More drivers question Nissan's Nurburgring time

[lucid]

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

For me, the most fun is driving a "slower" car around the "faster" guys.

I guess we disagree on that one then...

[footie]

Well I had read and watched the videos from DR's recent GTR vs GT2 article and it has answered some of the questions but also brought up some interesting data which in my mind vindicates the Nissan's 7:29 lap, well on the power output at least.

Chris (DR) reckoned that in the hands of Suzuki the GTR they were using could possibly have went 15 seconds quicker with 5 of those seconds being accounted for with the change of rubber to the Dunlops. That meant on that lap on that day in that car a 7:40 was possible.

So there you have it, the Nissan car was a fake......... or was it, because I have viewed the data supplied by DR and on the final straight we have some interesting figures like exit speeds on to the straight and peak speeds. Though we didn't have the speed in the Nissan GTR of that mighty lap we did have the ZR1 and those matched videos.

Anyway using the ZR1's data it rounded the corner at 100mph and the DR GTR rounded at 89.2mph, that's a huge difference but then look at the next figures of the first bridge, the ZR1 was approx 140mph and according to the matched video of it and the GTR it was ahead by 0.3s at that point so the Nissan car will have been doing approx 138mph. Well what do you know, the DR car was doing 139.5mph, so next the peak speed for the ZR1, it reached 174mph and was well ahead of the Nissan GTR (approx 1s ahead) meaning a approx 6~8mph ahead and again the DR data shows their GTR peaking at 168mph.

To me that means the two GTRs, the 7:29 lap car and the 7:55 DR lap car are roughly putting out the same power. So using DR's own estimations of their car capable of a 7:40 lap means we have a 11 second difference to account for. We know they are roughly peaking at the same speeds so output are about the same and most of what DR said was to do with the weight affecting the bulk of their lap so is it possible that Nissan's car was stock in output but had less weight and possible a slightly different suspension setup.

Questions, questions.

[Robin_NL]

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by footie

Well I had read and watched the videos from DR's recent GTR vs GT2 article and it has answered some of the questions but also brought up some interesting data which in my mind vindicates the Nissan's 7:29 lap, well on the power output at least.

Chris (DR) reckoned that in the hands of Suzuki the GTR they were using could possibly have went 15 seconds quicker with 5 of those seconds being accounted for with the change of rubber to the Dunlops. That meant on that lap on that day in that car a 7:40 was possible.

So there you have it, the Nissan car was a fake......... or was it, because I have viewed the data supplied by DR and on the final straight we have some interesting figures like exit speeds on to the straight and peak speeds. Though we didn't have the speed in the Nissan GTR of that mighty lap we did have the ZR1 and those matched videos.

Anyway using the ZR1's data it rounded the corner at 100mph and the DR GTR rounded at 89.2mph, that's a huge difference but then look at the next figures of the first bridge, the ZR1 was approx 140mph and according to the matched video of it and the GTR it was ahead by 0.3s at that point so the Nissan car will have been doing approx 138mph. Well what do you know, the DR car was doing 139.5mph, so next the peak speed for the ZR1, it reached 174mph and was well ahead of the Nissan GTR (approx 1s ahead) meaning a approx 6~8mph ahead and again the DR data shows their GTR peaking at 168mph.

To me that means the two GTRs, the 7:29 lap car and the 7:55 DR lap car are roughly putting out the same power. So using DR's own estimations of their car capable of a 7:40 lap means we have a 11 second difference to account for. We know they are roughly peaking at the same speeds so output are about the same and most of what DR said was to do with the weight affecting the bulk of their lap so is it possible that Nissan's car was stock in output but had less weight and possible a slightly different suspension setup.

Questions, questions.

Very neat stuff indeed, and kudos to DR for another terrific piece.

With all this data (and with no disrespect intended), swamp will be busy for hours and hours, but for me it boils down to something very simple (as befits my own mental processes):

The GTR was seven seconds slower than the Porsche, with arguably five of those seconds attributable to the Bridgestones. Therefore, with the Porsche already having done a 7:31 on a much better day, this particular Nissan might've done a 7:33 or thereabouts on Dunlops, while happily tailing the GT2 around the track.

Makes it easy for me to believe that the GTR is capable of a 7:29 on a perfect day, on a single (pardon me) banzai lap.

Can't wait to hear from the faithful.

Bruce

[jaiman]

While I'm a bit sad the GT-R didn't win, I'm still thrilled that it gave the GT2 a run. Lets remember that the GT-Rs target was the 911tt. Well done Nissan.

[lvwirelessguy]

If I was an armchair racer at the very least I would like to be paid for it. You guys sure are dedicated though

[swamp2]

Just a couple of quick replies to this before any serious work... (if any)

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

The GTR was seven seconds slower than the Porsche, with arguably five of those seconds attributable to the Bridgestones. Therefore, with the Porsche already having done a 7:31 on a much better day, this particular Nissan might've done a 7:33 or thereabouts on Dunlops, while happily tailing the GT2 around the track.

You did read the part that he felt he got much much closer to the ultimate potential of the GT-R than the GT2 right? We all know why, it is easier to drive near its limit. This make the above argument pretty weak.

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

Makes it easy for me to believe that the GTR is capable of a 7:29 on a perfect day, on a single (pardon me) banzai lap.

This is precisely the opposite opinion of that in the article. They saw no way, tires, driver, better conditions, etc, to reach a 7:29. They said ~7:40. Now this is still opinion, but it is worth more than yours or mine. The appealing thing about the 7:40 estimated time is that is is consistent with many other expert opinions and much of my work as well. It is simply another piece of evidence that the 7:29 time car had more going on than ace driver, lots of practice, good conditions, etc. It very likely had in the neighborhood of 550 hp.

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by swamp2

Just a couple of quick replies to this before any serious work... (if any)

You did read the part that he felt he got much much closer to the ultimate potential of the GT-R than the GT2 right? We all know why, it is easier to drive near its limit. This make the above argument pretty weak.

This is precisely the opposite opinion of that in the article. They saw no way, tires, driver, better conditions, etc, to reach a 7:29. They said ~7:40. Now this is still opinion, but it is worth more than yours or mine. The appealing thing about the 7:40 estimated time is that is is consistent with many other expert opinions and much of my work as well. It is simply another piece of evidence that the 7:29 time car had more going on than ace driver, lots of practice, good conditions, etc. It very likely had in the neighborhood of 550 hp.

Read the same words you did, Swamp. I of course knew what your opinion would be as a result, but mine is different. The driver thinks he got more out of the GTR, but that doesn't make it so. He's just guessing on both cars.

Bruce

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by footie

Well I had read and watched the videos from DR's recent GTR vs GT2 article and it has answered some of the questions but also brought up some interesting data which in my mind vindicates the Nissan's 7:29 lap, well on the power output at least.

Chris (DR) reckoned that in the hands of Suzuki the GTR they were using could possibly have went 15 seconds quicker with 5 of those seconds being accounted for with the change of rubber to the Dunlops. That meant on that lap on that day in that car a 7:40 was possible.

So there you have it, the Nissan car was a fake......... or was it, because I have viewed the data supplied by DR and on the final straight we have some interesting figures like exit speeds on to the straight and peak speeds. Though we didn't have the speed in the Nissan GTR of that mighty lap we did have the ZR1 and those matched videos.

Anyway using the ZR1's data it rounded the corner at 100mph and the DR GTR rounded at 89.2mph, that's a huge difference but then look at the next figures of the first bridge, the ZR1 was approx 140mph and according to the matched video of it and the GTR it was ahead by 0.3s at that point so the Nissan car will have been doing approx 138mph. Well what do you know, the DR car was doing 139.5mph, so next the peak speed for the ZR1, it reached 174mph and was well ahead of the Nissan GTR (approx 1s ahead) meaning a approx 6~8mph ahead and again the DR data shows their GTR peaking at 168mph.

To me that means the two GTRs, the 7:29 lap car and the 7:55 DR lap car are roughly putting out the same power. So using DR's own estimations of their car capable of a 7:40 lap means we have a 11 second difference to account for. We know they are roughly peaking at the same speeds so output are about the same and most of what DR said was to do with the weight affecting the bulk of their lap so is it possible that Nissan's car was stock in output but had less weight and possible a slightly different suspension setup.

Questions, questions.

Wow, I couldn't disagree more. Vindicates?

Hmmm, the GT2 with "only" 523 hp absolutely spanks the GT-R out of Galgenkopf on to Döttinger Höhe and bests it to an early marker by 12 mph, and you say this "proves" the 7:29 car, which came awfully close to matching the ZR1, has the same power as this particular GT-R? The ZR1 has a 100 lb weight advantage and 100 hp advantage even over the GT2! Unreal. The GT-R was continually spanked on the power competition here by the GT2. The GT2 pulled harder but was tougher to handle and less composed hence less of an advantage than you might think on the final lap time.

How do you believe that you should get some equitable comparisons between the two GT-Rs here when you are trying to compare performance of the 7:29 lap and this 7:55 lap? Nonsense I would say. If the two GT-Rs are equitable on power and in the straights the 7:29 GT-R must have consistently cornered so much faster than this car it would again be breaking all laws of physics. The fact that you seem to find equity is again simply unreal.

Much of your "data" above are wrong as well. DR is talking minimum apex speed and for the ZR1 that value was 95 not 100 at Galgenkopf. The other crystal clear part of the ZR1 video is that is EXITED here at 109, precisely. To eliminate cornering/handling variable speed contests should be examined begining at corner exits or other places in a straight or near straight line under WOT.

Next, first bridge for the ZR1 was 143 mph and leading the 7:29 GT-R by 0.6 seconds from corner exit, not 0.3 sec.

Where the heck did you get the evidence that this GT-R was going 139.5 at this bridge? Did DR actually post video with speeds for the GT-R in this section? All I saw was the GT2 video in this section and without speeds.

Lastly your "1 second" ahead number is completely wrong as well (again if you are talking ZR1 vs. 7:29 GT-R). The figure is 0.7 seconds.

I think you need to sharpen your pencil here.

[ismelllikepoop]

your quest to be right will never be satisfied. even if it is just an opinion.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by ismelllikepoop

your quest to be right will never be satisfied. even if it is just an opinion.

Let us debate and have our fun, if you are not interested don't bother reading and replying. Your post really has nothing substantial to offer.

[southlight]

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

Read the same words you did, Swamp. I of course knew what your opinion would be as a result, but mine is different. The driver thinks he got more out of the GTR, but that doesn't make it so. He's just guessing on both cars.

Well, he's guessing after he drove both cars on the Ring, I'd say that makes it a quite "educated guess." In other words, how should we - without the experience/knowledge of driving both cars on the Ring - be able to question that assumption?


Best regards, south

[footie]

swamp,

I know my logic is sound, even if you don't agree. You do from time to time have problems reading the data infront of you, remember this little nugget you wrote else where,

The 60-130 figure will run about 0.6 seconds in favor or the DCT which is about 7-8 car lengths. I came up with this number using CarTest physics based simulation software. It has been validated in various threads here on the forum. It does even better in relative predictions like this one but generally does quite well in absolute predicitons as well.

I am not discussing the rest of the lap only the straight and on this straight both the Nissan GTR and the DR car were all but matched on the speed traps which means very similar outputs and that sad to say was always your agrument for it's incredible time. I always said the output wasn't in question but maybe the suspension setup could have been different and I still believe this to be the biggest possibility.

[footie]

Originally Posted by southlight

Well, he's guessing after he drove both cars on the Ring, I'd say that makes it a quite "educated guess." In other words, how should we - without the experience/knowledge of driving both cars on the Ring - be able to question that assumption?


Best regards, south

I value Chris's opinion probably more than any other, after all he is British.

Swamp feels they said the limit capable was 7:40, I disagree, he said that he thought the limits possible with that particular car and with those conditions was 7:40. Possibly on a different day and on more favourable track temperatures it would be even better, that is a statement I totally agree with.

Also, anyone which decent experience of awd cars will know they always feel easier to drive, especially compared to a rear engined machine like the 997, I have driven quite a few 911s and never once did I feel at one with the thing, whether I would have been any quick if I had is debatable.

[southlight]

Originally Posted by footie

I value Chris's opinion probably more than any other, after all he is British.

Swamp feels they said the limit capable was 7:40, I disagree, he said that he thought the limits possible with that particular car and with those conditions was 7:40. Possibly on a different day and on more favourable track temperatures it would be even better, that is a statement I totally agree with.

I don't see where he wrote that:

Well, Walter's time is 17-seconds faster than this, and having experienced the GT2 at full-afterburner, I have no doubt that the car will achieve that time.[...]
Could Nissan really go 27-seconds faster? I just don't know. [...] But I just don't see where another 27-seconds comes from with the car I drove. Ten, perhaps - fifteen with a set of those gummy Dunlops fitted, Suzuki-san driving, using his sublime skills and telepathic knowledge of the car's handling traits.

Due to the reference to the achieved lowest times - with the weather conditions being fine - it looks to me like Chris was trying to guess about the best possible time with that given car. So I understand that statement like swamp does. Chris reckons that 7.40 is the best possible time with that car and he thinks that it would require 'sublime skills' to do so. Maybe I overlooked the part where he said "with those conditions" but I just can't read that into the text.


Best regards, south

[footie]

south,

He said 7:40 (10s for Suzuki and 5s for the Tyres) he comments can only be based on the car they used and the conditions on that day. How could he possibly speak for other track conditions without driving the car on those circumstances.

[southlight]

Originally Posted by footie

south,

He said 7:40 (10s for Suzuki and 5s for the Tyres) he comments can only be based on the car they used and the conditions on that day. How could he possibly speak for other track conditions without driving the car on those circumstances.

How can he relate his times to the best achieved times driven by Suzuki and Roehrl at all, then? The question was: "Can the GT-R be 27 seconds faster than it was on that day?" Without any doubt the conditions have to be good as nobody thinks a GT-R can achieve a 7:29 on wet and cold tarmac. His answer was "I just don't see where another 27-seconds comes from." Pretty obvious to me that this statement either includes good conditions as they're absoulutely necessary to achieve such a marvelous time or the conditions weren't that bad on that day. How much time are some wet spots less good for?


Best regards, south

[footie]

Originally Posted by southlight

How can he relate his times to the best achieved times driven by Suzuki and Roehrl at all, then? The question was: "Can the GT-R be 27 seconds faster than it was on that day?" Without any doubt the conditions have to be good as nobody thinks a GT-R can achieve a 7:29 on wet and cold tarmac. His answer was "I just don't see where another 27-seconds comes from." Pretty obvious to me that this statement either includes good conditions as they're absoulutely necessary to achieve such a marvelous time or the conditions weren't that bad on that day. How much time are some wet spots less good for?


Best regards, south

Listen, no one is saying that the GTR that Nissan drove was anything other than special. The question has always been argued that it's has had extra power but the data DR provided proves otherwise, so it's been something else that's in question.

Chris is a great pilot and in his opinion Suzuki could only possibly be 10 seconds quicker than him, I personally don't know if that is the case. He is comfortable in saying that Walter could find an extra 17 second in the GT2 but felt Suzuki could only find 10 seconds in the GTR, remember 5 seconds were the tyres. Well I say give Suzuki the same reasonable doubt as you gave Walter and that would then make the GTR lap time 22 seconds quicker with a lap of 7:33 and that isn't too far off the Nissan lap for another completely stock GTR.

[southlight]

Originally Posted by footie

Listen, no one is saying that the GTR that Nissan drove was anything other than special. The question has always been argued that it's has had extra power but the data DR provided proves otherwise, so it's been something else that's in question.

Chris is a great pilot and in his opinion Suzuki could only possibly be 10 seconds quicker than him, I personally don't know if that is the case. He is comfortable in saying that Walter could find an extra 17 second in the GT2 but felt Suzuki could only find 10 seconds in the GTR, remember 5 seconds were the tyres. Well I say give Suzuki the same reasonable doubt as you gave Walter and that would then make the GTR lap time 22 seconds quicker with a lap of 7:33 and that isn't too far off the Nissan lap for another completely stock GTR.

Don't want to start an argument, mate. When saying he has no doubt Walter would be 17 seconds faster Chris also considered that he lost 5 seconds himself. So with the 5 seconds Chris himself could have been faster it's a 12-second advantage for Walter and a 10-Second advantage for Suzuki, which sounds quite fair to me.

Still I can't follow how the DR data proves "otherwise." When comparing to the ideal lap Suzuki was doing Chris had to take weather conditions into consideration, pretty logical to me.


Best regards, south

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by footie

I know my logic is sound, even if you don't agree. You do from time to time have problems reading the data infront of you, remember this little nugget you wrote else where,

Poor technique as usual. I am not immune from mistakes and like I always do when they happen I quickly and graciously admit them. This small mistake was no different. Heck I even redid my analysis and showed everything to be consistent. I believe this improves my credibility. When you are questioned all you seem to be able to do is get defensive and stand by your "logic". The questions were both your data and your logic and it seems you can not defend either.

Originally Posted by footie

I am not discussing the rest of the lap only the straight and on this straight both the Nissan GTR and the DR car were all but matched on the speed traps which means very similar outputs and that sad to say was always your agrument for it's incredible time. I always said the output wasn't in question but maybe the suspension setup could have been different and I still believe this to be the biggest possibility.

I firmly question this. This is a pretty important piece of the puzzle in my opinion. There are certainly multiple questions here, but one really big one is were the 7:29 car and this car closely matched on the straights. First I would say there is not enough apples to apples comparison to do any sort of analysis. What you did is completely riddled with bad data and super loose "logic". You must have multiple markers with time and or speed to do this analysis and we have neither here when the cars were both under WOT, PERIOD.

Now if we want to make some conclusions about power and under rating from lap times I think we can do this, it is just that it is not as strong of a case as the straight line/WOT comparison technique. Good lap times require power to weight, period. This car essentially got a 7:40. Sure hypothetical "best conditions" but call this the time. Doing this with 480 hp and this weight is still, based on regression analysis, just barely possible (our friend sigma is at 2.4). I'd say "impossible" but I think 3 sigma is really that limit. Doing it at 530 hp (your previous estimate and my low estimate for the 7:29 car) is quite possible (sigma = 1.8) and even reasonable for this advanced chassis and the ease at which one can really push the car.

So we are back to the contradiction. Based on expert opinions, those who have driven the car on the Ring, my analyses, both regression and straight line performance and now this test, the 7:29 car was not "stock". Although they don't address under rating in this particular test the implication is certainly there. We already agree that the 7:29 car had between 530-560 hp. I believe this particular DR car had between 500-530 hp. Either way you slice is they are cheating and lying and the two cars were almost for sure not identical.

Continuing.... South has you heartily beat in the contention that DR stated anything explicitly about track conditions or made any exceptions for them. They said,

I just don't see where another 27-seconds comes from with the car I drove.

If that does not cover ALL of the variables such as driver, tires, track conditions etc. then I'm a monkeys uncle. I don't know how it could be more explicit. They are comparing directly to the 7:29 time which may or may not have had ideal track and weather conditions but for sure the conditions were DIFFERENT. So the implication is pretty darn clear that all variables are under consideration including the track conditions and weather. if they meant on that particular day of their test they would have said so. We can obviously ask SteveD for his interpretation.

I get considerable flak here on the GT-R issue for bias, having conclusions before data, not accepting new results, etc. Of course I deny those accusations (less one infamous premature/poorly worded post title...). It is really entertaining to see the faithful on the side of Nissan be so amazingly hypocritical and doing the exact same thing.

Anyone who believes that this article concludes or provides evidence of:

1. The 7:29 time being possible with the cars stated specifications.
2. This "DR" GT-R is per stated specifications.
3. Those two cars are identical (less tires).

Is really missing the point and looking through blinders. Time to wake up guys.

[footie]

I guess we will all agree to disagree on this. I personally disagree and will continue to disagree that the 7:29 was producing different power an all the others. DR's data basically backs this up when compared to the data from the ZR1.

I insist that it's most likely suspension, being a pre-production spec, great for track work and less so for day to day driving.

[th3Stig]

So are any of you all engineers or test drivers? Or is this all just assumption based upon the programs on your computer in front of you and your sweet driving M3?