WWWaaaaaaaiiiiit a minute....

So now, we are debating that the possible time differences could be because a person drives a C5R professionally, but may not be able to grasp the different physics and suspension of a C6?

But a GT-R which has quite a unique way of putting power to the ground through it's AWD and suspension is expected to be learned in a couple laps by someone who's never driven a left hand drive GT-R (which never existed before last year), much less any type of transmission, suspension, AWD combination.

I'm not saying it's rocket science, but I've been saying for many many months - this car doesn't drive like a normal car drives. You can floor the accelerator at places that were once thought of as impossible. Stability, and the ability to put what little power it has - to the ground. Isn't this why a Lotus with just under 200hp hangs with cars around tracks?

*edit: Come to think of it, didn't Lotus help Engineer the R35 chassis?

 

I'm not an expert on the Vette. But do you think you have more hands-on experience at racing a Vette than Gary Thomason?


C&D on the 09 C6 Z51 vs 09 Z06 vs ZR1:
"The [Z51's] only weaknesses are steering that isn’t particularly communicative, even if the weight and accuracy are first-class."
"It [Z06] crashes hard over the most pockmarked surfaces, and the steering feels a little less linear and more aggressive on turn-in."
"We rated the ZR1’s steering as the most linear and involving of the three cars."
C&D on the ZR1 vs LP640:
"The steering is livelier than that of other Corvettes and loads up nicely with cornering forces, although it lacks the delicious connectedness of the Lambo’s."
ZR1 steering feel: 3 points
LP640 steering feel: 5 points

C&D comparo, 08 Z06 vs GT-R vs GT2 vs ACR, steering feel
Z06: 3
GT-R: 4
GT2: 5
ACR: 4

R&T, on the 08 C6:
"On smooth surfaces the car's outright grip is superb, despite steering that, while improved for 2008, still doesn't give the feedback of the Audi or Ferrari."

R&T, 08 Z06 vs GT-R vs 997 Turbo, steering
Z06: 16.6 pts
GT-R: 20.0
Turbo: 17.4

edmunds.com did praise the 09 C6's steering, but wrote:
"In transitions, however, even the steering seems to get lost in the wandering yaw of the rest of the chassis."

Wouldn't a bumpy Nurburgring full of crests and odd cambers be a stern test of the C6's yaw control (and thus its steering)?

But let's cut to the point: Why are we even talking about 08+ cars?? Neither Magnussen nor HvS nor whoever set the 7:59 time in the C6 were driving 08+ cars. Were they?

Are you telling me you have no reasonable explanation for HvS being outgunned by GM's driver to the tune of 16-10 seconds in the C6? Are you saying you have no reasonable explanation for how a ZR1, driven by an engineer, is faster than a 900-hp Koenigsegg, driven by a professional race car driver?

 

Telemetry could be taking speed via wheel sensors (or speed as a function of rpm and gearing); it doesn't have to be by GPS, if that's what you're alluding to.
Look at the telemetry data again: How do you explain the near instanteous leap from around 266 kph to 289 kph? How is this possible? Perhaps space aliens are colluding with Nissan/Bridgestone/Dunlop to confuse the general public?


Do you have a link to that press release? You already know my source: it's Nissan's telemetry on the GT-R.

Based on the video and telemetry, it does appear he kept it flat through Doettinger and there was acceleration all the way through the turn. From the telemetry, it did not appear that he lost any speed whatsoever. However, on the uphill climb of the straight, the rate of acceleration decreases, as we would expect. But speed is not lost; it is steadily gained.

First of all, part of the lead-up corner (Galgenkopf was damp).
Secondly, Harris lifted in both the GT-R and the GT2 because the line at the kink into Antoniusbuche was still damp. Take a look:

Harris loses 8.2 mph between the peak speed point taken on the straight and the kink. Had the track been dry, he could have stayed flat like Suzuki. But it wasn't, and so he didn't. Thus we'll never know what his true absolute fastest speed would be into Tiergarten. Therefore, you can make no claims about the state of Nissan's GT-R compared to DR's GT-R. Already we have enough variables that are not eliminated:
1) Suzuki stayed flat (confirmed by telemetry and video)
2) Harris lifted (confirmed by DR data)
3) DR does not list the GT-R's speed into Tiergarten after the kink; even if they had, it wouldn't matter. Harris had already lifted.
Therefore, you cannot claim cheating.



Have you driven a GT-R on the 'Ring to conclude that the 7:29 car was a ringer? Didn't think so. It's funny that when it comes to HvS vs Suzuki in the GT-R, driver familiarity with a car doesn't matter. But when it comes to HvS vs GM drivers, it can suddenly completely ERASE a 19-second difference. Hilarious!
Look, you brought up a point that HvS didn't have experience in the Z06, as if he was a newb to Corvettes. He's not. He's driven them before, as well as Vipers (SRT-10 and the old GTS). You were wrong; admit it and move on.
Contrary to what you might think, the GT-R has its own unique driving traits that requires special skills to enable a driver to reach its true maximum.

Which cars that we are discussing need to be in RHD to have a fair comparison? Isn't Germany a LHD country?
LOL, now driver familiarity with the layout of a car makes a difference. What happened to the almight grail of hp/wt?

Reaching at straws? You mean like claiming that Suzuki lifted (when he clearly did not) or that the GT-R hit 290 kmh on the straight part (which it did not)? Like I said, if you are ready, we can estimate how fast that 7:29 GT-R was going on the straight, at the same point as the AMuS car. My guess is that you don't want to try this, because the timing and telemetry will confirm:
1) The 7:29 GT-R most certainly did not reach 290 on the straight portion; it was after the kink and in the downhill section into Tiergarten.
2) The 7:29 GT-R's speed on the straight is within a few kph's of the AMuS car.
All of which shows: the 7:29 car didn't have to have suspicious amounts of hp to set that time.

 

Do these articles say that the GTR is definately slower on the ring? I can name two head to head tests that say that its slower than cars it was meant to beat.

 

The GT2 was so much faster than the GTR wich is supposed to be better on a wet and damp track. Why was the GT2 so much faster? why was the GT2 able to brake later? This was a head to head test on the track in question, fact is that the GTR lost.

 

I didn't see that the entire track was wet... Is your question still valid, or did that derail your point?

 

^ funny emoticons... How did you find them?

 

GT2 was on Cup+ tires. I have already explained this to you. These are not regular off-the-shelf MPSC's. They have been optimized for wet-weather handling compared to regular MPSC's, with a silica tread compound for this purpose, as well as modified tread (wider grooves + more siping). The GT2 is some 2 seconds faster around a wet 1:2x track than a Caterham R500 on the same day; yes, that's 500 hp/tonne! The GT2 (along with other RWD Porsches) are faster on Sport Auto's wet handling course than many AWD cars, including the Porsche 997 Turbo (also on MPSC's). Many of the DR editors were quite surprised by how effective the GT2 was in the wet. And hasn't heavychevy been crying all along that the GT-R's tire durometer testing showed it softer than an R-compound? The temperature on the 'Ring that day was 7 degrees C...
Chris Harris had raced a rear-engined, RWD Porsche on the 'Ring during the previous VLN season. He actually raced there only a few days before their test. That was his first time around the 'Ring in the GT-R.
Also, it looks like he has the VDC set to "R" mode. Randy Pobst, driving for Motor Trend, felt that even in the dry, this mode was too obtrusive, cutting too much engine power. I'd imagine it'd be even worse on a cold, damp and oily Nurburgring.
That being said, 7 seconds slower in the hands of an experienced Porsche driver is not that big a deal. I would fully expect that if Rohrl had the time, committment, and backing of Porsche to set a truly at-the-limit lap in the GT2 with a closed track, it would be several seconds faster than the 7:29 he set with traffic. And thus faster than Nissan's GT-R.
But, there has also been an Aussie test where the GT-R destroyed the GT2 by several seconds on a dusty track, so who knows?

The point is, if you look at Nissan's telemetry and estimate where the 7:29 GT-R would be on track relative to where DR took their reading, the 7:29 car isn't that much faster. It's not doing 290 kph where the DR car is doing 271, despite what you continue to believe. The real difference is closer to 6 kph. And that's even with a damp Galgenkopf lead-up corner for the DR test. If Harris didn't have the bad conditions, the difference would be even smaller.

So, it looks like you, heavychevy, and germeez have absolutely no explanation for how HvS can be slower than Harris in the Murcielago, slower than Basseng in the mis-firing Zonda F, slower than GM in both the Z06 and C6 (by nearly 20 seconds!), or how the ZR1 can outrun the Koenigsegg.

 

Is your other test the one in Car Magazine? The one where the driver got twice as many laps in the GT3 as the GT-R (which was a RHD car, and thus unfamiliar to him). There was an implication that he'd driven a GT3 (or similar Porsche) before, but never the GT-R. And the difference was only 1.17s.
Even with the unfamiliar car, unfamiliar layout, timing over the full course including the straight, and road works on course, this guy was already 3 seconds under Porsche's best time in the GT-R, including laps done by rally legend Rohrl.

BTW, is there a press release by Nissan saying they beat the GT2, CGT, ZR1, Enzo, Zonda, etc? Maybe there is, but I haven't seen it.

 

The track was actually mostly dry by the time DR timed its laps with the GT2 and GTR. They stated the GTR would have the tire advantage on most parts of the track. Chris Harris:

"The GT2 may have had an advantage in the wet, but with the GT-R's dual clutch transmission and sticky Bridgestones on a dry surface, it will surely be possible to extract a greater percentage of the GT-R's performance potential."

Furthermore, the particular GT2 used had tires that tires were pretty cooked. Bottom line is that Harris felt he got much more out of the GT-R than the GT2, so this disparity between the two is greater than you make it out to be.

 

Hey - if there is real telemetry data available, why not simply calculate the horsepower at the wheels? Take the time differential of speed, low-pass filter, smooth (running average), multiply by mass, use engine speed to convert to HP, and plot against engine speed.

Overlay the result against published hp curves, and see if the car was a 'ringer' or not? Based on the snippets of engine speed as a function of time, the sample rate appears high enough for useful numbers, and the calculation can be performed with only the RPMs if needed by backing out velocity through known gearing, etc.

This isn't that hard -- Am I missing something?

Or is the ongoing debate too much fun to risk ending?

 

"..On a better day, on the fastest tyre it’d no doubt run the GT2 pretty close.."
--Jethro Bovingdon
So, if it was mostly dry, the GT-R could be around 5 seconds faster with the Dunlops. And thus the difference falls to 2 seconds.

Was the surface really that dry? Look at the commentary on the timed lap:
"Flugplatz: line was part damp.
Lauda Kink: damp patches under the trees.
Uphill kink (no name): damp bits...the kink was even slower than usual and very slippery. Lost heaps of time here from the official GT-R lap.
Galgenkopf: a few damp spots.
Antoniusbuche: It's still damp on the line here [Harris drops 8.2 mph from his peak speed on Doettinger Hohe].
This was never going to be an exact exercise. The track wasn't completely dry, the ambient temperature was 7C, and we didn't have the luxury of successive flying laps.
Arranging this exercise in November and expecting anything like useable track conditions is a bit like inviting R. Meaden around for tea and expecting that the biscuit jar avoids a heavy assault.
the Monday after the [final VLN] race came, it rained. And after it had rained buckets, it rained some more. And by encouraging the oil that had been deposited all the way around the 12.9-mile lap by an incontinent BMW M3 during Saturday qualifying to reappear from the pavement, a lethal emulsion was formed. In places, you couldn't stand on the track."

Video commentary:
"This righthander, Hatzenbach, what you can't see here, the apex is very slippery and both cars lose time there, straight away. It wasn't wet, but there was oil down from the weekend's race.
[After Flugplatz] Again here, we had some oil dropped on the circuit earlier on in this session and there's some damp patches.
Schwedenkruez apex is a bit dry - on the right there's a line of oil, all the way down the right hand side there, dropped by a Radical that had a whoopsie earlier in the day.
This kink here at the top of the screen, now that was slippery. There was a couple of big accidents...even when the track was dry and there was a slight damp bit, it was just so slippery."

That's no less than 15 references to damp, oily, and slippery. Even if the track was mostly dry, it was still damp/oily in enough places that mattered. Even if the track is near 100% dry, but the oil still remains on the surface, the GT-R's mass is going to affect it a lot more than if it could take advantage of its dry (as in not oily) grip.
Chris Harris would say that, wouldn't he? How much more can you get out of a GT-R when its traction control is killing power and you're backing off due to understeer? Look at his driving style compared to the way Suzuki attacks the circuit. Totally different.

 

You are wrong on so many levels. Number 1 is that you posted telemetry from the 7:38 lap, which is who knows how much slower on that back straight.

Number 2 is that the very same telemetry shows a plateau in the acceleration curve, albeit brief. Granted he didn't lose speed like Harris did so I'll give you a pardon on that one.

And finally, the GT2 still, with a much more significant lift puts almost 2 seconds on the GT-R on that back straight (from the sign, not from Galgenkopf), yet a ZR-1, Zonda, CGT, CCX, Enzo and ACR, of all of them, driven fast by whomever, could not put 2 seconds on the GT-R????? You can't cry headwind for everybody! Not to mention the GT2 had 13 mph on the GT-R prior to any lifts. And Harris gained something like 3-4 seconds from the Exit of Galkenkopf to the end of the lap.

 

7:29 lap is in red. 7:38 is in blue. As you can see, there's not much between them on the back straight.

Pardon? There's nothing to pardon. I stated something as fact, and it has finally taken you this long to acknowledge it. Actually, you should probably apologize for your "Go ahead put your foot in your mouth for me" statement. As it was not I who had a foot in his mouth.
There is not really a plateau. The speed continues to rise, only very, very slowly. Unlike the ZR1 which briefly hit 176 just before the hill, then slowed to 173 and then wavered at ~174 for ages.

The Zonda was misfiring near the end of the lap. Enzo had failed dampers, so could have been hampered by the Galgenkopf exit speed. ACR, well, the fact that you are bringing that one up shows how desperate you are. The ACR tops out at around 175 mph, and probably has pretty bad total drag force due to its frontal area and the aero pieces. In a test by Automobile Magazine, it took 24.9 seconds to go from 150 to 170. The GT2 in the same test took only 7.6 seconds. It took the ACR more time to go from 150-170 than it took the GT2 to do 150-190+.
And actually, the wind is not a minor consideration. If you watch the videos at supercarmovies.com, you'll see there's a pretty strong wind on many shots of these cars as they come down the straight.

I'm still waiting for the press release by Nissan saying they hit 290 kph twice. I could have missed it though.

 

You're ignoring the fact that Harris had to short shift the GT2 all over the track for fear of losing traction. An oily track with well worn Michelin's was more of a disadvantage for the GT2 than the GT-R. And it's odd that Chris Harris makes no mention of these multiple damp sections holding back the GT-R as you insinuate. More quotes:

Peak speed into Hatzenbach: "Nissan handles slight damp patch through last RH better"

Minimum speed through Flugplatz: "Advantage GT-R: Superior stability means you can carry more speed at the apex, even though the line was part damp."

Peak speed in the Fuchsroehre: "Full throttle all the way down in the GT-R, short shifted in the GT2"

Antoniusbuche: "...the GT2 indicates it doesn't want to take the kink so fast. It's still damp on the line here. In the Nissan, I wasn't as scared here. Hence the 1mph advantage."

It's overwhemlingly clear that track conditions held back the GT2 more than the GT-R on this particular day. You can't really "unspin" Harris's bottom line conclusion on this, either. He states flat out he could have gotten more out of the GT2 than the GT-R. End of story.