I cant verify this but found this in the corvette forum.

 

Andy Gulden, Sascha Bert and Tom Coronel have all driven for Zakspeed and are very capable and knowledgable drivers around the ring.

That test actually supports my arguement.

Perfect conditions with a ring expert who has multiple drives = 7:38 in the GTR
Less than perfect conditions with a ring expert with 3 laps = 7:41 in the ZR1

Something is wrong here.

 

I know what's wrong here: it's your selective acknowledgement of the numerous factors that affect a lap time, when it serves your purpose. Funny now how conditions suddenly affect the lap time when it's the Corvette that's off pace. It didn't matter to you when DR did their test, with a driver who had only 3 laps in the GT-R (not even consecutive flying laps, the first 2 were in near downpour conditions), a driver who had never even raced in any car like the GT-R, and a test that took place in November after an entire season's worth of racing sludge had been deposited on track, then brought to the surface by the rain. In the DR lap chart and video commentary, there were no less than 7 references to the track being damp and/or oily, yet you refused to even acknowledge that this just might affect the lap time for the GT-R. And no, Harris did not take this into account in his 15-second allowance for a faster time.
Sascha Bert is an experienced 'Ring driver, and he's a professional race car driver. Not a journalist like Harris and von Saurma. He had one extra lap in the ZR1 than Harris had in the GT-R. Yet he was over 15 seconds slower than a GM engineer! By monaroLogic, that means definitively that GM cheated. You can't weasel your way out an explanation for that.
LOL, how do you know that conditions were perfect for HvS's drive? You don't know that. Conditions are very rarely EVER perfect on the 'Ring.

On another note, Porsche's Panamera Turbo has displaced the CTS-V as the fastest 4-door sedan on the 'Ring, beating Heinricy's time by 3 seconds. The Panamera Turbo has 50 less horsepower and weighs 20kg's more than the CTS-V. Did Porsche use slicks and an 693bhp engine for this test? They claim the Panamera is only 2 seconds slower than the GT-R, which weighs 200kg less than the Panamera. When Porsche "defies the laws of physics," you are curiously silent.

 

^. You might like this then.

GM accuses Porsche of cheating!

"GM has just run its own back-to-back tests with the German company's Panamera Turbo and says it could not get within 25 seconds of Porsche's claimed time of seven minutes 56 seconds.

Speaking at the press preview for the Cadillac BLS Grüne Hölle Edition, the chief engineer for Cadillac says GM took a standard Panamera Turbo, running on regular road tyres, and ran it around the Nordschleife within two hours of its own CTS-V, on the same day with exactly the same weather conditions.

He says there was no tweaking of any kind and the CTS-V ran on regular road tyres, the Michelin Pilot Sport PS2.

'We drove a Panamera Turbo with new tyres,' he says.

The Cadillac engineer was initially protective of the exact lap times, but he eventually revealed his team clocked the Panamera Turbo at 8 minutes 22 seconds, with the CTS-V getting down to 8:06.

The laps were not run by GM's usual hot-lap specialist, former SCCA national champion John Heinricy, but one of the company's chassis development engineers who is an expert on the Nurburgring.

The program chief says the back-to-back comparison was run because GM was concerned by Porsche's claims for the Panamera Turbo, which is heavier than the CTS-V and has less power.

'This wonder car with 7:56 could not have been a regular series production car,' says Cadillac's chief engineer. 'For us, it's not clear how this time is possible. What we can imagine with this Porsche is they used other tyres.'

He believes the time achieved by Porsche would only be possible with a semi-slick race-style tyre.

'The Porsche is a good car. I don't want to make anything bad with my words,' he says. 'It's a very consistent car. But this car is about 20 kilos heavier than the CTS-V, and it has 50 less horsepower . . .'"

All kidding of course.

 

15 seconds compared to 20-25 seconds is a bit of a stretch dont you think? And there is only ONE independent test of the ZR-1 to boot. You can only cry conditions so many times, and all of yours are used up. SEVERAL drivers in production GT-R's have run 7:50 or higher in the GT-R. In fact the only GT-R's to go faster than that are non-production cars. One car being a hybrid US model in RHD (7:29). Until Sport Auto tested a Nissan supplied vehicle we didn't have one car within 20 seconds of the GT-R after several attempts. Hardly the same thing.

And if Monaro is correct about the conditions, that is one thing, but driver impressions speak volumes of which we have more than one driver saying the GT-R wouldn't go much faster no matter WHO was driving it.

 

How is it a stretch? We are talking about one non-optimal test against another. Surely some tests can be MORE non-optimal than others? At least for the latest ZR1 test, the driver is a bonafide professional race car driver with experience in the type of car in question. You can't say the same thing about Harris. Or...are you implying that Harris is a professional race car driver with experience in a car like the GT-R? Go ahead, heavy. Go ahead and make that claim.
If 50 different mags test the GT-R with drivers with familiarity far below that of Suzuki, in semi-inclement weather, and they all lap 25 seconds slower than Suzuki, does that prove that Nissan cheated? Of course not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by heavychevy

Until Sport Auto tested a Nissan supplied vehicle we didn't have one car within 20 seconds of the GT-R after several attempts.

That statement is completely hollow.
Porsche's time: Porsche is not a disinterested 3rd party. They claim the GT-R is slower than a 997.2 w/PDK. Completely useless.
DR's time: done on a cold surface that was damp/oily. That car was on Bridgestones, so should be compared against the then-best time for a GT-R on Bridgestones (7:38), a difference of 18 seconds.
Car Magazine: driver wasn't used to RHD, he had only one lap in the GT-R, so was learning it as he went on that one lap, timed over a full lap, with road works present. That would easily be 10 seconds faster with more familiarity, the length of the pit subtracted, and no road works present. 7:51 - 10 = 7:41 and that puts it within 20 seconds of Nissan's times.
Auto Motor und Sport: lapped in 7:47, timed over a full lap, apparently with passenger on board. Subtract several seconds for the pit straight, and you are within 20 seconds of Nissan's times.

The # of tests is irrelevant. It's how the tests are done that is more important. Just as you said before:
"#1) Who's driving
You cant compare sport auto times to manufacturer times, because the test criteria is different. Driver familiarity can make a difference of several seconds.

#2) For what Criteria
You cant compare a DE to a Time Trial or Qualifying lap. What Horst does is more like a test DE Lap, but if you expect him to be anywhere near what Suzuki or Nissans test drivers ran in the GT-R then you're foolish,
Point is the situation in which the car is being tested means everything.

#3) What conditions
Obviously Sport Auto tests too many cars to wait for perfect conditions which are VERY rare at the ring to test every car, so cars are tested in less than optimal conditions.

#4) Setup
In addition, Sport Auto does not spend weeks, months and in the case of the GT-R years trying to get a best time, so there is no way they will match the time, they dont test for optimal tire pressures suspension settings, or anything. Just get in and go."

Are you now all of a sudden going to backtrack on your very own words, heavy? That's awfully convenient.

So what if there has only been one test of the ZR1? When there was only one test of the GT-R (by Porsche no less), you and monaro were touting that as evidence that the GT-R is no better than a 7:50 car. monaro even cited Porsche's test as "independent," LOL. The simple fact is, ALL independent tests of the ZR1 to date have failed to come within 15 seconds of GM's claimed time. Period.
Haha, I was only playing devil's advocate, using monaroLogic, and you come back hook, line, and sinker. I actually think the ZR1 should be capable of a low 7:20's, high 7:1x. But see how it is when the shoe is on the other foot?


"Nissan supplied vehicle..."
Are you implying something is out of the ordinary with this particular car in the supertest?

 

You would wish this wouldnt you? GM has not called out Porsche nor Porsche to GM. I dont expect these two to call each other out either. Their times are believable and both manufacturers does not have a history of using ringers around the famed Nurburgring, unlike Nissan.



I agree with you.

ZR1 is meant to be harder to drive.
Perfect weather ZR1 = 7:26
Bad weather with rain the previous 2 laps = 7:41
Difference: 15 seconds

GTR is supposed to be easier to drive.
Perfect weather GTR = 7:26
Bad weather GTR with only damp patches = 7:56 (Driver Republic)
Difference: 30 seconds

The GTR Porsche drove might have had the typical Nissan glass transmission


I have acknowledged that at best the GTR is capable of roughly 7:38 (proven by Sport Auto) but is definately not capable of a mid 7:20 time, this too is backed up by Chris Harris.

The Driver Republic time netted a 7:56. From what I know the weather seemed to be better for the GTR than the ZR1 run. The ZR1 had rain the previous lap whereas the GTR from Driver Republic ran with a "FEW DAMP PATCHES ON THE CIRCUIT".

 

.

 

Charlie logic is like the GTR = it defies everything.

The five Charlie commandments:
1) The GTR is god and nothing can beat it
2) Suzuki is god and nothing can match his skills
3) All Nisan fanbois who are true believers are holy
4) Porsche is the devil, are cheaters with outdated RR setup and
4) Anyone who disagrees with the first four is wrong and would be damned to the deepest and darkest Nissan hell.

 

Sport Auto had two attempts with the GTR, Sport Auto has also netted a time closer to Porsches with the Carerra, GT2 and GT3. I dont think there was any reports of damp patches/rain during the second GTR tests so I would assume that the weather wasnt bad enough to comment.

can you also comment how Nissan could list the GTR as having a 0.27 coefficient of drag (Cd), while Sport Auto can only muster a 0.31? it seems that lap time is not the only figure Nissan likes to play around with.

 

Could you comment on the criteria that Sport Auto used to calculate their figure? I'm also curious. This isn't too debatable. It either is or isn't. And that's not hard to prove.

 

If you could give me the source of the measurements, that would be great. I'd like to see them so I can understand the data points. What are you referring to when you write "Speedway"?

But peak g's in a turn don't tell the story over the entire distance. Where was the higher average speed measurement taken? For the entire track?

I'm not implying the that Nissan tweaked the ECU for less power. I'm stating that the ECU for their factory 'Ring times IS tweaked and customer cars ARE slower. I'm well aware a stock car lap faster than a 911 TT and a Z-06.

 

 

Z06, GM (from standing start): 7:43
Z06, HvS (flying start): 7:49
C6, GM (from standing start): 7:59
C6, HvS (flying start): 8:15
997 Turbo, Porsche: 7:38
997 Turbo, HvS: 7:54
monaro, why is it that when HvS is 16 seconds (more like 19 seconds, like for like) slower in a Corvette, you blame conditions, but when HvS is slower in the GT-R by 9-11s, you cry "ringer"?
In your next post, I would like to hear Nissan's claimed time for the R34 Skyline.

How does the Panamera Turbo, weighing +20kg and having -50 hp beat the CTS-V? "According to the laws of phyics" and monaroLogic, Porsche must have cheated. There is no other explanation, right?

Is there any proof that the GT-R is easier to drive when driven on its true limit like Suzuki?
You forget the variable of the driver, monaro. Sascha Bert is an experienced professional 'Ring racer. He's done the 24Hr Nurburgring race in a Zakspeed Viper. If he can handle that car, why would he not be able to handle something like the ZR1?
And the DR test didn't have bad weather? 7-degrees Celsius.

Are you talking about the same Chris Harris who drove the GT-R on a cold, damp, and oily Nurburgring with VDC-R?

The direct quote from the Corvette forum: "there was slight rain."
How do you know it was better? The day of the DR test, it was also raining AND COLD on the track. Harris had initially 2 laps in the GT-R, done with full wet lines as the track was soaked. Does this look like "slight rain" to you:


When it stopped raining, the track was still cold, damp and oily and he had only 2 more laps in the GT-R. Only 1 was timed, the first was a warmup. Basically, the 1st 2 laps he had in the GT-R were useless because of the rain.
BTW, "A FEW DAMP PATCHES" can easily add up to 10 seconds of time lost. Not only is the cornering speed compromised, but the subsequent speed down the following straight or entry into the following corner can be severely compromised.

The first GT-R test was not a supertest. It was a preview drive.
Sport Auto also had 2 attempts in the CGT; both were supertests.
Porsche runs their cars in traffic. How many Porsches has HvS driven? I know that in the last 2 generations:
996 C2, 996 C4, 996 Turbo, 996 GT2, 996 GT3, 996 GT3 RS
997 C2, 997 Turbo, 997 GT2, 997 GT3, 997 GT3 RS, 997.2 C2, 997.2 GT3, 997 RT12
I hope you are not saying HvS is as experienced with the GT-R as he is with Porsches. Is that what you're saying?
Also, look at 2 times for Rohrl in the CGT: he ran a 7:28 during development, but in an Auto Bild test he was 11 seconds slower than that. Same driver/car combination can yield an 11 second slower time. How is that possible?

With perfect conditions being EXTREMELY rare at the 'Ring, it's unlikely that the conditions were perfect. They may appear to be so at one vantage point, yet nine miles away, they can be quite different.
Can you quote for me the passage from the supertest that says conditions were 100% perfect?

I already answered that question: there can be differences in Nissan's wind tunnel testing vs the equipment Sport Auto uses. Ferrari's aero/drag numbers also don't always match what Sport Auto shows. But according to you, Nissan's only explanation can be cheating.

 

http://www.roadandtrack.com/article....rticle_id=6943

Yes, it would appear that way.
I never said peak g's in a turn tell the story over the entire distance. I said in that turn, the GT-R pulled more g's than the ACR, even w/o aid of aero bits and an engineer on hand to tweak the aero and suspension for that particular track.

How do you know it's tweaked? To my knowledge, Suzuki has never run a customer car at the 'Ring. If he has not, then how can you claim there is a difference between customer vs factory cars? What we do know is that a Nissan GT-R 'Ring mule was slower in a straight line than a Turbo on the same day. Isn't that consistent with customer cars being slower than Turbos from a roll?
So you're saying that Nissan tweaks the ECU for the 'Ring times, but NOT when the car is compared against a Turbo on the autobahn? Why would they NOT tweak the ECU power in that instance? Isn't that totally counterproductive to their intent on creating internet drama? What we know so far is:
Nissan's telemetry on the 7:29 car showed ~277 kph on the straight.
Sport Auto's production-spec car showed 276 kph on the straight.
Sport Auto's production-spec car did 0-160 in 8.5 and 0-200 in 13.1s. Does that sound unreasonably rapid to you?