[quote=Guibo;2502293]And yet HvS managed to slot the GT-R neatly between the two on the straight.
Z06: 270 kph
GT-R: 276
997TT: 283[quote]

The GTR, Turbo and ZO6 should be pretty even when all three are driven by a good driver. The GTR would most likely get the fester time but would be last in terms of trap speeds. Note that the ZO6 would be the hardest car to launch and shift, so driver plays a huge part.

All other 7:20's cars have 600+hp and light weight. You can only get so much faster on a car, spending thousands of laps WILL NOT enable an underpowered 480hp car to crack the magical 7:20's time. The independent GTR were NOT driven by no talent monkeys, quite the opposite, they were driven by professional, dedicated, knowlegable and very very fast drivers.

I dont know where you get the idea of the Nissan 2:27/7:29 GTR having the same max velocity as the Sport Auto one and the Driver Republic GTR. The Nissan test GTR CLEARLY had far more power and was able to get far faster on a straight line than the independently tested GTR's.
Firstly the GTR Spec V only has a smidge more power than the standard version, secondly the Spec V is still a lump of a car, thirdly the Spec V along the base version has its engine in the wrong position for that all important breaking (unlike the rear engined Porsche).

Now we all know that the GTR can beat the Porsche Turbo, your not going to get any arguements there. Show me a graph of a Nissan GTR against a Ferrari Enzo.......or some other car that has actually achieved a 7:20's on a head to head test (dont include the garbage C&D).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3vrpRHxRd4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STKPWo847Yw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZ3muvMlztQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atfMwlGB0qQ

Ok we all know that a stock GTR wont pull on the other 600+hp supercars, I have shown you an example of a ACRs' G loadings as compared with the GTR, and we all know that the heavy GTR wont outbrake the other lighter 7:20's supercars fitted with carbon ceramics.

So given a good driver, where does the GTR claw back lost time? What cruicial bits in between am I missing?

Nice drawing, did you draw it yourself using paint?

Now this video should provide a clearer picture.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZlGMX8G3B4


Firstly that test was conducted quite a bit after the other, secondly I find it interesting that you forgot to show us the corner before the long straight ( the whole map would have been better), thirdly a 0.5sec advantage on one straight is quite a bit especially when you consider the fact that the GT2 and GTR only has 5-8seconds between them, finally all Nurburgring head to head test between the GTR and GT2 has gone in favour of the GT2.

 

Quite a few has had transmission issues.

Show us the other 290kph, just to see if your theory holds true. Also if you take that graph as proof then are you also saying that Suzuki flew in the air causing weelspin, he also must have braked while still in the air causing that very shart decrease in speed. From the looks of it, it looked more like a pre programmed very agressive boost control kicking in.



I dont know about you but I find it really hard to guage any valuable data from two screen shots. You could have taken those two shots from different sections of the track and I would still be none the wiser. The fact remains that Suzuki in his modified GTR achieved a speed of 290kph TWICE (the second one especially doesnt follow your theory). While independent tests of showroom vehicle can only achieve 268-271kph on the same sections.

First show me how Suzuki can be a better driver than Alain Prost, show me Suzuki's racing history and compare it to Prost. Most great F1 drivers can master many different cars very very quickly, this is also true for great rally drivers. One example is Montoya going from F1 to NASCAR, look how quickly he has slotted in a totally different car.

Nah dah of course it did that time....however the 1 million dollar question is did it do that time in STOCK FORM? I would say ABSOLUTELY NOT.

I would take a corvette over the GTR, ive had my fare share of troublesome and fragile cars before. Most people like Porsches because they can take it on a track and do laps after laps after laps. You dont want to have one eye glued to your guages while doing serious laps.

I dont know about you but I showed the data as it is, I showed the top speed achieved from three different test. Unlike you I didnt draw, play around and theorise on how, why and where things might have occured. I simply reported what was written in BLACK AND WHITE.



Please explain what it means. I dont know about you but Ive always regarded "time attack"as very Japanese. Isnt there another word/phrase for trying to set a fast lap?

Show me where HvS says that "he drives as DE pace".

 

Did anyone see Autocar's latest comparison? The 2010 GTR was 1.5s faster than the S2 GT3 over a lap less than 90s in duration. Imagine the gap it could pull out with a whole 7 minutes 30s on the 'ring. Oh yeah, we already know don't we.

And ask for the 997TT, that must be around 3s/minute slower than the 2010 GTR. I don't see how that could make a 7:38 if the GTR can only make a 7:26. A 7:4X sounds more believeable to me.

 

Yeah, they used the 'divide-by-zero' map and briefly entered hyperspace, gaining 30kph (nearly 20mph) in 0s flat. Did you do physics at your school, or were they overly concerned with basic literacy skills for some reason?

Have you any concept of how big a boost leap it would take to gain speed that fast above 160mph having looked at the rest of the graph? And to think you often talk about how weak the transmission is, yet it just withstood 3000hp.

Really don't understand why Nissan engineers, who do understand physics, would have waited until the end of the straight either, when a relatively small 50hp gain for 3s at the start of the straight would have put the same area under the graph and stressed the engine and brakes less, all whilst being far more subtle of the graph.

Man, that is the stupidest thing you've ever posted. I thought you were just an overly-zelous fanboy but now I know you're thick as well. I expect your post will appear across many gtr sites for everyone to laugh their ***** off at you. Only Paul Walker's car can accelerate that fast and there is no tuna served at the 'ring.

 

Now explain to us poor folks without a Physics PhD the other 290kph mark that the GTR achieved. There definitely wasn’t any massive and unexplained spike happening. Speaking of physics can you explain how a supposed stock GTR can achieve a time similar to other supercars with less weight, more power, likely better aero, and better brakes and tyres.

Personal insults like this is what causes thread closures. I personally do not want this thread closed, this thread has exposed Nissan and the GTR for what they are, cheaters and modified.

Have you seen Sport Auto’s, Driver Republic’s and even CarMagazines results? These head to head tests were conducted on the track itself with the same driver. I think these would be a better indicator of how a GTR can do at the Nurburgring.

As with the previous Nissan GTR’s, it always seems that early test versions perform far better than the subsequent and especially showroom stock models. Even Autocar’s gun driver has commented that he didn’t believe a stock GTR achieved that mythical Nurburgring time. Car and Driver also commented that they felt that Nissan provided them with a ringer.

 

Indeed.
Aside from the sheer stupidity/absurdity in the belief that some "ringer mule" wondercar can achieve that level of mind-boggling acceleration @ Schwedenkreuz, there's a practical reason as to why you wouldn't want a +26 kph burst right at the crest leading into Schwedenkreuz: immediately after that first crest, there's a 2nd crest. It's a gentler crest, but it's in combination with a left-hander which makes it extremely tricky.
You can see Mero jumping the 1st crest @ 1:08.1 in the ZR1 (at which point he's going 274 kph, 10kph faster than Suzuki in S1 GT-R; 600 hp GT-R? BS!!). Immediately upon landing, he's hard on the brakes for the 2nd crest and left-hander, bringing it down to 190 kph (1:11.7 on the GM timer).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QothBmcy5Hg

To initiate some incredible level of boost (JATO?) that allows a car like the GT-R to accelerate by 26 kph in only ~4/10ths of a second, while going uphill, and at a crest, is suicidal. Entering Schwedenkreuz at 290 in a car like the GT-R is one thing; leaving Schwedenkreuz in one piece is quite another.
We have
1) video of the 7:38 car jumping the 1st crest @ 264 kph
2) telemetry data for the 7:29 car indicating a speed well below 290
3) video of the 7:26 car with engine revs indicating a speed well below 290.

Basically, the 290 kph theory @ Schwedenkreuz is shot dead in the water, for the 3rd or 4th time now.

Anyone can also see in that ZR1 video where the ZR1 hits its true top speed on the 'Ring. This happens at 7:08.3 on the GM timer. It's the same place for the 7:29 GT-R telemetry: Suzuki hits 290 in Tiergarten, not on the purely straight section where DR and SA/AMuS plot their top speeds. The telemetry shows the peak speed reached only after Suzuki has applied the steering angle to negotiate the Antoniusbuche kink (follow a vertical line from the peak speed, down to "STRANGLE").
Thus, DR's top speed result is inconclusive for a claim of cheating. Because he lifted for the damp kink, there was no way in hell Harris could ever hope to match the 290 reached by Suzuki, nor the 310 reached by Rohrl. And as expected, he reached neither.
DR's top speed does support the theory of a GT-R at stock power levels when both are measured on the purely straight section: 271 kph for Harris vs 272 kph for Suzuki, both in S1 GT-R's.

 

You're still here after a comment like that. Incredible.

Ah yes, now the other 290kph point is down to assistance from another great physical phenomenon you may or may not have heard of, called gravity. This is often known to assist the acceleration of objects that are falling or rolling down an incline, such as the one down the left-hander after the bridge on the main straight. The GTR achieves such a speed here where the ZR1 does not because it is flat out round that left-hander and all the way down the hill, see 7:30 in:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwG5rWWOUs4

the ZR1 isn't completely flat round the bend and lifts off sooner down the hill. Flat-out round 180mph downhill bends in an RWD car isn't a great way to increase life expectancy figures. Combine that with the fact that he loses 2mph on the 5th-6th shift and a head-wind and you have your reasons why the ZR1 didn't get any faster than 180mph:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=naj7prQG1qE

Now please look at the synchronised straight line run down the main straight
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vjk92atTANc

Note that at the bridge the GTR is behind:


You will also note if you record the time from the bridge to the finish (round all those bends after the downhill) that the GTR is quicker than any other production car (go-karts aside).


Your stupidty is insulting to this car forum, or any other one for that matter and I have reported it to a moderator as such. Anyone will tell you that the gradient of a v-t graph is the acceleration. To suggest that the gradient can increase by what looks like a factor of 10 or more through an aggressive boost setting is ludicrous and to start talking about the car braking in mid-air is just ignorant. Once the car lands, its wheels are immediately slowed back down to its true road speed. Could you not deduce that?


LOL. Car magazine had an LHD driver drive an RHD GTR and the fact that it's 12s behind the HvS time just proves how much variance there is in these things. Sport Auto aren't good at driving Lamborghinis, Ferraris or Audis or anything that isn't a 911, hence why such cars are all quicker than a GT3 in other tests but slower in SAs. As for the now defunct Driver's Republic (RIP), even the Ford GT can lap quicker than a GTR in their tests, hence why they're defunct - they talked nothing but ****. Ring any bells?

Well funny that because it was probably the same driver that raped an S2 GT3 round Goodwood in a 2010 GTR by 1.5s (1:27.7 vs 1:29.2) and equalled an LP560's times on a closed road and the track in an '08 GTR with the speed limiter still in place.

 

Can you please explain why a stock GTR driven by everyone else except Nissan hasnt come close to the top speed and also the cornering speed of Nissan?

I am not the only one scratching my head, others left cratching their heads on the mythical performance nissan achieved have got tremendous track experience. Even a well known and well respected manufacturer like Porsche has been stratching their heads. How can Nissan achieve this astounding time when no one else can?

Also, I dont mind calling my arguements stupid. BUT I DO TAKE OFFENCE WHEN YOU START PERSONALLY INSULTING ME BY CALLING ME STUPID!!!!!!!

In many turns around the Nurburgring drivers have found the GTR's tendancy to understeer more of a hazard and actually slower. 4WD and heavy weight isnt the best recipie for a good fast car, why do you think most racing cars have been either light RR (Porsche), light FR or for the very best a light MR configuration.

The ZR1 along with most others in the 600+hp club has an abundant amounts of power, this is why they tend to lift for corners, however this power enables then to dramatically gain on corners. Also, compare the ACR readouts which averaged close to 1.5G per corner to that of the SportAuto GTR which onle averaged closer to 1.36G.

As for your slower shift theory during straights, 2mph is nothing when the GTR drops back by 12mph against more powerful/lighter competitors. Also this arguement of yours would only really work against the ZR1 and ACR, not so much against other exotic supercars with very fast gear changes.

All cars going through that section would experience the same gravatational force, why is it that the GTR is the only one that has gained 20kph? Why cant any STOCK version, going through the same area with a supposed same powerplant propelling it achieve anywhere close to the Nissan test?

 

manaro is right about one thing..it is behavior like this that gets otherwise usefull threads closed...nice work