Wait for the supertest!!!!!!

The supertest has proven once again that a stock Nissan GTR cant come close to the Nissan advertised time. The GT3 and GT2 can come close to the advertised time.

Why cant any of the ring experts get close to Nissan's advertised time? The GTR has been touted as being far easier to drive than the GT2, its DSG and 4WD basically limiting mistakes that would likely occur on a manual/RR 2WD car....so again why cant these experts (many more acomplished than Suzuki) achieve a time remotely close to Nissans time.

 

Sutcliffe has made it abundantly clear that he does not believe a stock GTR can achieve Nissan's advertised time around the Ring.

He came to this conclusion after DRIVING BOTH CARS!!!!!

 

Speed corresponding to peak lateral G in the turn. Not directly comparable to the minimum speed through the turn DR reported because you don't know if they occur at the same point.

Harris was some ~19 (?) seconds slower overall than HvS in the Dunlop equipped 2010 GT-R so I think there is a gulf of a difference.

Only mentioned during the wet testing of the GT-R. Obviously, Harris wasn't driving the GT-R the same manner Suzuki did so it's doubtful he found VDC-R to be as much of (if at all) an impediment.

The "R" mode is supposed to allow some wheelspin but typically, a computer nanny cutting power is an abrupt intervention and something I would think Harris would have mentioned. My guess is that the GT-R's AWD system was able to route power just fine and VDC-R didn't come much into play.

 

Im sure the MC12 is more track focused, just have a look at those race inspired aeros. Reminds me of the Viper ACR.

Theres nothing wrong with steel brakes for a one lapper however it just doesnt take the heat and abuse quite like the CC variety. One magazines have already found that the stock base GTR cooks its brakes after one lap while the CC Vspec cooks itself after 3.

The GTR on the other hand has inferior aero, inferior tyres, inferior weight, inferior power, inferior brakes, inferior torque and the list goes on and on and on.

 

The specs between the two cars is close enough to make the difference driver error.

A better WTF example would be the CTS-V to the R33 GTR at 7:59minutes.......another example of bogus Nurburgring time?
CTS-V: 550hp and 4,222lbs
R33 GTR: 280hp and 3373lbs

Lets see the GTR fanboys scramble trying to answer this little bombshell of a question. I wonder what imaginative excuse they will come up with.

 

It has come close. See HvS's comments in the other thread.
GT3 and GT2 can come close because Porsche laps with traffic!! How many times do we have to say this? Additionally, look at all the Porsches, both stock and modified, that HvS has supertested through the years. You don't think he's more familiar with Porsches by now?

None of these 'Ring experts is as familiar as Suzuki in the GT-R (good for several seconds according to heavychevy, and demonstrated by a 12-second difference between HvS and Suzuki on the same day), none of them have had perfect conditions (good for 10+ seconds easily over a cold, damp, and oily Nurburgring). Why do you keep asking the same questions which have already been answered?

The GT-R is far easier to drive to its understeering limit. It's more forgiving. But it still takes a special skill to drive to its true limit, and that involves oversteer. Most people think that once you reach its understeering limit, you need to back off the throttle. That's what you do in just about any other car. But that's a mistake in the GT-R; you haven't found its true limit.

 

On the 'Ring? No he didn't. He also claimed Nissan cut corners in their video, LOL. Point being: where did he get the information about the Bridgestones if not from Nissan?

 

How do you know it's not a peak lateral G corresponding to a minimum speed at Flugplatz?
DR marked theirs in the same place.

So? He was 16 seconds slower overall than HvS in the GT2. BFD. We can see relative performances here, and there is no gulf between what Harris did relative to HvS in the GT2 in terms of speeds on the straight, even with short-shifting. You like to live by his words literally. Look at it again: "marginal"

Isn't that what we're talking about?? Look at your post:
In fact, he was able to slide wider in the GT-R than the GT2 during the wet lap testing even with VDC-R on.

Many GT-R owners who have tracked says it is far too intrusive. So did Randy Pobst when driving it at Laguna Seca ("frustrating" he called it). Mr. Suzuki apparently agrees. In the wet/damp, where the GT-R's weight becomes more of an issue, with it slithering wide where it otherwise would not, it's reasonable to assume the car was cutting out power quite a bit. It's not like Harris has to lift, is it? The car is giving what it thinks is the best combination of grip and slip, so there's not much he can do beyond that but keep it floored and let the electronics do its thing.

 

MC12 is "more track focused"? That's all you got? That's weak. That's what it is. Not why the CCX is slower. (You should know that the CCX also cooked its carbon-ceramic brakes after only 1 lap, while the Maserati on steel brakes lasted a few laps before going soft.)
What about the massive power difference, monaro? You were claiming the GT-R can't even hang with an LP560-4 (which it doesn't) in a straight line, so how can it be faster on the 'Ring (but it is, even with the LP560-4 on carbon ceramics). The CCX has a MASSIVE hp/wt advantage over the CCX, and now you're saying that something other than power or wt can make up for this advantage? LOL. Nice backtracking there. You can't even handle a simple CCX vs MC12 comparo.

 

Close enough? The CTS-V has a 13% better power/wt ratio, and yet it's 3s slower? You are saying the difference between drivers can erase a 13% difference in power/wt? The BMW M5 has an 8% better power/wt ratio than the Panamera Turbo, yet it's 17s slower. WTF?

With a 7:50's lap time, the Panamera Turbo is competing with:
Ford GT
CLK DTM AMG
Lamborghini LP560-4 (which has a 39% better power/wt ratio!)
SL65 AMG BS (670 PS)
SLR McLaren (626 PS, +41% power/wt)
Ruf Rt 600 (600 PS, + 43% power/wt)

monaro, if you so readily accept that a 4-door, 4-passenger 500 hp car can compete against 2-seat, 600+ exotic and supercars which have 41% better power/wt ratio, why do you find it so impossible to believe that the Nissan GT-R can be 4 seconds slower than the ACR, which has a 48% better power/wt ratio?
You did not even accept the 7:38 nor the 7:29 times by Suzuki. You swallow the Panamera's time w/o any problem (only 4 seconds slower than a car with 41% better power/wt), yet you at first immediately call out Nissan for cheating when their car is 7-16 seconds slower than the ACR with 48% better power/wt. If that doesn't show bias, then I don't know what does.


In case you don't remember, I was one of the first ones to bring this up in the Vette forum years ago. We already know that GT-R didn't have 280 hp, but then a lot of Japanese cars at the time were making in excess of the "gentlemen's agreement." Is that your bombshell? Haha!

For the 10th time, monaro: What was the R34's time?

 

I have a feeling that because monaro is just figuring this out over 10 years later, that he'll figure out the R35 about 9 years from now.

He's apparently not seeing any of this and actually processing it.

I can't believe he actually thinks the R33 GT-R had 280hp. The problem is, that this has already been explained on threads that he's participated in - and still doesn't comprehend it.

Guibo, I think you're giving him too much credit. He hasn't answered probably 90% of your questions, because at the end of the day, all he has is speculation and his imagination. No evidence of anything supporting his 'ringer' claim.

I think he also said that the transmissions won't hold up, the resale value would plummet, it can't do a 7:40 lap, etc...

The car seems to be doing just fine.

 

Uh, maybe because the actual speeds are pretty far off?

Just because their dot on this massive road course is about where SportAuto's is doesn't make the measurement the same. There are numerous measurements taken by both tests which appear to be at the same place but aren't. It's a huge course. Other than peak speeds on straights it's hard to do a direct, apples-to-apples comparison.

His words are also crystal clear on which car he drove closer to the limit. You can mince and parse his "marginal propulsion loss" comment as much as you like, but it doesn't change the bottom line.


Again, a conclusion which is unsubstantiated by the evidence. If HvS is able to muster a 7:38 out of a perfectly stock, non-suspension tweaked 2010 GT-R, VDC-R isn't exactly killing lap times. I think it depends on driving style as to whether or not it's perceived to be intrusive.

 

That could be due to the conditions of the DR test, in which case the conditions still apply to both cars. The point is there is not a huge discrepancy in what Harris was able to acheive on the straight compared to what HvS did, even with short-shifting for the conditions.


LMFAO! All these other points don't matter, but only the one on the straight matters? Way to be selective.
They marked their Flugplatz point the "minimum speed." If Sport Auto wanted to show how well a car can take a corner like Flugplatz, wouldn't it make sense to put the mark in the same place? Why would they be looking at a non-cornering type speed between two very fast points?
What are these other numerous points? I only see one where DR's numbers are obviously out of whack.

According to you, isn't 12 seconds off the pace substantial? After all, the time difference forms the basis of your contention that Nissan is cheating, right? Now it sounds like you're saying HvS is doing something extraordinary.
Driving style...if you're content with letting the car lapse into understeer like Harris, then you might not notice the intrusion (even though it's happening subtly in the background); if you're style is like that of Suzuki, you will definitely notice it. Suzuki's driving style is conducive to extracting the most out of the GT-R; Harris's is not. The evidence substantiates the theory: Suzuki is driving with VDC-off for the hot laps. I believe Best Motoring came to the same conclusion with their test driver last year.

 

Your comparison is fundamentally flawed. You're using a 2010 GT-R with the stickier Dunlops as a reference point. That car is going to carry more speed in corners and onto straights and make it appear that Harris was further from HvS's times. As for your percentages: garbage in, garbage out.

Is English not your native language? Where did I say the other points don't matter? I said if you're going to do a percentage of speed comparison for test A vs. test B, you should be sure you're measuring the same thing so the comparison is apples-to-apples.

For some of the curvers, DR is taking corner speed measurements at approximately the same points, but you don't know if they're close enough to make the kind of calculations you are and have them be at all meaningful. I don't know what to make of your "non-cornreing type speed" comment as it makes no sense.

Hatzenbach, Aremberg, Metzgesfeld, Galgenkopf. You did notice that DR's 2nd apex Galgengopf corner speeds are actually faster than SA's, did you not? I seriously doubt Harris was faster through this section than HvS so that leads one to beleive the speed maps cant just be superimposed on one another and be called the same.

Again, you're just making up nonsense. My contention is that HvS produced a very impressive time - a time faster than any other indpendent source has acheived to date - with VDC-R enabled. I highly doubt a 12 second gulf can be attributed to a stability system Nissan desigend for track use and encourages be left on under all but the most extreme conditions.

 

What would Sport Auto's point be in even recording a speed @ Flugplatz if not to show how fast in that corner (its minimum speed between two very fast points) a car is going?
With Flugplatz and Schwedenkreuz, the figures are reasonably close. As long as the points measured are the same for both cars (and that's the case when comparing within each publication), we can make some comparisons. At least with Flugplatz, there's not a lot of leeway in how you measure it, unlike Doettinger Hoehe.
Harris's said himself the disadvantage of short-shifting was marginal. And we don't know for a fact that even Rohrl would have been short-shifting through the same sections; he might very well have. But FFS, if you want to cling to the idea that short-shifting cost him significant amounts of time, then so be it.

Stability system designed for track use, LOL...for an untrained amateur newbie to GT-R driving dynamics. Oh wait, are we talking about Harris.
HvS's time is not all that much faster than what an unnamed journalist in Auto Motor und Sport got (apparently with passenger).
Nobody here is saying the VDC-off is accountable for all of the 12 seconds, so that comment makes no sense. It can certainly account for much of the reason, IMO. Track conditions, the different tires, and driver familiarity (which breeds comittment), are all valid explanations for the differences in times, in addition to the different VDC settings.
Nissan approaches the 'Ring as a "Time Attack." Isn't that an extreme enough condition?

Porsche says the Turbo is good for 7:38, yet Sport Auto got 7:54 in the supertest. A difference of 16 seconds. Sport Auto got a time of 16+ seconds slower than GM in the C6. Do you believe both manufacturers cheated in getting their claimed times?