Looks like the GTR has hammered the 997 S2 GT3 once again at Goodwood.

Autocar Results
GTR - 1:27.7
997 S2 GT3 - 1:29.2
Audi R8 V10 - 1:29.7
Aston V12 Vantage - 1:29.7
LP670-4 SV - (Too loud to run)

 

Autocar just test some cars "more seriously" than others.


I had a reader of this thread suggesting that I use Google Earth to determine the speed of the 7:26 GT-R at the same point where DR and Sport Auto plotted their speed readings on Doettinger Hoehe. To do this as accurately as possible, we pick a starting point where the car's speed has more or less stabilized, or does not fluctuate more than a few kph's on either side of an avg speed, to be determined in the calculation. Logically, the uphill pull where the GT-R is slowly creeping up in speed makes the most sense. As an obvious marker, we use the tourist track entrance, which occurs well after the uphill section has started. The front of Suzuki's GT-R is just about to cross it at 7:00.94 on the video.


The front of Suzuki's GT-R meets the leading edge of the overhead bridge at 7:06.58. By this time, the track had already levelled out a bit and he can gain more speed compared to the uphill.
According to Google Earth, the distance between these points is .440km. Suzuki covers this distance in 5.64 seconds. That means an average speed of 281 kph. At the start point (track entrance, where the incline is still quite steep) he will be slower than this, and a calculation of revs shows about 278 kph; at the leading edge of the bridge, he is faster than this (revs show about ~284).

Using the 281 figure, we see that
1) this is only 5 kph faster than the supertested GT-R
2) this is still 4 kph slower than the Auto Motor und Sport 997 Turbo, which even had a passenger in the car (the driver of that Turbo, BTW, reached a speed 2 kph faster than what HvS achieved during his supertest, without passenger, even though HvS was on the stickier MPSC's and should theoretically get a better drive onto the straight)
3) any 290+ kph figure was not reached at the same point where DR and SportAuto/AMuS plot their peak speeds, but must have occurred after the kink and during the downhill plunge into Tiergarten. Chris Harris lifted in the S1 GT-R for the kink since it was damp, so there was no way in hell he could ever approach anything like 290 kph anyway. DR's top speed result on the straight is inconclusive to any guess that Nissan's car must have had considerably more power.

Even if Suzuki could gain 14 kph going into Tiergarten from that 281 kph point like he had in the 7:29 lap, he would still be 15 kph slower than Rohrl's speed @ Tiergarten (310 kph while passing an Audi A3, no less). 295 kph would only match Jan Magnussen in the Z06.
It's still not clear where Magnussen reached 295 kph. If he hit 295 on the straight portion where Sport Auto marks its time, then that's a gaping unexplainable difference of 25 kph between Magnussen and HvS. If he hit 295 going into Tiergarten on those stock Goodyear runcraps, then it makes Suzuki's achievement incredibly underwhelming. Jim Mero was 7 kph slower at the same point in the ZR1, but conditions don't matter, right.

 

If you want to use that as ammo then you must also take into account that Autocar has publicly questioned the validity of the GTR's mythical ring time. They tested both GTR and GT2 and believe that the GT2 is a clearly faster car.

 

Until you realize the 0-130mph time is uncorrected and 1.6 seconds would put it close to 600hp in that gear.

Junk science. Show the telemetry and then we'll have a discussion. Like Monaro calling you out on the butchered graph.

 

Oh, you're saying that the 0-130 time in uncorrected, yet you accept that the GT-R actually did the 1/4 in 11.5 @ 119? Does that make any sense? Think about this for a moment: if left uncorrected, that GT-R did 0-120 in 11.2 seconds. How can this GT-R hit 119 in 11.5s when 0.3s before it had already hit a speed 1 mph faster?? Look at the figures:
0-110: 9.4
0-119: 11.5
0-120: 11.2??
I guess these "ringer GT-R's" are actually running flux capacitors.

Do you seriously think there's a huge power differential between a GT-R that runs a 7:26.7 vs a GT-R that runs a 7:29.0?? We have the telemetry for the 7:29 lap. A lap for the same kind of car that's different by 2.3 seconds isn't likely to show any significant difference in max speeds. Did you notice that the 7:29 lap telemetry also contained the telemetry for the 7:38 lap underneath it?? 9 seconds difference, yet the acceleration curves were the same. Peak speeds into Tiergarten were different by only a few kph.
I couldn't care less about what monaro is spewing. I've been ignoring him and you should too. Why don't YOU tell me what's wrong with the telemetry I posted?
Junk science is that crap that's posted on that "news"paper site. A 600-hp GT-R is going to be a lot faster than 11.5 @ 125, Deuuuce.

 

No but there would be a huge difference between one that runs a 7:27 and a 7:38, in Porsche terms that difference is like GT3 -> CGT.

Actually, please show us the graphs for the 7:38, the 7:29 and 7:27 runs.

Guibo im not the only one that thinks your modified guesstimate graph is a bunch of balloney. I cant believe your using those guesstimates as proof.

I doubt that a 600 fly hp GTR would be allot faster than 125mph through the quarter, even a modified GTR had trouble hanging with a stock ZR1. Most GTR's trap far slower than 125mph.

 

Did you notice that the 7:29 lap telemetry also contained the telemetry for the 7:38 lap underneath it??

Oh look. The S1 GT-R on Bridgestones that Suzuki drove was a whopping 3.9 kph faster at the same point where DR plotted its top speed reading.
(Deuuuce, open your eyes. The 7:29 run is superimposed on the 7:38 run.)


Notice how the acceleration curve for both cars is pretty much identical.

Tell me, Deuuuce. Why doesn't this method work? I used this same method to dispel the utter BS myth that the 7:29 GT-R hit 290 at Schwedenkruez (it most certainly did not). Using this same method, I showed where the 7:29 GT-R hit its true 290 kph speed (after the kink and into Tiergarten). That was accurate to within mere tenths of a second. Is this purely by coincidence?

 

Again, the 7:38 acceleration curve is every bit as steep as the 7:29 acceleration curve. There's really nothing between them at all.
Analyzing Nissan's telemetry for the 7:38 run, we can match Suzuki's position on the track to within fractions of a second for both of the wet sections cited by Nissan. First is around Lauda kink through Bergwerk. Second one is in Kesselchen, and here Suzuki is clearly cautious lifting off the throttle completely (as noted by "TPOS").



Oh, and Deuuuce. Regarding your "prediction" for the new Turbo not dropping below 7:38, had it occurred to you that with the GT2 occupying the 7:29-7:32 slot, Porsche wouldn't want the Turbo being faster until they can get the flagship GT2 comfortably faster than 7:29?

 

Ohhhh again your just looking at the pretty dots on the picture, very scientific of you. Why dont you read the whole Driver Republic review, why do you continually ignore Chris Harris' views and comments? I guess it doesnt suit your clearly biased mindset. Instead you rely on clearly incomplete and incomprehensible graphs with lines drawn whichever way to support your arguments.

Also, you NEVER showed that the GTR didnt reach 290kph, quite the opposite the provided graph CLEARLY showed that it DID hit 290kph.

Also show us a Nissan test showing G-forces during turns, breaking and acceleration, and max velocity just like Sport Auto. We already know that Nissan's B/S Cd = 0.27 while the independent Sport Auto only scored a Cd = 0.31. Who knows what else Nissan has lied about.

Now with the image below please show us where Nissan has released the telematry and whether or not that was done on a stock car or even whether that was for the record run. The graph below also doesnt show whether it was for the 7:38 or for the 7:29 run. Come on Guibo get a move on.

 

Suzuki ran on DUNLOPS twice!!!!!!! They knew long before they released the car that the Dunlops were faster. If you recall Nissan said 6 seconds difference at the ring. When asked by a reporter prior to release, an engineer told him the GT-R was running 7:44's, what's 7:44 - 6 ?

There was no increase in power between the two runs I don't think, they had already been cheating to even get to 7:38, even thought HvS who drove the same car in the same conditions on the same track on the same day. Drove it hard enough to be within 12 seconds of Suzuki's best time after YEARS OF TESTING, but still on a test lap, not an all out flying lap, which SUZUKI somehow manged to get better over that course of time.

 

Guibo have a look at the G meter on the ACR, pretty much 1.5 plus G's on every turn. Now compare it with a stock GTR, I cant see where the stock GTR achieved a 1.5G, not even once. With a 120hp advantage the ACR should also be able to accelerate better (maybe not top speed with its massive aero). I and many here along with many journalists have cried foul on Nissan's B/S time.

VIPER ACR
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2mFEC2H0cY
NISSAN GTR

 

Wow!!! Mo...Is this for real?

Dude, you need to find something other than the GT-R to occupy your time. This is becoming insane.

Counting Pixels?!?!? Holy Cow!

 

Wrong. Edmunds confirmed with their engineering contact that it was on Bridgestones. The pictures taken on the date of the run of the trio of GT-R's (1 with HvS) showed Bridgestones. And how do you know that Suzuki was already near his limits in the GT-R when the 7:44's was released? You don't.
Nissan's error is as simple as Porsche's error when they reported they had "got down" to 7:34 in the GT2, despite the fact that they had officially cited a time 2 seconds faster than that the year before. Rohrl had also reported a time 5 seconds faster than that the year before.
So you're saying that the DH speed difference between Suzuki on Dunlops and Harris on Bridgestones is 3.9 kph. Ok. That would undermine your theory even further, but alright.

Haha, see? Again, you're admitting that a difference of 12 seconds is close. You can't have it both ways, heavy.
Suzuki drove even more development laps after his original 7:38 time. He's clearly driving without the handicap of VDC-R as well. The differences in times is so laughably easy to comprehend. 3 timed laps for the supertest at DE pace (your words, heavy) vs thousands of laps, many of which are for sure at 100% banzai time attack pace, on a track that changes conditions by the hour. Even a caveman could see cheating doesn't have to be involved.
So, heavy. Do you honestly think the 7:38/7:29 cars were all making 600 hp? How much hp do you think a GT-R would need to be faster than a stock customer car by 3.9 kph on different days with varying conditions?

C'mon, heavy. Here's the fahrbericht:
http://www.sportauto-online.de/fahrb...12.html?item=6

Show me where HvS is saying that 7:50 is the GT-R's true potential and that it can go no faster.

 

So my calculation was off by a mere 3 kph. Coincidence??
272 kph for Suzuki in the S1 GT-R vs 271 kph for Harris in the S1 GT-R. I would like to hear from you guys (except monaro, naturally): how much more hp must this "ringer" GT-R have had in order to gain 1 kph on a long-*** straight like DH? Do keep in mind that an AMuS mag journo driving the Turbo with a passenger on Pilot Sports was faster than HvS (no passenger, on MPSC's) at the same point by 2 kph.

 

There's lots of questions but the GTR always comes out on top. The new GT3 is a far faster track car than the TT, which allegedly made a 7:38. Now if the GTR is 1s/min faster than the S2 GT3 you can't question the GTR time without also questioning the Porsche times. Put quite simply, if Nissan's times are bull**** then Porsche's times must also be bull**** by de facto. The 2008 GTR was faster than the 997TT by at least 1s/min. The 2010 GTR annihilates it. The '10 is over 1s/min faster than the '08. Put simply, if you believe a 997TT can make 7:38, how can you not believe the 2010 GTR can dip below 7:30?

The GT2's problem is that it's a turbocharged RWD car on street rubber and a stiff suspension. That combination just isn't very malleable to a track like the 'ring. It'd likely be faster if it were less track-orientated. However, the '08 and '09 GTRs put up a fair show against the GT2 on more normal tracks than the 'ring:
http://www.fastestlaps.com/index.php...=46a06c22ab41a

and the '10 GTR is faster, so draw your own conclusions. I don't think the GT2 can beat a 2010 GTR in a time attack.