|
|
11-24-2008, 12:49 PM | #89 |
Lieutenant General
634
Rep 10,407
Posts |
Degrees in math and physics, worked for years as a mechanical engineer doing brakes and suspension on high end mountain bikes. For quite a few years, after "crossing to the dark side", have been doing sales and marketing of engineering software. Test driver? I wish I had that much skill behind the wheel.
|
Appreciate
0
|
11-24-2008, 12:52 PM | #90 | |
Lieutenant General
634
Rep 10,407
Posts |
Quote:
If you then also believe that the DR car had the same 530 hp I would say their lap time was poor at best. You can't have your cake and eat it too. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
11-24-2008, 04:15 PM | #91 | |
Major General
1208
Rep 8,034
Posts |
Quote:
The evidence is there in DR's data and the matched ZR1 vs GTR final straight video which I might add you built your entire debate/argument on. We don't have to be rocket scientists to make a close guess on the speed the GTR was doing up that straight in relation to the ZR1 and as I said the DR's GTR all but matched the Nissan GTR. Now for the DR's lap time with their car. Chris felt confident that someone of Suzuki's skill could post a 7:40 in that car on that day (7:55 minus 10s for driver + 5s for tyres), improve the conditions could drop this still further. The question is how close to the 7:29 would be possible with that car. Say for argument's sake that this particular car with ideal conditions could drop this another 4s that would be a theoretical 7:36 and that is close enough in my mind to believe that a race suspension setup could possibly pull the final seconds. A misrepresentation by Nissan that a stock car did the time in question but not to the extent that a stock car couldn't be made to recreate the lap without any real modifications. P.S. A 7:36 lap is only between 1~2% slower than the 7:29 lap. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
11-24-2008, 04:35 PM | #92 | |
Lieutenant General
634
Rep 10,407
Posts |
Quote:
1. Please provide ANY proof based on multiple time vs. distance or speed vs. distance markers that the DR GT-R matched the 7:29 lap. What you have provided in the past is so weak and full of incorrect inputs it is really quite embarrasing. I would call it speculation more than "logic" or "analysis" or even opinion. I am more than willing to look at data and an analysis but you have not provided anything. DR did not supply equivalent nor useful data in this regard so the terms fabrication and imagination come to mind. 2. YES OR NO only the 7:29 car had in the neighborhood of 530 hp? You must answer "yes" here because you have stated this absolutely explicity many times in our previous debates. This leads me to ask you to simply refer back to my previous post. 7:55 sucks for 530 hp and this chassis/tire/tranny/AWD system/etc. and of course you can not have your cake and eat it to. Race suspension, better day, 1-2%, etc. all pretty irrelevant and purely speculative. These are diversions my friend, diversions. However, if you want to admit the 7:29 car did that achievement with both 530 hp and a suspension vastly different than OEM that is fine with me. More evidence Nissan lied and cheated. But hey, I didn't say it. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
11-24-2008, 05:12 PM | #93 | |
Second Lieutenant
8
Rep 274
Posts |
Quote:
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
11-24-2008, 05:57 PM | #95 | ||
Major General
1208
Rep 8,034
Posts |
Do I believe the Nissan GTR had 530hp, yes, I have said that numerous times.
Quote:
It's simple logic is one car (ZR1) reaches a point ahead of another (GTR) and it posts a certain speed than the other car is slower. It my educated guess on the speed that this GTR did at each of these points and remember you aren't that great at read data so my estimate is probably more correct than your own. Quote:
Would a suspension set up for track use solely have made the 1~2% improvement I am suggesting, you are bloody right it would. Anyone who has sampled a road car and even a group N car will know how much of a difference suspension can make. The only difference I see between us is the belief that all GTRs have approx 530hp, I believe they have. So for your final question of do I believe a stock (530hp) GTR with tweaked suspension is capable of the 7:29 lap, then the answer is YES. Is the tweaked suspension class as breaking the rules, I don't know, it most definitely would be a serious bend on the rules. One would have to prove that the suspension couldn't be tuned to this spec on stock parts, but then all of these questions are stabs in the dark as only Nissan know the real truth behind that lap. |
||
Appreciate
0
|
11-24-2008, 08:14 PM | #96 | |
Colonel
99
Rep 2,000
Posts |
Quote:
I in fact thought it possible that Nissan might go so far as to tweak the suspension settings (not parts) for max track performance (negative camber, reduced toe, etc), but in their official response to Porsche, they claim the car was completely standard in terms of specification. This means stock settings for everything, and I believe them for reasons stated previously. Second, it's clear that Chris didn't have his heart in it that day, to put it kindly. He admitted his fear going in. As far as his evaluation of how much he got out of each car's potential, that's just crap. In spite of swamp's typical style of using a quote he likes (he used Chris's 27 second quote without also quoting that Chris said he didn't know if the GTR could go that fast), there is simply no way of knowing how fast the cars are through Chris's fairly poor relative performance - except of course that the GTR was slower by seven seconds while using tires that are responsible for five of those seconds - net two seconds, with obvious implications. Third, your evaluation of similar speeds between the DR car and the 7:29 car at a given track point is clearly evidence, despite swamp's shouted attack. In fact, it might actually point to the DR car as having more power than the 7:29 car, since it performed as well after coming out of a corner on a cold track. Fourth, your assertion in regard to swamp's evaluation of numbers is spot on. He's very comfy with numbers (remember him demanding numbers from you the first time you pointed out some interesting facts about the relative performance of the GTR vs ZR1?), but has nothing intuitive in terms of how they relate to the actual planet. Your example was a good one, but also remember that he thinks he's actually successful at modeling a quarter mile pass of a car if he gets the ET fairly close, and not so close on the terminal speed. Ridiculous. Fifth, I believe that Porsche's GTR reaction was unfortunate, but genuine. So was Nissan's. In their official statement, they offered education to Porsche and other companies in regard to how you get the GTR to really hum. In the U.S., that statement was widely regarded as a smack in the chops, but Nissan is a Japanese company, and I believe the offer was tendered honestly and without irony. It's further evidence that Nissan is confident of the car's spectacular times, else they get completely humbled should Porsche or others take them up on it next Spring and the cars don't perform. Lastly, none of this matters in the slightest to swamp. He is so committed to the idea of Nissan cheating that nothing will sway him, and his bias is there for all to see. Remember how he gave credibility to the idea that nissan ran a short lap on their record run, while filming it for all to see? It probably makes sense to defend yourself, but remember who's doing the attacking, and his lack of credibility on this topic. Bruce Last edited by bruce.augenstein@comcast.; 11-24-2008 at 08:30 PM.. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
11-24-2008, 08:29 PM | #97 |
Second Lieutenant
8
Rep 274
Posts |
|
Appreciate
0
|
11-24-2008, 08:39 PM | #98 | |
Lieutenant General
634
Rep 10,407
Posts |
Quote:
If you honestly believe you can make an "educated guess" on a single top speed at an unknown single marker and compare that to two other cases where we have speed vs. distance at a variety of DIFFERENT markers and times vs. distance at the same multiple markers for another car and then make power comparisons among the three cars then I'll simply call our "debate" over. As well I keep pointing out your flawed data in your original post #68 and my reply in #75. YOUR INPUT "DATA" to your "educated guess" ARE FLAT OUT INCORRECT. Please go read my corrections again in #75. I presented a detailed accounting and analysis of a bunch of this data for the ZR1 vs. GT-R in the other thread and the only points you could really criticize were the GT-R corner exit speed estimates and a possible tail wind helping it out. That analysis stood extensive scrutiny and still stands now. How about I just say every car that is faster than any other car around the Ring is faster at every single point and therefore has more power? How about I just say that I "estimated" the E92 M3 reached 190 mph at some point on its 8:05 Ring lap. How about I say I have a frickin flying pig as a pet? Your statement of an "educated guess" is just about on an equitable level of quality and accuracy as these statements. By the way I'm glad we have got to the point that the GT-Rs 7:29 time is possible with: 1. +50hp (and nearly the same + torque advantage) 2. The better of two tire possibilities 3. A serious Ace driver 4. Perfect weather and track conditions 5. A factory tuned/tweaked/modified suspension We finally agree, I just think it had a bit more power than that. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
11-24-2008, 09:17 PM | #99 |
Lieutenant Colonel
140
Rep 1,597
Posts
Drives: MY2022 X5 M-Sport 45e White
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Brisbane - Australia
|
Ok, so after 5 pages & 98 posts we are back to where we started with what everybody has been saying all along, they cheated, it's not a standard off the floor model as they would like you to believe!
We all new that, so why do what they did, a marketing ploy! Even Top Gear said it was sus!
__________________
MY22 X5 M-Sport 45e White, 22"rims, Red Calipers, Ceramic Pads. Better off saying what it does not have and that's a B&O Audio System, otherwise all option boxes are ticked. |
Appreciate
0
|
11-24-2008, 09:19 PM | #100 | |
Colonel
99
Rep 2,000
Posts |
Quote:
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
11-24-2008, 11:04 PM | #101 |
Lieutenant General
634
Rep 10,407
Posts |
Talk about out of context. You readily admit that most GT-Rs are putting our in the neighborhood of 530 hp. If this is your definition of legit and by the specs then again I have to chuckle with the obvious reply... "What is 50 hp among friends". And you call me biased. Unreal Bruce, simply unreal.
|
Appreciate
0
|
11-24-2008, 11:20 PM | #102 |
Colonel
35
Rep 2,406
Posts |
i was reading the argument on autoblog and it appeared that the gtr in this test was running on bridgestone tire. Nissan repeatedly said that this tire is 5 secs slower than the dunlop on the ring. So if this gtr was running on dunlop, then it would have match the time of the gt2. On this test, both the gt2 and gtr were 15+ secs slower than the manufactor claim. So this prove that the gtr on standard dunlop tire is neck and neck with the gt2 on the ring on any given weather condition. So nissan claim of 7:29 is legit IMO.
|
Appreciate
0
|
11-24-2008, 11:52 PM | #103 |
Major General
1208
Rep 8,034
Posts |
Something I forgot to comment on with regards to the DR article and by no means is this proof positive or anything, it's just an observation.
Chris the previously been racing the DR sponsored 997 Cup car, so was not only familiar with the track but more familiar with the odd balance of the Porsche's setup on this track. Should this have any bearing on the results? I think when you combine this with the wrong tyre choice, the fact that it's a friend's own car which if wrecked would be a hard pill to swallow and even harder to explain all contribute to the slower than GT2's lap time. Imagine what we would have all been saying if it had of been a factory supplied GTR with the right tyres and a more committed Chris who would have probably posted a quicker than GT2 lap time. Well I know what swamp would have thought, in a word 'FIX', and then the next breath would have been it was still 17 seconds slower than factory claims so shouldn't be possible without much more power. Chris also highlighted the fact that on different days of racing that was conducted throughout the seasons produced up to 5 second variations per lap. So even using Chris's rule of thumb that on that particular day with that GTR, someone with Suzuki's skill could have been able to post a 7:35 lap (7:55 minus 10s + 5s for driver and tyres and a further 5s for perfect conditions). Things are starting to look the more likely that Nissan's lap is a true one. |
Appreciate
0
|
11-25-2008, 12:40 AM | #104 | |
Lieutenant Colonel
140
Rep 1,597
Posts
Drives: MY2022 X5 M-Sport 45e White
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Brisbane - Australia
|
Quote:
The GT-R's times are consistantly slower than the 7:29, so even if it did manage that time it is a once of, it does not consistantly do that lap time, otherwise Nissan would have shown all there lap times and they would be all around 7:30. When I see a GT-R doing those sort of times consistantly I will believe it!
__________________
MY22 X5 M-Sport 45e White, 22"rims, Red Calipers, Ceramic Pads. Better off saying what it does not have and that's a B&O Audio System, otherwise all option boxes are ticked. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
11-25-2008, 01:12 AM | #105 | |
First Lieutenant
26
Rep 365
Posts |
Quote:
also i suppose i have to add something to the argument to make my post count here, is that DR acknowledges that the different tires on the gt-r could have a 5 second differential to the times, making the actual lap times now a less than 2 second spread. I understand that they felt the gt2 had more "potential" but what does that matter when they couldn't muster anything more than a marginal difference in times. There's a lot of things i could potentially do but that doesnt mean it's gonna happen |
|
Appreciate
0
|
11-25-2008, 01:33 AM | #106 | |
Lieutenant General
634
Rep 10,407
Posts |
Quote:
I have stated my opinion on this in the past. But if you never saw those posts yes. I do believe the 335i is under rated and that BMW is cheating in this regard. Does FI give you the right to cheat? As well 10% is 10% but 50 hp is a lot more than 30, no denying that. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
11-25-2008, 01:44 AM | #107 |
First Lieutenant
26
Rep 365
Posts |
so they are cheating by giving customers a higher rated car? im not sure i get it. so if nissan comes out and says hey guys the "gt-r actually outputs closer to 530, sorry we lowballed the number" then their claims become legitimate?
|
Appreciate
0
|
11-25-2008, 01:57 AM | #108 | ||
Major General
1208
Rep 8,034
Posts |
Quote:
1/ Who supplied the cars. I know that though I would not want to wreck either of these priceless motors, the one which I would show most care over would be that of my friend. Most likely Porsche would help with the bill if this occurred but doubt if said friend would be as willing. 2/ Tyre choice. One was equipped with the stickiest rubber but the other was not, so this test though entertaining don't show a true or fair reflection of how the test could have played out. 3/ Chris had more experience of driving the Porsche around this track than he did the Nissan. He felt that he had gotten more out of the GTR than the GT2, this is something we will never know but I do know how he feels because awd cars generally do give the impression that they are easier to control and thus you find you did better with fewer mistakes. This is not always the case though. Quote:
As with everything it takes a little leap of faith, much the same for the moon landings. |
||
Appreciate
0
|
11-25-2008, 03:02 AM | #109 | ||||
Lieutenant General
634
Rep 10,407
Posts |
Ugh here we go. So much BS, so much hypocrisy, not enough time.
Quote:
Heck if it means it will cause other manufacturers to adopt similar procedures to obtain "absolute best" Ring times that is fine with me. Having a Sportauto time and factory ace time under perfect conditions is simply more good and useful data. I do think this is where things will head. Mark my prediction. Let's remember your word "specification" above. We will get to that much much later... Quote:
Quote:
The above statements are simply not correct. Your ability to bring up the past over and over and over again shows your desperation and is frankly a bit pitiful. I guess I'll continue to play ball though.... Obviously if a certain tool has a certain strength and other weaknesses improvements should be sought in terms of the inputs (which I have done with your help) and the actual algorithms (which in this case I can not do since I don't have access to the source). I have always noted that my simulation tool of choice simply makes more accurate ET predictions than trap predictions. Although those have been greatly improved. My tool of choice has been validated again and again but your misunderstanding of simulation in general and random and deterministic errors during testing won't allow you to see that. We've been down this road for pages and pages in the past so why do you want to dredge? Well I guess I already answered that in the couple sentences just above this unfortunate but required diversion and defense. Quote:
And who is so firmly committed to their own ideas that new information will not change their minds? Again that would be you Bruce. A small bout of ignorance (in which I felt uncertain enough to not fully commit to, knowing it was a bit radical) says very little about my overall credibility. You and footie are so unbelievably insecure and desperate to attack me and challenge my credibility on such miniscule points then extrapolate that to the absurd such that it is impossible for me to be correct on anything. Your desperation and (near obsession) does not show itself well. About all we see from Bruce "Mr. Practicality" is A-B comparisons between the GT-R and various P-cars and quickly concluding - well it's all possible. Not very thorough, original nor strong arguments in my book. I am willing to believe there is a very small chance that with 530 hp, the best tires, an Ace driver and absolutely perfect conditions you may, just may be able to get close to or even at 7:29. How are we so far apart here? The fact is we are not. You have already admitted this. Nonetheless you want to have your cake and eat it too, just like footie. You simply can not reconcile this agreement we have with your contention that the 7:29 car achieved this completely in specification. Face the contradiction here Bruce. Whether or not one calls this "cheating" or dishonesty is perhaps up to each individual. To me +50 hp is a big cheat and Nissan are lying. I don't give a rats a$$ if BMW also lies about the 335i, it doesn't make it right. Nissan is trying to make the common man believe that the technology of the car gives it near UFO like capabilities (while being a tank with only 480 hp and a terrible power to weight ratio). The launch control fiasco is further evidence of this exact same "get the spec whatever the cost" attitude and tell me that hasn't back fired as well? Oh well US drivers don't care about 0-60 times... By the way whatever happened to your guarantee that we would see SAE power certification at 480 from Nissan? You were wrong on that, does it make you wrong on everything nor make you generally non-credible, clearly not. Give me some slack for crying out loud. In conclusion...Let's please try to stick to data, interpretation, comparison, simulation, real world knowledge, reliable sources, quoting good journalists, good testing, etc. There is so much more to talk about than the incessant attacks. I'm not sure how many times I have to say it but consistency and truth are so much more important to me then brands or brand loyalty and brand criticism. To me this one is pretty well decided you are the one left with clear contradictions. In my world everything is (and has been for some time) consistent. |
||||
Appreciate
0
|
11-25-2008, 03:20 AM | #110 | ||
Lieutenant General
634
Rep 10,407
Posts |
Quote:
Quote:
How much legitimacy do you see in all of this? |
||
Appreciate
0
|
Post Reply |
Bookmarks |
|
|