply won't comment on that. I DO NOT think both of those cars had 550 hp. Definitely not.

I think all of these GTR are producing very similar outputs, the difference in their acceleration figures might be that some reviews/roadtesters have read the manual and refrain for deactivating the VDC. Only a guess.

Originally Posted by swamp2

FU&#%ING READ, PLEASE!! I am not comparing the M3 and GT-R nor an M3 with 480 hp. The point is this a ZR1 compared to a GT-R with 480 hp is much like an E92 M3 compared to a Honda Civic with trick tires and suspension. PLEASE READ. Save us your useless drivel by reading and thinking before you type so much.

I read it the first time and totally misunderstood what you meant, but it's great to see your manners are holding up 'FU&#%ING READ'. But can I say something about your comparison, I will change the Civic for something similar, the M3 with 420hp against the Megane R26R with only 227hp and yet it gets to within 12 seconds of the M. That means it's only losing 0.9s per mile. Seems that if the Magane had an awd system as advanced as the GTR your comparison could have possibility proven true.

Originally Posted by swamp2

How is P/W better represented in curvy sections? That is a new one for me. What you mean is that your view of the smaller under rating is better reflected in a section you hand picked to agree with your opinion. Too funny. You are really unbelievable. Also, haven't you barked enough about wind situation not to make a 100% assumption of wind in this other section. Heck at least I was working off of facts, GM reported winds, period.

Who hand pick their section first. I was only showing that on a section which included curves and should have played to the GTR's strengths show the ZR1 made a much bigger gain, which showed that the real area where the ZR1's performance advantage was up to 150mph and it slowed after this speed, as we witnessed in your long straight (against a strong head wind).

[QUOTE=swamp2;3527127]Likewise. This is a matter of analysis not inductive reasoning about the honesty of m5board.com videos. Just becuase your guess was correct and mine wrong bears nothing on this particular analysis. Didn't your parents teach you more manners to rub defeats in the face of your opponents? I very quickly admitted I was wrong there simply both because I show respect and because frankly, it was just a guess/suspicion. This is physics, analysis, simulation, regression and a lengthy argument. Totally different.[?quote]

I think everyone here will agree that you for the most part show very little manners to your fellow members, especially if they disagree with you.

Originally Posted by swamp2

Please, please, please do this. Show me how any given section supports your claim of 10% under rated. Please use some numbers, some analysis, some calculations, something. You just keep using feelings, opinions and instincts. These don't show anything. The problem is that you are not capable of such an analysis, hence eveything is a feeling or opinion. Perhaps such things belong better at a place like http://www.wetv.com/community/index.html . Please stop spouting your drivel until you can show us a single calculation that supports your 10% figure.

I am saying the GTR is 10% over rated not under rated. And it's the skill of the driver and it's awd system which is why it can do what it did on the ring.

If I start showing calculations all of the time I might end up turning into someone like you............ heaven forbid.

[Big Windy]

ufc 90: footie vs. swamp.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by footie

I think all of these GTR are producing very similar outputs, the difference in their acceleration figures might be that some reviews/roadtesters have read the manual and refrain for deactivating the VDC. Only a guess.

I'm glad you are willing to put this on "paper". It shows how wrong you are. It does not take much review of 1/4 mi trap speed variation with the GT-R to see that some cars were producing more power than others. Look at the relative variations to any other AWD car say like the RS4. Way, way more variation.

Originally Posted by footie

I read it the first time and totally misunderstood what you meant, but it's great to see your manners are holding up

Footie, it is simple, you blabber on for pages very often without reading. This frustrates everyone. Just say you disagree with my and it is your hunch. Leave the real analysis and proof for the big boys.

Originally Posted by footie

Who hand pick their section first. I was only showing that on a section which included curves and should have played to the GTR's strengths show the ZR1 made a much bigger gain, which showed that the real area where the ZR1's performance advantage was up to 150mph and it slowed after this speed, as we witnessed in your long straight (against a strong head wind).

I really am done explaining that power to weight can be most effectively isolated on a straight or nearly straight section. Of course simulations generally only work for straight sections at WOT as well. Of course I picked a section where I could match simulation to the real world. What would be the point otherwise? This is how I made my argument. You really just don't get it.

Originally Posted by footie

I think everyone here will agree that you for the most part show very little manners to your fellow members, especially if they disagree with you.

I would call my willingness to try to educate and explain things to you over and over and over again when you don't read and can't do math quite admirable.

Originally Posted by footie

I am saying the GTR is 10% over rated not under rated.

If the rated number < actual number I say it is under rated. I think 99% would agree on this word choice. If you wanted to say it that way I would say the car over produces. Either way I know what you mean.

Originally Posted by footie

If I start showing calculations all of the time I might end up turning into someone like you............ heaven forbid.

Good luck, even 5 solid years of high school math and science probably wouldn't even help. Sorry foot, but your credibility will never get much beyond "very low" until you can provide some proof of your positions. Unfortunately when dealing with matters of engineering; numerical metrics, physics and numbers are the required language for both evidence and proof. I do not even claim I have rigorous incontrovertible proof, just some reasonably solid evidence and a good argument. Anyone can make a guess, justifying it is the harder part. Again, you are welcome to your opinion, but just be clear that you have no proof, just your guess or opinion.

At this point I think you have spoken your peace, please leave it at that and stop making the thread hopelessly long and fairly pointless to follow. In fact, I have a great idea, post your own bloody thread where you can brilliantly argue that the 7:29 car was 10% under rated.

[footie]

I read this last rant by swampie and near wet myself with laughter.

Talk about throwing your toys out of the pram.

Sad to say it but myself, Bruce and others with a bit more practical experience have said that maths can not explain lap times on tracks like the ring but you keep insisting that it can. Even when you see cars which buck the trend you still insist that the GTR can't buck it more, all this evidence showing the GTR out performs everything else, especially when the course is extremely uneven and bumpy like it was on the Isle of Man.

I have one for you Dickwad, the ZR1 has 640ps and only reached a top speed on the straight of 176mph, but remember that it got to 174mph very quickly, well here are five recent rivals at the title and their respective top speeds on the very same straight.

Pagani Zonda F (640hp) speed 181.6mph
Porsche Carrera GT (604hp) speed 183.5mph
Maserati (621hp) speed 183.5mph
Ferrari Enzo (650hp) speed 189.2mph
Koenigsegg CCX (901hp) speed 190mph

Now based on your f'ing stupid mathematics the ZR1 should all but match the first four in the list, but it doesn't, even the Porsche which is down almost 40hp is a whopping 7.5mph faster.

But wait a minute, the CCX has an extra 250hp and weighs the same as the Ferrari Enzo but reached only 0.8mph more. HOW THE F~CK CAN THIS BE, it was all conducted around the same time frame.

Work that one out genius.

The big boys here have experience and the other just play with their computer games and dream.

[swamp2]

I may get frustrated foot but the direct name calling is something I don't do to you. Another nice stoop to an even lower level. Please refrain, it won't help your credibility nor your already poor arguments.

I a not talking about top speed here. That is abundantly clear. I am talking about acceleration from around 100. Diversion should be your middle name.

I am not quite sure, even with the head wind, why the ZR1 only made it to 176. However, I am 100% sure that the reason wasn't that the car had 480 or 480+10% hp.

[footie]

Originally Posted by swamp2

I may get frustrated foot but the direct name calling is something I don't do to you. Another nice stoop to an even lower level. Please refrain, it won't help your credibility nor your already poor arguments.

I a not talking about top speed here. That is abundantly clear. I am talking about acceleration from around 100. Diversion should be your middle name.

I am not quite sure, even with the head wind, why the ZR1 only made it to 176. However, I am 100% sure that the reason wasn't that the car had 480 or 480+10% hp.

Swamp,

I am not trying to divert things here, only showing the error of your argument. According to you more power to weigh equals greater acceleration, whether that is from 100mph, 10mph or 60mph, the fact remains the same. In fact all of these cars will be rounding that turn at about the same speed so it's very relevant to include them into the argument.

The fact remains that you can not give an answer as to why the CXX is no quicker than the Enzo to the same point on the track, even though it has an extra 250hp. Will let me enlighten you, that is the upper limit to safety drive that part of the track. No doubt this is why the Viper driver chose to stay in the lower gear and ride the limiter and why the ZR1 reached the 170mph and all but stopped accelerating. In fact Chris Harris took his M3 there last winter and long before the bridge reached 162mph.

(Chris's video @ 8:38)
http://www.autocar.co.uk/VideosWallp...73&Page=9&CT=V

You are under the opinion that each of these drivers have their foot to the boards the entire time, silly assumption in my opinion.

You just don't get it. You think that everything is answerable in an equation but they all aren't. This argument has gotten well away from the original reason for the thread, that was that Nissan somehow were cheating by giving the GTR more power than quoted. Now for a very long time everyone has agreed with that opinion, myself included but the same is true for all manufacturers, it's a terrible thing but that's life. The argument I am making and will keep making is that this GTR is no different than almost any other, the only possible difference I may think of is the the suspension might be subtly different to a production version, something that is normal when a car is in a development programme but the engine and output figures will be the same as any other.