|
|
02-09-2009, 05:05 PM | #353 |
Major General
382
Rep 8,033
Posts |
The list of cars that were included in the analysis are in the regression thread, but others might have added cars, etc. I think they uploaded their spreadsheets though. Maybe I did as well?...I'm getting on a plane Zurich in 12 hours, so I'm gonna tune out of this one--hopefully for good!
__________________
|
Appreciate
0
|
02-09-2009, 05:12 PM | #354 | |
Major General
382
Rep 8,033
Posts |
Quote:
__________________
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
02-09-2009, 06:30 PM | #355 | |
Lieutenant General
634
Rep 10,407
Posts |
Quote:
I suppose we can continue to agree to disagree about the meaning of power to weight regressed against lap times. But all of the work I have put into this, multiple tracks, multiple sets of cars, huge range of P/W ratios, as well as looking for other regressions with good R^2 and slopes such as aerodynamics (CdxA), max g force, etc. has really convinced me that F=ma and the R^2 values observed in the regression are a statement of the same basic phyiscs. Last edited by swamp2; 02-09-2009 at 06:56 PM.. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
02-09-2009, 06:53 PM | #356 | ||
Lieutenant General
634
Rep 10,407
Posts |
Quote:
Here is a quote ifrom a previous reply of mine about what this really means, I added the words in brackets for contextual clarity: Quote:
|
||
Appreciate
0
|
02-09-2009, 07:15 PM | #357 | |
Brigadier General
544
Rep 4,021
Posts
Drives: 2008 335xi Coupe
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The land where we kill baby seals
|
Quote:
So we can reasonably conclude that statistically, the 7:30 time is highly improbable for a "stock" GTR can achieve this time. So...statiscally, Porsche is likely correct in its accusations. I would love to see the beta software they had in the GTR.
__________________
"Aerodynamics are for people who cannot build engines"......Enzo Ferrari
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
02-09-2009, 07:23 PM | #358 |
Lieutenant General
1204
Rep 12,446
Posts |
So I guess manufacturers can all do scam 'Ring runs on beta software and unknown tires and claim them as stock runs? Cool.
__________________
Past: '08 E92 335i|ZPP|ZSP|6AT
Past: '15 Mustang GT|401A|PP|6MT Current: '20 Shelby GT350|6MT |
Appreciate
0
|
02-09-2009, 07:29 PM | #359 | |
Conspicuous consumption
99
Rep 1,183
Posts |
Quote:
T Bone, Good to see ya back in the game. Your posts have been missed. I still like it when Nissan sticks it to Porsche and Porsche metamorphoses into whiners running scared.
__________________
All things are subject to interpretation; whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth.
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
02-09-2009, 07:44 PM | #360 | |
Brigadier General
544
Rep 4,021
Posts
Drives: 2008 335xi Coupe
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The land where we kill baby seals
|
Quote:
Hey Man, I love the Nissan crack about driving lessons too As some of you know, I hate the 911 and actually like the GTR but what cannot be tolerated is cheating or even aggressive and misleading viral marketing campaigns. Swamp and Lucid, through statistical analysis, demonstrate that Nissan is likely lying through their crooked teeth that they used a stock GTR to attain a sub 7:30 time. The big flag for me was when they admitted using beta software.....untracable and Nissan is completely unaccountable to anyone since it was a viral marketing campaign and not subject to normal product advertising rules. The other thing that irks me is Carlos Ghosn, CEO of Nissan, forbade the Nissan Marketing team to have any GTR ads so they reverted to viral marketing but they were so aggressive here and completely misrepresented the GTR's performance.....
__________________
"Aerodynamics are for people who cannot build engines"......Enzo Ferrari
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
02-09-2009, 07:52 PM | #361 |
Conspicuous consumption
99
Rep 1,183
Posts |
Viral and misleading marketing campaigns humor me. No auto manufacture can claim innocence.
__________________
All things are subject to interpretation; whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth.
|
Appreciate
0
|
02-09-2009, 08:00 PM | #362 | |
Brigadier General
544
Rep 4,021
Posts
Drives: 2008 335xi Coupe
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The land where we kill baby seals
|
Quote:
Ah...but there is a difference.... When a manufacturer advertises something, they are legally bound to ensure it is factual. Viral campaigns are amusing but when manufacturers use them to claim some performance but not really, they unbind themselves from legal culpability by not standing behind their claims. This is bullshit. Viral campaigns on non-measurable things / qualities of a product are fine, but not performance. On a related note, below is my fav ad
__________________
"Aerodynamics are for people who cannot build engines"......Enzo Ferrari
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
02-09-2009, 08:03 PM | #363 | |
Lieutenant General
634
Rep 10,407
Posts |
Quote:
I saw you allude to this on another post. Can you find a reference. I had not heard this enter the debate yet. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
02-09-2009, 08:13 PM | #364 | ||
Brigadier General
544
Rep 4,021
Posts
Drives: 2008 335xi Coupe
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The land where we kill baby seals
|
Quote:
I am not a believer that either BMW or Nissan underrates their cars. You can explain the freakish behaviour of the BMW N54 because this was the first implementation of "Efficient Dynamics", electric water pumps and other measures that eliminate parasitic drivetrain losses will mask itself as being "underrated". Not sure what Nissan has done here. Quote:
__________________
"Aerodynamics are for people who cannot build engines"......Enzo Ferrari
|
||
Appreciate
0
|
02-09-2009, 08:34 PM | #365 | |
Brigadier General
3824
Rep 3,307
Posts |
Quote:
Or did they just let the time leak into the internet world and let the legend grow out of control. I think even they would tell you, a stock GT-R off the showroom floor can't do a 7:29. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
02-09-2009, 08:40 PM | #366 | |
Brigadier General
544
Rep 4,021
Posts
Drives: 2008 335xi Coupe
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The land where we kill baby seals
|
Quote:
Nope...this is the problem. They release a video (Youtube) documenting a crazy time and won't stand behind it with their stock GTR. Viral marketing at its worst....they make a claim but don't really stand behind it. If they issued a press release, they would be legally bound to its content, so it would have to disclaim whether the car was a production car, tires, conditions...
__________________
"Aerodynamics are for people who cannot build engines"......Enzo Ferrari
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
02-10-2009, 02:15 AM | #367 | |
Lieutenant General
634
Rep 10,407
Posts |
Quote:
Efficient dynamics and the like do not account for 50 hp, period. Don't you find it interesting that the GT-R DID NOT make SAE certified power? I was fairly certain Nissan made an official statement that the 7:29 car was absolutely bone stock. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
02-10-2009, 03:52 AM | #368 | ||
Major General
1207
Rep 8,034
Posts |
Quote:
Quote:
I am pretty certain that there was a proper press release at their test centre at the ring stating everything and showing the video footage. |
||
Appreciate
0
|
02-10-2009, 10:54 AM | #369 | |
Colonel
99
Rep 2,000
Posts |
Quote:
As mentioned, one can't read the latest Motor Trend article without smelling a rat - meaning there's a dyno shop looking for ink. Nissan hasn't certified the GT-R under the current SAE rules, which is highly suspicious since they, along with the other major Japanese manufacturers, agreed that they would. Note that this was after these same manufacturers got caught with their pants down by the new, more tightly controlled SAE J1349 power rules published in '04, I think, and had to downrate their power figures at that time. The car that ran the 7:29, like current Nissan production GT-Rs, was rated about 10% low. That approximate number is backed up by a number of chassis dyno runs by various folks on various dynos, and by the car's quarter mile performance, again by various folks in various venues. Bruce PS - There is no damned way the BMW twin turbo six isn't underrated either. If BMW's efficiencies are in some way magical, the M3 would show the same type of power abberation on a chassis dyno, and it simply doesn't. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
02-10-2009, 11:43 AM | #370 | ||
Brigadier General
544
Rep 4,021
Posts
Drives: 2008 335xi Coupe
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The land where we kill baby seals
|
Quote:
Variation in software for a turbo car?? That just stinks to me. This can could make over 600 hp on software tweaks alone. So let's to the bottom of what was claimed and see if they nuance out of it with "software variation" Quote:
Consider the that a mechanical water pump would draw mechnical energy in a exponential manner, the power savings up top of an electical pump would be significant. Additionally, the AC is on a clutch and I am not sure what else they put in the N54. The other consideration is the 300 hp rating is peak, the N54 delivers a very flat torque curve and generates the 300 foot pounds of torque below 2000 rpm..... This is why a 300 hp 335i is faster than a 300 hp STI, the area under the curve. These 2 things could be used to explain why people think the N54 is underrated. As for the GTR, I really have no clue why they didn't get SAE certification other than losing face for delivering a car with 500 hp or so. For marketing reasons, I don't understand why Nissan would hold back if the motor delivered more power, particularly in a very HP conscious North America.
__________________
"Aerodynamics are for people who cannot build engines"......Enzo Ferrari
|
||
Appreciate
0
|
02-10-2009, 12:31 PM | #371 | |||
Lieutenant General
634
Rep 10,407
Posts |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
Appreciate
0
|
02-10-2009, 12:35 PM | #372 |
Lieutenant General
634
Rep 10,407
Posts |
It is a pretty thorough spec that involves the process and certification of the tester and equipment even more carefully than the actual allowed power deviation. Multiple SAE spec are involved, sort of parent and child specs as well. The final figure though is within 1%, not high nor low. It is a pretty tight spec but also shows that with modern (not even cutting edge, just solid) manufacturing techniques 1% is reasonable. I know it is obvious, but this is 3 out of 300, 4 out of 400 or just 5 small ponies out of 500. The odd thing is that cars almost certainly gain more power than this through break in.
|
Appreciate
0
|
02-10-2009, 12:40 PM | #373 | |
Moderator / European Editor
1583
Rep 6,754
Posts |
Quote:
http://www.worldcarfans.com/9080501....ring-in-7m-29s http://www.drive.com.au/Editorial/Ar...ID=57410&vf=12 Still searching for the preproduction software bit. Can't remember that. Best regards, south
__________________
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
02-10-2009, 03:59 PM | #374 |
Major General
1207
Rep 8,034
Posts |
swamp,
I noticed in your reply to T Bone regarding the regression of the GTR and mentioned that the next closest was a Zonda. Are you sure about that, it's only that I remembered the Audi S3 having a much higher regression rating than the Zonda. It was still not as high as the GTR but it did get much closer and I am sure it's time was by SportAuto and not the pro driver who spent weeks fine tuning the car on this very track. Maybe South may know if I am right here but I think all SportAuto supertests conducted on the Nurburgring comprise of only three laps. This may give more credibility to the possibility that the GTR did indeed do the lap and the car was stock to the level of 10% over rated as has been seen from other stock examples. |
Appreciate
0
|
Post Reply |
Bookmarks |
|
|