GT-R breaks its own Ring record

[jaeS4]

Originally Posted by lucid

BMW figure includes fuel and passanger, and probably steel roof with sunroof and loaded DCT sedan. Meaning the worst case. A 6MT coupe with tech and pre package and full tank will weigh more like 3600lb. Take the fuel out and it will be < 3500lb.

BMW's website clearly says unladen weight of 3704lbs, and unladen weight from what i've seen so far means with no load of passenger, fuel, cargo, or equipment. Am i missing something.

Car and Driver tested it at exactly 3600lbs, doesn't say if it's dry weight or not though.
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...st+page-4.html
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...omparison_test

[devo]

Originally Posted by jaeS4

BMW's website clearly says unladen weight of 3704lbs, and unladen weight from what i've seen so far means with no load of passenger, fuel, cargo, or equipment. Am i missing something.

It is measured by the EU standard which includes a driver (180lbs I believe) and fuel, maybe a half tank.

I believe that Lucid actually had his car weighed which supports this.

[jaeS4]

Originally Posted by devo

It is measured by the EU standard which includes a driver (180lbs I believe) and fuel, maybe a half tank.

I believe that Lucid actually had his car weighed which supports this.

Got it. But how come C&D tested it at 3600lbs and 3680lbs at different times.

[southlight]

Originally Posted by devo

It is measured by the EU standard which includes a driver (180lbs I believe) and fuel, maybe a half tank.

I believe that Lucid actually had his car weighed which supports this.

Yep, EU standard includes a driver (150 lbs), luggage (15 lbs) and 90 % of tank.


Best regards, south

[devo]

Originally Posted by jaeS4

Got it. But how come C&D tested it at 3600lbs and 3680lbs at different times.

Fuel levels and options, maybe? I would imagine that wheel packages, tech. pack, enhanced stereo, etc... can make quite a difference.

[devo]

Originally Posted by southlight

Yep, EU standard includes a driver (150 lbs), luggage (15 lbs) and 90 % of tank.


Best regards, south

Thanks. I knew I was close!

[Year's_End]

Originally Posted by SoreHead

That's almost entirely possible as it was relating only to the first page. I have too much to do with my life than to read 8 pages of what was shaping up to be GT-R bashing so I didn't bother going past that.

You have my humblest apologies for wasting your bytes.

P.S.
How does an 8 page GT-R thread exist on an M3 site?

I only went to the last page and just read that and saw your post lol.

I honestly can't read half of these threads in the Vs section. The arguing gets way too technical and trivial.

[SoreHead]

Originally Posted by Bimmer Loyalist

I only went to the last page and just read that and saw your post lol.

I honestly can't read half of these threads in the Vs section. The arguing gets way too technical and trivial.

Yeh. I can only manage the first and last page on most of them so I guess I miss a lot. Oh well.

[michaeldorian]

Originally Posted by SoreHead

How does an 8 page GT-R thread exist on an M3 site?

Because love it or hate it, this car flipped the car world upside down. You can't help but be in intrigued.

It's like when BMW released the first M5. Game changing.

[M3WC]

Originally Posted by michaeldorian

Because love it or hate it, this car flipped the car world upside down. You can't help but be in intrigued.

Me being intrigued, ended about 6 months.

I am over it.

Next.

[swamp2]

In a PM from footie he suggested some further analysis of the Drivers Republic vs. Nissans runs along Döttinger Höhe for their 7:56 vs. 7:29 runs.

In light of our previous discussion about the relative unimportance of corner exit speeds on a very long straight, not of course in terms of its effect on lap times, but its effect on the speed obtained at a given distance at very high speeds (in the ball park of a cars Vmax). The CarTest simulations I performed used a hypothetical 530 hp GT-R that is effectively 2WD meaning its ATTESA-ETS system effectively stops driving the front wheels entirely. Not an unreasonable assumption for its advanced drivetrain, but also fairly conservative since there are likely some losses that are higher than a true RWD vehicle depending on where the torque is actually cut in the drivetrain.

The first simulation assumes Suzuki exits Galgenkopf at 107 mph. This number comes from a combination of comparisons with the ZR-1, the ACR and prior simulation work posted previously. However, since we are focusing on top speed at a given distance this number does not need to be very precise. Since Nissan already stated that Suzuki reached 180 mph, I computed this would take about 23.7s and about 5275 ft which ends up being between the bridge and the next bend, Antoniusbuche.

My best guess at how fast Chris from DR exited is right about 100. We know his minimum speed on Galgenkopf was 89. I'd love to know Suzuki's minimum or exit speed but don't at this point. We also know that here the ZR-1 can gain 15 mph from minimum speed to corner exit speed. Again to be extremely conservative let's say Chris exited at only 97 mph, a full 10 mph slower than Suzuki. Again, not unreasonable but conservative. At the same distance where Suzuki reached 180, Chris (again in the exact same "RWD", 530 hp GT-R) would be at 179 mph, just 1 mph slower. Seems contradictory but this was discussed earlier in the thread and it is not contradictory. His lap time will stink doing this repeatedly, but his speed should be very close to Suzuki's. Now footie has suggested wind as another option. A 30 mph headwind would only bring him to 169 mph, it takes a strong, consistent, dead on head wind of 32 mph wind to bring him down to his actual observed top speed of 168 mph. Again the assumption here is equal distance. Not a perfect assumption but probably pretty fair.

Keeping the faith, and defending Nissan till near death, the inquiry was also made as to a head wind and a bit less power than the "factory" power of 530 hp. The combinations there I explored were a ~3% lower power car at 515 hp and a steady 23 mph head wind. Personally since SAE power certification is +/- 1%, we know most factories can be much more precise than 3% and I seriously doubt this 3% number could be by manufacturing variation or accident - just no way. Anyway these two factors along with the already conservative 97 mph corner exit speed would combine to provide a 168 mph peak speed at the same distance where the base line run car reached 180 mph.

Well, this all just continues to solidify my point that the Drivers Republic GT-R was not making the same power at the car Nissan used for their 7:29 lap. DR did not report a head wind and certainly would have noticed a steady 25-35 mph wind. That is not light wind. The common Beaufort wind scale calls 25-31 mph a "Strong Breeze" that will set large branches in motion and produces whistling. 32-38 mph is called a "Near Gale" condition. Not exactly the best nor even a reasonable time to be shooting for a solid Ring lap time.

Chris said despite conditions and all other variables,

he [Suzuki] is super committed. In fact it is a brilliant piece of driving. 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 style driving, using his sublime skills and telepathic knowledge of the car's handling traits.

I fully agree, the analysis here supports the claim the the two cars simply do not have the same output, all else equal.

[rapistwit]

Originally Posted by JetBlack5OC

Me being intrigued, ended about 6 months.

I am over it.

Next.

Why bother commenting?

[footie]

Thanks for taking the time to run the numbers, I didn't quite say that I wanted solely a head wind on Chris's car but actually want you to run the possibility that Chris's car have a head wind and Suzuki had a tail wind. Another thing you disbelieve the possibility of a 2~3% power variation between engines, sorry mate but when engines are hand-built a variation does occur and in fact Nissan also state that each gearbox and engine is paired together (i.e. software in gearbox is tuned to one engine only).

Another thing regarding Chris's comments, does he mean that Suzuki should be able to improve on his time of 7:56 or does he mean what ever time he ever produced. Image if Chris returned on a better day with perfect conditions and kicked out a 7:45 time, would that mean that in his opinion Suzuki could possibly do a 7:30.

I continue to keep the faith.

P.S.

I would love you to explain why the CXX could only do a little best on this same straight, give the fact it has the highest PTW ratio of any current production car. Maybe there is more to the peak speeds achieved than you think.

Oh and another thing, I'm pretty sure the older R34 GTR run 0/100% in normal driving and only shifted power front when needed, maybe someone more knowledgeable about GTR products could confirm if this is true or not.

[rapistwit]

This seems like a lot of mental masturbation. The only thing you should concentrate on is relative performance. If Porsche claims a stock 997 Turbo ran 7:38, a sub 7:30 for a stock GT-R seems plausible. If on the other hand the 7:49 DR got in a GT2 was the limit of that car's performance then a sub 7:30 for the Nissan is highly unlikely. Simple enough?
My guess is DR didn't get close to the limit of either car while their respective companies did.

[footie]

Originally Posted by rapistwit

This seems like a lot of mental masturbation. The only thing you should concentrate on is relative performance. If Porsche claims a stock 997 Turbo ran 7:38, a sub 7:30 for a stock GT-R seems plausible. If on the other hand the 7:49 DR got in a GT2 was the limit of that car's performance then a sub 7:30 for the Nissan is highly unlikely. Simple enough?
My guess is DR didn't get close to the limit of either car while their respective companies did.

I just wished no manufacturer had ever posted times that they achieved and the only times came from the likes of SportAuto, then we wouldn't have wasted the better part of 2000+ posts on the subject throughout the last 6~7 months.

You know what's even more laughable is the fact that if you take the Nurburgring times for all of these cars out of the equation and only concentrate on all of the other track times throughout the world then you would have to come to the conclusion that the GTR is as good as the GT2, LP560, Scuderia, etc because that is where the times it's producing is placing it among it's rivals and definitely not where the current 997turbo is.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by rapistwit

This seems like a lot of mental masturbation. The only thing you should concentrate on is relative performance.

Well, probably quite obviously, I completely disagree. Making good conclusions in situations that lack complete and accurate information is part science and part art. Here there is more lacking information than one can imagine. As such examining many different pieces of the puzzle and answering questions that each address part of the larger issue are all quite interesting to me. Some various questions are:

1. Do all factory GT-Rs produce the same output?
2. What output was produced by cars that have turned in various lap times identical?
3. What output was produced by cars turning various 1/4 mi time and traps?
4. Is Nissan being honest about the stated power of the car?
5. How did Nissan obtain the incredible lap times they have?
6. Why has no one else come even close to the Nissan times?

If you find it all "mental mastrubation" you definitely do not have to participate. I find it challenging, interesting and even important in some small way.

[rapistwit]

Originally Posted by swamp2

Well, probably quite obviously, I completely disagree. Making good conclusions in situations that lack complete and accurate information is part science and part art. Here there is more lacking information than one can imagine. As such examining many different pieces of the puzzle and answering questions that each address part of the larger issue are all quite interesting to me. Some various questions are:

1. Do all factory GT-Rs produce the same output?
2. What output was produced by cars that have turned in various lap times identical?
3. What output was produced by cars turning various 1/4 mi time and traps?
4. Is Nissan being honest about the stated power of the car?
5. How did Nissan obtain the incredible lap times they have?
6. Why has no one else come even close to the Nissan times?

If you find it all "mental mastrubation" you definitely do not have to participate. I find it challenging, interesting and even important in some small way.

Why? Is it really that important to prove or disprove Nissan's claimed time using paper spec variables? Why not scrutinize Porsche's claims that closely?
If Porsche really ran a 7:38 in a Turbo and a 7:40 in a GT3 the sub 7:30 for the GTR doesn't seem like a stretch.
Nearly every unbiased head to head review has the GTR besting both of them. I think you're looking at an elephant through a microscope.

[Garissimo]

Originally Posted by footie

I just wished no manufacturer had ever posted times that they achieved and the only times came from the likes of SportAuto, then we wouldn't have wasted the better part of 2000+ posts on the subject throughout the last 6~7 months.

How do you feel about the 7:50 Sport Auto recorded with their pre-production GTR? Given their experience with the track, I feel that their conclusion about the GTR - "7:50 shows the true potential of the car" - carries a lot of weight.

Originally Posted by footie

You know what's even more laughable is the fact that if you take the Nurburgring times for all of these cars out of the equation and only concentrate on all of the other track times throughout the world then you would have to come to the conclusion that the GTR is as good as the GT2, LP560, Scuderia, etc because that is where the times it's producing is placing it among it's rivals and definitely not where the current 997turbo is.

All true, but the ring is the ultimate proving ground; the modern yardstick by which a car's engine, handling, and braking dynamics are judged.

O.T. Anyone know the ring times for the LP560?

O.T. #2 Does anyone know if the LSD is optional or standard on the 911 Turbo, and if it's optional, has it been equipped in the tests where the GTR and 911 Turbo have gone mano-a-mano?

[rapistwit]

Originally Posted by Garissimo

How do you feel about the 7:50 Sport Auto recorded with their pre-production GTR? Given their experience with the track, I feel that their conclusion about the GTR - "7:50 shows the true potential of the car" - carries a lot of weight.



All true, but the ring is the ultimate proving ground; the modern yardstick by which a car's engine, handling, and braking dynamics are judged.

O.T. Anyone know the ring times for the LP560?

O.T. #2 Does anyone know if the LSD is optional or standard on the 911 Turbo, and if it's optional, has it been equipped in the tests where the GTR and 911 Turbo have gone mano-a-mano?

This all seems like excuse making. Porsche flat out says the 997 Turbo ran a 7:38 while testing the GTR that they could only manage a 7:54.
Funny how every single unbiased head to head I've seen shows the GTR beating the Turbo. Why aren't you calling Porsche out on this?

[M3WC]

Originally Posted by rapistwit

Why bother commenting?

Next.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by rapistwit

Why? Is it really that important to prove or disprove Nissan's claimed time using paper spec variables? Why not scrutinize Porsche's claims that closely?
If Porsche really ran a 7:38 in a Turbo and a 7:40 in a GT3 the sub 7:30 for the GTR doesn't seem like a stretch.
Nearly every unbiased head to head review has the GTR besting both of them. I think you're looking at an elephant through a microscope.

Isn't this just also mental mastrubation as well? Cars are different and certainly perform differently on different tracks. Some tracks favor weight and handling whereas other favor hp and aerodynamics. Many of the other tracks where the cars have been compared are much slower speed tracks. Now all that being said the evidence based on such Porsche-Nissan comparisons do support the possibility of the Nissan times but only with the approximate 530 hp in the GT-R.

One of my favorite quotes (from Carl Sagan) is "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". That is all that is happening here IMHO.

I think you are missing for forrest for the trees if you only need one piece of evidence to justify such an extraordinary claim.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by footie

when engines are hand-built a variation does occur

Sure there are variations. However, the tolerances of the Nissan engine components is the real variable and those are made on the same (or better) ultra high precision CNC machines (mills, lathes and grinders) that production, machine assembled engines are built on. The idea that the assembly process itself contributes to the variation is absurd. So in conclusion I still firmly beleive 3% is simply not going to happen these days, from a company like Nissan on a car like the GT-R.

Originally Posted by footie

Another thing regarding Chris's comments, does he mean that Suzuki should be able to improve on his time of 7:56 or does he mean what ever time he ever produced. Image if Chris returned on a better day with perfect conditions and kicked out a 7:45 time, would that mean that in his opinion Suzuki could possibly do a 7:30.

We've already beat this horse quite bloody as well. The quote is cyrstal clear. Chris only sees how given all things Nissan had that they could best THE time he put in by 10-15 seconds, not 27 nor anything close to 27.

Originally Posted by footie

I would love you to explain why the CXX could only do a little best on this same straight, give the fact it has the highest PTW ratio of any current production car. Maybe there is more to the peak speeds achieved than you think.

I'm working on that simulation (just for you mate ). I do not have all of the data I need. I have seen a reference to the CCX hitting 305 km/hr (190 mph) on this straight. However, I also saw an odd post on m5board saying it reached 330 km/hr (205 mph). But here is the real question: From a rolling start at around 100 mph, when the pedal is mashed and held to the floor what governs the speed that can be reached in a certain fixed distance (again when the distance is large ~1 mi). It is only physics my friend and much of the uncertainly (launch, wheel spin, driver skill) are eliminated from the problem. The things that matter are ONLY power (peak but to a lesser extent the full curve vs rpm), weight, Cd x Area, wind speed and to a lesser extents gearing, shift times and corner exit speed. This is it. The car with the better specs will reach a higher speed, period and the physics of the problem determines everything. Then physics based simulation can give us pretty reliable estimates on all of these factors and the results.

Perhaps you can enlighten me as to what all of the other (hocus-pocus and magic) effects are that govern such situations?