Not so sure that matters. The wheel & driveline component specifications of the M-cars have been chosen for a performance criteria in mind (and durability to live with that performance), relative to the standard cars. And the tires have been optimized as well. They went with non-runflats for a reason. The 6er shows you can have a heavy car like the GT-R supported by non-runflat R-compounds. I'm not saying every R-compound will resist buckling, BTW.

I don't doubt that the Z06's runflats don't provide the same level of grip, but out of curiosity, which part of the supertest are you referring to?
GT-R tuners and owners who compete in timed events have both shown improvements with aftermarket tires. Some have been pretty blunt: "the stock OEM tires are crap."

That article references a source that also says a stock GT-R is capable of a 7:26 on the 'Ring.
You are right, runflats can help to maintain a "large grip tire area" under heavy loads. But so can some non-runflats. One other factor that muddies the aftermarket tire vs OEM tire debate is that few have as large a tread area as the GT-R's, even when they're nominally the same width. The shoulders of the GT-R tires are very square.
For example, the RE070 has a tread width of 9.5" in the GT-R's 255/40-20 size. A Michelin PS2 of the same size has a tread width of 8.7".
Some who have tried R-compounds on the GT-R feel this is a contributor in the tire rolling effect.

FWIW, the RE070 has been available on other cars as OEM tires, though not runflats. They rate well, but others have been rated better:
http://www.tirerack.com/tires/survey...ay.jsp?type=EP

 

Hardly.

Can you supply a link or source for your data?

The speedway was an oval track. That means nothing.

You also forgot to mention the GT-R IS slower at Laguna Seca.

Until a non-factory car runs in the 7:20s, it's not a 7:2x car, period.

 

There are 2 videos of the GT-R running in the 7:20's. And Car Magazine's Ben Barry was personally on hand at the start/stop pit lane when Suzuki ran 7:27 in the car with the optional wheels and tires.
For the 7:29 car, both the peak lateral g's and the top speed on the straight portion of Doettinger Hoehe is the same as Sport Auto's car. Do you think Sport Auto's car is unusually fast? Prove it. 0-200km in 13.1s is a good starting point to reference.


It proves the Nissan does better on a faster track, contrary to what monaro believes. The same factors that affected the ACR there (downforce/drag and gearing) affected the ACR on the straight of the Nurburgring. Would you be saying it "means nothing" if the GT-R was slower on the oval than the Z06?

Here's the AutoZeitung test (look at points 3 and 5):


Here's the Motor Trend test, republished in Auto Bild.


Look at how much faster the 599 is compared to the GT-R in a straight line. The Ferrari clobbers it. The GT-R does not hang with the Ferrari in a straight line, especially at higher speeds. This is one of the reasons monaro is citing as to why the GT-R would be clobbered by the likes of the 599 on the 'Ring: if it can't outrun the 599 on a short twisty track like the one used in Motor Trend, how can it outrun the 599 on a long, fast track like the Nordschleife where the 599 can stretch its legs (and where the GT-R would, theoretically, be outgunned)?

Again, Sport Auto showed that the 599 does indeed clobber the GT-R on the final straight, with a massive net gain on the straight of 159 km/h, vs 134 for the GT-R. That's an 18% difference.


Yet look at the final segment time, which includes the long straight where the 599 destroys the GT-R: the GT-R is nearly 2 seconds faster. Where is it making up that time? It has to be in the twisty section following the straight. Watch the ZR1 vs GT-R video and you'll see the same thing: Mero is faster point to point on the straight than Suzuki, but Suzuki is faster from Tiergarten to the final corner.
I have a feeling that long straight helps to cool the GT-R's brakes, and if it cools the carbon-ceramic brakes of cars like the ZR1 and 599 enough, they won't respond as well as if they have full heat in them. This is one particular area (Tiergarten to the end) that could very well help the GT-R compared to other cars. As Chris Harris said:
"The Nissan deserves some manner of defence though. It is not possible to make any kind of accurate estimation of its actual performance by looking at its bare numbers, as our Silverstone lap on DR TV proves. Numbers mean nothing, it’s the net available and useable performance that counts and, plucking some completely arbitrary figures out of the ether by way of example, if a GT2 can deploy 75 percent of its potential over a given lap, the figure for the GT-R must be in the 90s. Furthermore, the ‘Ring isn’t especially hard on brakes, and that’s the one area in which –over multiple laps- the GT-R eventually comes unstuck."

Evo:
"...you soon become addicted to the Nissan’s miraculous control and blinding pace. To drive it flat-out on a circuit – even one as wide and safe as Bedford – is to understand precisely how it can be so fast around the Nordschleife."

Performance Car of The Year, Car Magazine:
"The Gumpert and the GT-R share a feeling of being constrained by this circuit [Anglesey]; both require the Nurburgring or even Le Mans before you can really stretch them."

Even if the GT-R set the same exact lap time on the 'Ring as the 599, that would still shoot holes in monaro's theory.

Um, so what? You forgot to mention that Laguna Seca isn't as fast as the Nurburgring, and it has far fewer hairy/bumpy turns than the Nurburgring. Randy Pobst said that red GT-R in the test was a dog anyway; he felt that the customer car he drove was much better and faster than the Nissan-supplied press car. Yet he was still faster in that dog of a GT-R than in the Turbo. In independent testing, the GT-R is faster than the Turbo at both Laguna Seca and the Nordschleife (at the hands of experienced Porsche drivers no less), and if the Turbo can get a 7:38 there as Porsche claims, then it's reasonable to assume the GT-R can be faster than a 7:38.
In any event, the GT-R is slower than the ACR at both Laguna Seca and at the Nurburgring. What's the conflict? In the R&T track shootout, the LP560-4 did better than the GT-R on the tight tracks, but worse on the fast tracks. You can't use the same excuses of gearing and drag for that car, like you can for the ACR, on the speedway.

 

Again, theres no denying that several factory prepped Nissan GTR's have ran a 7:20's time. What is in question is whether those cars are representative of what the customers can buy off the showroom. Independent tests indicate that the Nissan time cant be achieved with a stock showroom GTR.

If the speed and lateral g's is the same as Sport Auto then why do the times differ? The only graph you have been able to show me is the Nissan hitting 290km along the main straight which is far faster than what the stock one achieved. PLEASE SHOW ME THE 7:26 LATERAL AND SPEED GRAPHS.



With a huge racing style wing no one expected the ACR to have a great top speed, however it can go around the corners extremely fast because of that same downforce. If you believe Nissan's claim then the GTR has 0.27 Cd, yet the stock version driven by Sport Auto had 0.31 Cd which makes it in the same ballpark as your ordinary supercar. There is no denying that the Nurburgring is a high speed track, the GTR's gearing again lets it down in this department with its extreemly short gearing.

Speeds tests done with the GTR and other supercars has the GTR lagging behind. The only area the GTR has an advantage is 0-60 thanks to its 4WD and launch control. However around the Nurburgring speeds under 60mph is very rare.



Your using the wrong ferrari my friend, the 599 is a powerful GT cruiser and not a hardcore track car like the GT2 and Enzo. The main downfall for the 599 is weight, something it shares weith the GTR. What I do see is that a stock GTR is allot closer to the Porsche GT3 (which have been confirmed by Sport Auto) and is significantly slower around the track than the ZR1 and GT2.

Your basing too much on the Nissan video, especially one using a suspect car. If the GTR cant outrun 600hp+ supercar then it must be able to out turn it and or outbreak it. However looking at the GT3 v GTR Sport Auto test the GTR couldn’t even out turn the GT3 nor could it out brake the other supercars equipped with carbon ceramic brakes.

That cooling the brakes is just pure garbage. Why is that the carbon ceramic brakes in the Spec V can last 3 laps around the Nurburgring while according to Chris Harris the base GTR cooks its brakes within just one lap? The fact is that on a hot lap or on a track a large carbon ceramic as fitted in the ZR1 is far better than the GTR's. The only time CC brakes need heating up is when starting up the car and driving it sedately on public roads.

As for the Nurburgring not being hard on brakes? Lol.

Even with just 75% several tests has shown that the GT2 destroys the Nissan GTR around the Nurburgring, even on a wet track. Imagine if they had better condition and a better driver 90% v 95% would be domination by the GT2.

Lets just put it this way, the GTR lost to a GT3 around the Nurburgring and twice to the GT2 with independent drivers. This should put holes on any Guibo arguments that the GTR can somehow keep in touch with even faster machinery’s like the Zonda, Enzo, ZR1 and ACR.

 

Nissan GTR


Porsche GT3

 

nice vid

 

The supertest car did 7:38, with HvS running DE laps (per heavychevy), VDC-R, and unknown conditions. Sport Auto said the time differential was "quite close" and that the failing to match the time was on their part, not on Nissan cheating. How is the 7:38 car unrepresentative of customer cars?

Times can differ for a variety of reasons: trail-braking, when the throttle is applied (early or too late), different lines (AWD cars in general, and the GT-R in particular, could very well have a different line from RWD or FWD cars; notice that HvS is slower than other drivers in the GT-R, the Turbo, the Murcielago, LP640, and the RS4; all of which are AWD). Peak g's and top speeds don't tell the whole story. There's plenty of things going on in between that can lead to differences in time.
Also, HvS drove with VDC-R. That greatly affects the attitude of the GT-R entering a corner. Both HvS and Suzuki may be pulling the same g's (and it looks like they are), but that doesn't mean the attitude of the car is the same. In a particular corner, if Suzuki is pulling 1.3 g's, but the car is pointed properly straight even before the apex, and he has the throttle on early, then the car will be faster than if HvS is pulling 1.3g's but the car is undesteering and pushing wide, not pointed properly down the straight for maximum throttle.
The peak g's tell us these cars have reasonably the same level of grip. Nothing on the order of 1.8-1.9g's that cars on slicks have on the same circuit.

For the billionth time (are you opening your eyes yet?), here you go:
http://www.drivers-republic.com/reso...e85f22p6x5.jpg

260 kph was not reached at the same point that Sport Auto and DR marked their peak speeds!


Sport Auto reached 270 kph in the Z06, yet GM claimed +25kph faster. Hmmm...cheating, monaro?



Doesn't have to be a hardcore track car, monaro. Your contention was that if a car can't hang with another car (GT-R vs anything like a 599) on a short track, it can't hang with that car on a long, fast track.
0-60? The 599 matched the GT-R to 60! The GT-R had no advantage there, yet the 599 was still faster on the tight course (but not as fast on the fast course).
The LP560 is a hardcore track core in the same vein as the GT2, no? It was slower than the GT-R on the 'Ring (yet faster on the tightest, twistiest courses of the R&T shooout).

Can Spec V brakes really last 3 laps around the 'Ring?
Yes, the Nurburgring is not THAT hard on brakes, compared to other circuits. This is from flemke, who has driven on the Nurburgring (in his McLaren F1, no less):
"As for whether the car's alleged 'ring time really happened, at the first report a year ago I didn't believe it, but now I do.
The GT-R's 'ring time has been compared with a Carrera GT's, the idea being that the CGT's far better P-W ratio, absolute weight, and downforce would perforce trump anything that the GT-R could offer. However, the GT-R's tyres are far better for a circuit, the GT-R's gearbox alone would save, I'm guessing, 10 sec, and then we have the car's ability to maintain an optimal contact patch, where I expect that the GT-R excels.
The 'ring is not a stop-and-go place, it's a carry-your-speed place, where the GTR's weight disadvantage would be less critical than at, say, Hockenheim or Silverstone."

And thus you see some cars beating the GT-R on Hockenheim and Silverstone, but not on the 'Ring.

Again, this is an assumption that you can get 90-95% out of the GT2 on the 'Ring. How do you know that you can? You don't. Maybe it takes a superhuman not yet born, or a racetrack not yet created, to extract 90-95% out of the GT2.

vs GT3: the driver admitted to making a mistake, he wasn't used to the car, and it was RHD which he's not used to. Apples vs pears.
How do you know the Zonda, Enzo, ZR1, and ACR would not be capable of 7:1x's with thousands of laps, nearly unlimited resources, perfect conditions and a 100% comitted driver? You don't. You haven't shot any holes in anything but your own foot, monaro. Again, quit looking at 'Ring lap times in a vacuum. It's not that simple.

 

Sorry 7:38 is representative with what the customers can buy off the showroom floor but NOT 7:26. Also notice that most recent tests has the GTR neck and neck with the GT3 and not the GT2. Why is this if it was indeed easier to drive and far faster than the GT3?

[quote]vs GT3: the driver admitted to making a mistake, he wasn't used to the car, and it was RHD which he's not used to. Apples vs pears.
How do you know the Zonda, Enzo, ZR1, and ACR would not be capable of 7:1x's with thousands of laps, nearly unlimited resources, perfect conditions and a 100% comitted driver? You don't. You haven't shot any holes in anything but your own foot, monaro. Again, quit looking at 'Ring lap times in a vacuum. It's not that simple.
Again isnt the GTR supposed to be easier to drive? According to the driver he only made ONE mistake on his lap, thats not enough for a 30 odd seconds difference. Another test this time with Chris Harris, he said that he cant see the GTR achieving its advertised time. How do you explain these?

 

You don't know that. Sport Auto said the times are "quite close." How do you explain that HvS is so much slower in other cars besides the GT-R, monaro? In your next post, I want to hear your explanation for that.
That's the new GT3. Let's say that the GT-R and GT3 are neck and neck. What makes you think that 7:40 is the absolute best the GT3 can do? Did you watch the Rohrl + passenger on demo laps + traffic video yet? Tell me precisely what you think about that.

Never said 1 mistake can lead to a 30 second difference, monaro. I am comparing the GT-R vs the GT3 time. Depending on the severity of the ONE mistake, it may have repurcussions on the following straight or corner and that compounds the mistake.
I'm not certain that the GT-R is easier to drive at its true 10/10ths pace. Neither are you. As Bovingdon said:
"...it can punish a lifted throttle and an overgenerous steering correction (the natural reaction to any oversteer at high speeds) just as viciously as any 911, any Ferrari or any Lamborghini."

BTW, according to Porsche, the GT3 is fastest with its stability management system enabled. From Drivers Republic:
"Porsche claims that even its test drivers and racing drivers chose to leave the Bosch-developed system 'on' these days because its so unobtrusive and they are quicker with its assistance."

Contrast that with what Pobst said about the GT-R at Laguna Seca:
"'Race' mode, or the 'R' mode, it's really not a race mode because there's still a lot of stability control working, and I think the 'R' mode is a wonderful thing to have for your average guy...now for me, as a racecar driver, on a racetrack, I found it very frustrating because it'd pull back the power, and I'd have my foot on the floor, and not getting full power, and it would prevent the car from sliding...it's obviously something that is a safety feature."

So, yes. 7:38 for the GT-R with VDC-R vs the GT3's 7:40 makes sense. Nowhere did Sport Auto cast doubt on Nissan's claim. Speaking of which, monaro, can you point me to the source of your mis-quote of HvS's fahrberichte on the GT-R? Did you find that somewhere, or did you mis-interpret the article yourself (for obvious reasons)?


Chris Harris did not take into account the conditions: cold, damp/oily. I'm beginning to think you are just trolling, because this has been explained many times.
7:56 (Harris time in the cold/damp/oily conditions) - 0:10 (for Suzuki driving) - 0:05 (for Dunlops, if you want to believe the 7:38 was done on Dunlops) - 0:10s (for perfect/ideal, non-cold/damp/oily conditions, easily) = 7:31. The 7:29 car had slight revisions to the suspension and engine & tranny mounts; the DR car did not.

monaro, what makes you think it's totally 100% absolutely impossible that Jan Magnussen could not lap in 7:1x's in the ZR1 with thousands of laps + perfect conditions, or that Rohrl could never do the same in a GT2? Give me some reasons why this would be impossible. Do you really think the ZR1 can't do better than 7:26.4? Or that Rohrl can't better his 7:29 in the GT2 while passing 11 cars? Why do you think this is impossible?

 

7:26 v 7:38 isnt quite close no matter how you spin it or selectively you read an article. That difference is basically CGT versus Porsche GT3.

Like previously stated by myself and heavychevy, SportsAuto differ in how serious they test a car, HvS has driven the GTR around the ring twice unlike many other cars on his list. Also, the time difference between manufacturer and HvS isnt that much.

* = manufacturer

7:28* -- 165.56 km/h - Porsche Carrera GT
7:32.44 163.91 km/h - Porsche Carrera GT

7:31* --- 164.38 km/h - Porsche 997 GT2
7:33 --- 163.71 km/h - Porsche 997 GT2

7:32* -- 164.07 km/h - Pagani Zonda F
7:33 --- 163.71 km/h - Pagani Zonda F

7:39* --- 161.58 km/h - Koenigsegg CCR
7:34 --- 163.59 km/h - Koenigsegg CCR

7:27.56* 165.57 km/h - 2010 Nissan GT-R
7.38 --- 161.63 km/h - Nissan GT-R

7:40* -- 161.22 km/h - Porsche 997 GT3, 435PS
7:40 --- 161.22 km/h - Porsche 997 GT3, 435PS

7:42.9 - 160.21 km/h - Corvette Z06
7:49 --- 158.12 km/h - Corvette Z06







At 10/10th it is just as vicious as and other supercar however it is far easier to reach close to 10/10 in the GTR than many other supercars. So why cant any other driver drive the GTR close to 10/10th? why is Suzuki the only driver to be able to do this? What makes the GT2 easier to drive at 10/10th wne it is already a handful at lower speeds?

Again CH believed that he was able to extract more from the GTR as compared with the GT2, yet it was the GT2 that won the race. Can you explain this?





Chris Harris did take into account conditions, he pointed them out throughout his lap. He points out where he backed off for the Porsche because it was wet/oily track and where he was able to go flat with the GTR. CH also points out where the GT2 gained grounds and where it lost grounds. The main difference between GTR and GT2 wasnt the handling (although the GT2 was harder to control and master), it was power. Put simply the GT2 had gobs of it.



Firstly Jan is an excellent proven driver well regarded as one of Europes best, Suzuki on the other hand has been a failure in his European jaunts. He simply was not able to measure up against Europes best.

I still think that it is impossible for the GTR to get 7:26 around the ring in stock form. The car simply doesnt have enough hp and stopping power to achieve the advertised time.

 

I'm not spinning or selectively reading anything. That's what Sport Auto wrote. You don't have an accurate alternative translation.

Carrera GT was tested twice on the Nurburgring by HvS. How do you know Porsche's time wasn't run during traffic?
The Zonda time is conservative. They don't camp out at the 'Ring like the big manufacturers do. That 7:32 time shows a 650-hp version, which might be the Club Sport. Basseng went faster than that.
Koenigsegg...same thing; they do very little testing and development at the 'Ring. That time could be conservative.
GT2...Rohrl set a 7:29 in traffic. HvS has supertested too many Porsches to count (both stock and modified). Why wouldn't he be 4 seconds slower on a closed track??
GT3...Rohrl set that time in traffic. And he was not even really going for it. How do you know he wouldn't set a low 7:30's or high 7:20's after thousands of laps on a closed course? Quite obviously, HvS is in a good position to match that time. (Oh, but look at him going slower than Rohrl driving with a passenger during demo laps and passing a few cars even.)
Z06...GM did that with a standing start. Comparing like-for-like, that's about a 9-second difference.

Oh, you forgot:
*7:59 - Corvette C6 (with a standing start)
8:15 - Corvette C6 (with a flying start); that's a ~19sec difference if you want to use comparable timing methods

And HvS
- 7 seconds slower than Chris Harris in the Murcielago.
- 7 seconds slower than Giorgio Sanna in the LP640.
- 12 seconds slower than Klaus Ludwig in the SLR.
- 14 seconds slower than Klaus Ludwig in the Mercedes CLK DTM AMG.
- 16 seconds slower than a Porsche engineer in the 997 Turbo
- 12 seconds slower than Suzuki when both were on partially damp tracks, likely on the same day as well (same day Nissan set 7:38 in 2007).
- 11 seconds slower than Frank Stippler in an Audi RS4.
- 6 seconds slower in an Audi R8 with ceramics and R-compounds than Frank Stippler in an Audi RS4.
- 12 seconds slower than Motoharu Kurosawa in the NSX-R.

7:39.39 - Porsche Carrera GT, Walter Rohrl (in Auto Bild comparo)
7:28 - Porsche Carrera GT, Walter Rohrl (during development)

1000+ laps on the Nordschleife alone, god knows how many on Japanese tracks, Laguna Seca, etc.


But not in his final calculations as to how Suzuki could get that time. He only mentioned Suzuki's skills (10s) and the Dunlops (5s). Nowhere did he account for the 10 seconds (easily!) for the conditions. It's interesting that you are saying he did consider conditions for the GT2.


Yes, I can. And I already have. A superhuman (not yet born) capable of extracting 90% of what the GT2 can deliver might set a 7:19 in perfect conditions after thousands of laps. There is nothing fishy here about Nissan's time of 7:29 @ ~100%. Only a complete fool would say the conditions of the DR test were even remotely similar to what Nissan had. Like Harris said, the time lost by short-shifting was not significant. The performance difference was negligible. He did say in one particular section that he lost loads of time from the Nissan lap. And there were numerous other references to damp/oily sections, nevermind the cold temps.

This has zero relevance to this discussion. Suzuki was sharp enough to have gotten into F1, was still active in racing in Japan, and (the important thing here) he had considerably more seat time in the GT-R than anyone else. He was 10-20 seconds faster than other Nissan drivers, remember.

Well, you were saying the same thing when the car originally was quoted at 7:38. You were saying that, based on its power and weight, it was a 7:50's car. How would you know? You haven't driven the GT-R. Sport Auto did, and said the time difference is "quite close" and that the failure to meet the time was due to their own failings, not due to Nissan cheating.

Look, you are obviously too biased to even look at the HvS GT3 supertest video vs Rohrl giving demo laps in the GT3. (To cut it short, Rohrl was about 3-4 seconds ahead of HvS until he encountered an older GT3 and Scuderia on Kesselchen and was momentarily hampered while trying to get past). Too stubborn to even acknowledge that Magnussen claims he can easily get a sub-7:20 in the ZR1. You're just recycling the same old tired conspiracy theories you've been regurgitating on countless forums (vwvortex? civic forums? LOL). It's obvious you have patience and ignorance in equal measure, and you're just taking this around in circles. So you get your last digs in. Bye.

 

The GTR was also tested twice, the first time it was tested it only scored a 7:50. From what I know the Corvette C6 was also only tested once. The second time the GTR was tested was more indicative of its full potential, if HvS tested the C6 the second time who knows what he would have achieved. There have only ever been select cars that HvS have tested multiple times around the ring, the GTR is one of these. Finally point out to me ONE magazine tester who have driven the GTR that thinks that it is a match to the Porsche CGT, Zonda and Enzo........JUST ONE!!!!

Those who tested the GTR never mentioned having major trouble with the handling. Who knows whether or not an average driver with many laps can beat a great driver with a handful of laps. Jan M only had 50 odd laps around the ring before setting his fastest time, many other cars on the fast list also only ran a handful of laps before achieving its fastest time. Even the hard to handle viper achieved its fastest in its third lap, yet was only a handful of seconds from what the engineers think it can potentially go.

Most of the laps around the Nurburgring are not to set the fastest time nor do the main driver drive it. When a car gets developed around the ring engineers are the main pilots, they also do the tuning one section at a time and not one flat out lap after another.

CH notes that the best driver are usually only several seconds faster than him. With a perfect condition, better tires and that top gun driver he thinks that it could possibly cut 15 seconds, he cant see where it could cut a whole 30 second gap. He also notes that the GT2 with perfect conditions and better driver can achieve a 7:30's.

Well, I have more confidence in multiple world champion and Nurburgring expert Walter R being able to drive faster than the ex F1 speed bump Suzuki. Yet no one has been able to go in the 7:10's with the GTR.

Now for that Chris Harris review, its clear that with a braver driver would extract far more time than he could. Its also clear that his time suffered more because of the conditions (in the GT2). The GT2's power and torque advantge was clearly hindered by the conditions and would have further stretched its advantage with better weather.

-Up the hill from Bergwerk, it's necessary to brake for a left-hand kink that is a touch damp, but the GT2 still manages to hit 148 mph before braking for the next bend. The GT-R doesn't need anything like the same lift but can reach only 140 mph at the same point. This is what the GT2 does so well - relentlessly shrink the straight stretches between the turns. On the main straight, it reaches 181 mph (by which time the speedometer is well into the 190s), whereas the GT-R is all done at 168 mph.
-For me, the result was a forgone conclusion. The moment you feel how physically fast the GT2 is, you can't believe that the GT-R could possibly beat it.
-There is no doubt in my mind that the Porsche will go substantially faster, given a drier track and some time to build confidence on the really hairy parts of the circuit.
-(GTR) But even with those sticky Dunlops, it's hard to see where Nissan could have shaved an extra 25 seconds.
-The complete lap shows that the GT-R and the GT2 are very close in terms of apex speeds. Through quicker turns, the GT2 generally holds an advantage thanks to its lower weight and better resistance to understeer.
(didnt you say before that the GTR was far better than other supercars on faster tracks?)

 

Mr. Suzuki was either last or close to last in all practice, qualifying and races. Although there are many bad drivers, he is also regarded as one of the worst to drive an F1 car.

-In the early nineties, whenever the end-of-season Pacific double header at Suzuka and Adelaide came up, Gerard Larrousse's team was in the habit of selling its seats to the highest bidder.
-In 1993 Japanese veteran Toshio Suzuki (no relative of Aguri) snapped up one of the Larrousse-Lamborghinis for a Grand Prix debut at the late age of 38
-He had bags of sponsor money to offer Larrousse.
-But now, with the Japanese economy booming and Japanese F3000 receiving high international acclaim, he finally had a chance to be in the limelight for his country just once.
-After his two F1 appearances Toshio returned to Japanese F3000.






Simply put a stock GTR can hold itself on some turns, it does not dominate the competition, however, stock it simply does not have enough power to do anything. A better driver wouldnt magically boost up a car's power level.

Now that section that you speak of, could it be section two before the Lauda kink? Watch the video, the real reason the GTR lost so much time here is because it was uphill and practically a straight line where the GT2 could once again stretch its lead.










Now finally watch this video where he points out all the times he had to list off in the porsche because of its power and conditions whereas be can go flat out in the GTR.


-1:10 minute
-1:44 minute
-3:00 minute
-3:22 minute (this is the Lauda kink that you tried to B/S about, CH says that its all about power power power)
-3:50 minute (short shift in GT2 but flat in the GTR)
-7:30 minute
-7:50 minute (GT2 demands so much of you, GTR does an awfull lot for you)

 

If I may, I would love to see the novel where all the excuses don't make up for the fact the GT-R runs slower laps than many of the cars listed here but oddly, beats lighter, 600hp cars at the 'Ring....

http://www.fastestlaps.com/car4717b80e35715.html

 

I too would love to see the novel where all the excuses don't make up for the fact that the GT-R outran some lighter, 600 hp cars at the 'Ring.
SLR - 14 seconds slower on the 'Ring than the GT-R
599 - 9 seconds slower (despite outrunning the GT-R on a small, tight track)
A Ford GT is officially rated at 550 but is likely closer to 600, yet it's slower around the 'Ring than the GT-R as well. It outran the GT-R on a tight course (webridestv) where there was a sharp hairpin at the end.
The LP640 weighs more than the GT-R, but has comfortably more power and a better power/wt ratio. Even with bonafide R-compound tires and carbon brakes, it was 9 seconds slower than the GT-R.

Do you still believe the GT-R is suited to tight tracks? Look at the CGT time vs the GT-R time.
HRing
CGT: 1:08.6 (136.6 kph avg)
GT-R: 1:10.7 (3.06% slower than CGT)
NRing
CGT: 7:32 (164.0 kph)
GT-R: 7:38 (1.22% slower than CGT)

You may bring up Porsche's 7:28 in the CGT, but that time was probably run with traffic. If you subtract HvS's times in the Ferraris (on a closed course) from Rohrl's times (done with traffic), you get a difference of 6-12 seconds. Combined with the knowledge that Rohrl is convincingly faster than HvS (per the GT3 lap vids), it's likely that the CGT is capable of a low 7:2x/high 7:1x time.

TopGear on why the Veyron was 1/2sec slower than the Zonda F on their track:
"The tighter and more convoluted the track, the more apparent [the Veyron's mass] becomes."
This also applies to the GT-R, which is almost the size of a Ferrari 599. On a tight track, it can't take advantage of its launch-control and it's hampered by its physical size and long wheelbase; as such, the Focus RS was faster than the GT-R in the tightest corner of the Contidrom. But on the highest-speed corner (where a long wheelbase helps stability), the GT-R destroyed the 997.2 GT3.

BTW, GM's Z06 time was apparently done not only with a standing start, but timed over the course of a full lap including the pit straight. Timed per the Sport Auto method, Magnussen actually ran close to a 7:36 lap in the Z06 and ~7:53 in the C6 Corvette.

Deuuuce, can you provide some technical explanation as to why the 997 Turbo was 16 seconds slower in the hands of HvS as opposed to Porsche's engineer (who was likely running in traffic too)? I would like to know what you think of that.