RE: Nissan GT-R: Kazutoshi Mizuno Interview
Discussion
yli said:
Was there a transcript for the interview? I cannot see the video as the Chinese government blocked Youtube in China. Is it possible to post the transcript?
As it was easier to record the answers rather that write it all down, I'm afraid that we don't have a transcript. Chris is standing listening to Mizuno and he was there alone (except the camera chap) so, I'm afraid we can't help you this time.Absolutely fantasitic interview. Well done PH. Im a die hard fan of the GTR but I have always wondered why they never made it lighter as Im sure they are capable to do that. Surely what Mizuno says about tyre grip area in contact with the road surface, makes sense. This is also proven by the GTR acceleration and cornering. Great job guys, brought a lot of questions into light. Great car. Mizuno needs the upmost respect for creating such a monster.
The real question of can a lighter car handle as well as a heavy GT-R in the DRY is answered by using a really well sorted RWD and light car, something like a Zonda.
Really Mr. Mizuno you are wrong to think the added weight of the GT-R will allow it to cover ground faster than a Zonda- really it would probably be quite close, with the Zonda having major advantages in braking, maneuverability, adjustment from on-limit slides, etc.
Even if both have similar power to weight- and that gets complicated as in order for a GTR to have the same power to weight it would need something like 800hp and 800lbs ft. -that sort of comparison does not work with 800hp as the GT-R would become an unusable mess at those speeds.
The moral of the Story that Mr GTR does not discuss is that given reasonable power the Zonda would have as much grip and as well would have more maneuverability, when at its tires limits. Indeed now we are talking seriously about such things as Mr GTR discuses. Hes simply talking about the GT-R as an all weather all road car- which is fine and indeed instructional to many, if still a bit marketing oriented/false. There is a lot more to DRY road handling than grip and traction. J
Really Mr. Mizuno you are wrong to think the added weight of the GT-R will allow it to cover ground faster than a Zonda- really it would probably be quite close, with the Zonda having major advantages in braking, maneuverability, adjustment from on-limit slides, etc.
Even if both have similar power to weight- and that gets complicated as in order for a GTR to have the same power to weight it would need something like 800hp and 800lbs ft. -that sort of comparison does not work with 800hp as the GT-R would become an unusable mess at those speeds.
The moral of the Story that Mr GTR does not discuss is that given reasonable power the Zonda would have as much grip and as well would have more maneuverability, when at its tires limits. Indeed now we are talking seriously about such things as Mr GTR discuses. Hes simply talking about the GT-R as an all weather all road car- which is fine and indeed instructional to many, if still a bit marketing oriented/false. There is a lot more to DRY road handling than grip and traction. J
Edited by j123 on Sunday 18th October 02:52
Edited by j123 on Sunday 18th October 08:10
danielj58 said:
His second attempt at the first question was better.
In none tech speak, that translates to: you civilians cannot handle a proper lightweight car...
Sort of. But he also makes the point that racing cars can be light and still have great grip because they generate massive downforce that is simply not achievable at public road speeds.In none tech speak, that translates to: you civilians cannot handle a proper lightweight car...
Imagine if F1 banned overnight all aero, i.e. they generated zero downforce. How heavy would they need to be then? How powerful? Quite different from what they are at the moment, I would imagine.
Godzilla said:
danielj58 said:
His second attempt at the first question was better.
In none tech speak, that translates to: you civilians cannot handle a proper lightweight car...
Sort of. But he also makes the point that racing cars can be light and still have great grip because they generate massive downforce that is simply not achievable at public road speeds.In none tech speak, that translates to: you civilians cannot handle a proper lightweight car...
Imagine if F1 banned overnight all aero, i.e. they generated zero downforce. How heavy would they need to be then? How powerful? Quite different from what they are at the moment, I would imagine.
j123 said:
Godzilla said:
danielj58 said:
His second attempt at the first question was better.
In none tech speak, that translates to: you civilians cannot handle a proper lightweight car...
Sort of. But he also makes the point that racing cars can be light and still have great grip because they generate massive downforce that is simply not achievable at public road speeds.In none tech speak, that translates to: you civilians cannot handle a proper lightweight car...
Imagine if F1 banned overnight all aero, i.e. they generated zero downforce. How heavy would they need to be then? How powerful? Quite different from what they are at the moment, I would imagine.
I think the most important thing to remember is that the GT-R is awesome, its proven its ability, accelerating and around corners. So maybe its defying science by been a fatty but you gotta love it for that.
Sort of like if Usain bolt weighed 18 stones and still sprinted like he does now. Its the results that count.
Sort of like if Usain bolt weighed 18 stones and still sprinted like he does now. Its the results that count.
Godzilla said:
j123 said:
Godzilla said:
danielj58 said:
His second attempt at the first question was better.
In none tech speak, that translates to: you civilians cannot handle a proper lightweight car...
Sort of. But he also makes the point that racing cars can be light and still have great grip because they generate massive downforce that is simply not achievable at public road speeds.In none tech speak, that translates to: you civilians cannot handle a proper lightweight car...
Imagine if F1 banned overnight all aero, i.e. they generated zero downforce. How heavy would they need to be then? How powerful? Quite different from what they are at the moment, I would imagine.
j123 said:
Godzilla said:
j123 said:
Godzilla said:
danielj58 said:
His second attempt at the first question was better.
In none tech speak, that translates to: you civilians cannot handle a proper lightweight car...
Sort of. But he also makes the point that racing cars can be light and still have great grip because they generate massive downforce that is simply not achievable at public road speeds.In none tech speak, that translates to: you civilians cannot handle a proper lightweight car...
Imagine if F1 banned overnight all aero, i.e. they generated zero downforce. How heavy would they need to be then? How powerful? Quite different from what they are at the moment, I would imagine.
Godzilla said:
Imagine if F1 banned overnight all aero, i.e. they generated zero downforce. How heavy would they need to be then? How powerful? Quite different from what they are at the moment, I would imagine.
Nope. They'd still be bang on the minimum weight (whatever that might be under the imaginary set of rules you are implying) just like they are now. There is no advantage to excess weight in a racing situation.In the old days before downforce the cars were also made as light as possible, although not sure there was always a minimum weight.
ro_butler said:
Godzilla said:
Imagine if F1 banned overnight all aero, i.e. they generated zero downforce. How heavy would they need to be then? How powerful? Quite different from what they are at the moment, I would imagine.
Nope. They'd still be bang on the minimum weight (whatever that might be under the imaginary set of rules you are implying) just like they are now. There is no advantage to excess weight in a racing situation.In the old days before downforce the cars were also made as light as possible, although not sure there was always a minimum weight.
ro_butler said:
Godzilla said:
Imagine if F1 banned overnight all aero, i.e. they generated zero downforce. How heavy would they need to be then? How powerful? Quite different from what they are at the moment, I would imagine.
Nope. They'd still be bang on the minimum weight (whatever that might be under the imaginary set of rules you are implying) just like they are now. There is no advantage to excess weight in a racing situation.In the old days before downforce the cars were also made as light as possible, although not sure there was always a minimum weight.
I'm a bit confused.
f=uN
Increase N, and f improves, great.
But increasing N means more impulse to generate to change direction (which cornering is doing), so f * t NEEDS to be higher to do the same cornering (take longer or apply more force) aero adds N but only for the frictional force, not the direction changing force.
Increase N = increased f, but you need increased f to manage the increased N... and ultimately more N = more weight = more weight transfer = less overall grip in lat and long.
Of course, good contact patch loadings for all weathers are sensible, but why not just fit smaller tyres and less weight (ala Elise in an extreme exercise, or Caterham etc)...
It really is an example of backwards arguing your end product. You can't argue forwards to that solution, but say that is what you aimed for and you can argue any number of sensible sounding reasons for doing it
Still a great car, but trying to sell it on the premise set forward is a bit iffy. Argue it's benefits by all means, it clearly has them, but arguing for the fundamentals when it's obvious they are not ideal is a bit dodgy from an integrity pov!
Dave
f=uN
Increase N, and f improves, great.
But increasing N means more impulse to generate to change direction (which cornering is doing), so f * t NEEDS to be higher to do the same cornering (take longer or apply more force) aero adds N but only for the frictional force, not the direction changing force.
Increase N = increased f, but you need increased f to manage the increased N... and ultimately more N = more weight = more weight transfer = less overall grip in lat and long.
Of course, good contact patch loadings for all weathers are sensible, but why not just fit smaller tyres and less weight (ala Elise in an extreme exercise, or Caterham etc)...
It really is an example of backwards arguing your end product. You can't argue forwards to that solution, but say that is what you aimed for and you can argue any number of sensible sounding reasons for doing it
Still a great car, but trying to sell it on the premise set forward is a bit iffy. Argue it's benefits by all means, it clearly has them, but arguing for the fundamentals when it's obvious they are not ideal is a bit dodgy from an integrity pov!
Dave
Edited by Mr Whippy on Monday 19th October 13:59
Godzilla said:
ro_butler said:
Godzilla said:
Imagine if F1 banned overnight all aero, i.e. they generated zero downforce. How heavy would they need to be then? How powerful? Quite different from what they are at the moment, I would imagine.
Nope. They'd still be bang on the minimum weight (whatever that might be under the imaginary set of rules you are implying) just like they are now. There is no advantage to excess weight in a racing situation.In the old days before downforce the cars were also made as light as possible, although not sure there was always a minimum weight.
Bottom line: I think the whole argument put forward about the weight is very dubious at best. If the GTR fanboys want to accept it then great but that doesn't mean it has to be accepted as gospel.
It is such a pity they come out with this, rather than let the GTR's performance figures and price (which are excellent) speak for themselves.
Great interview, Good work guys.
I could listen to that guy talk all day. I think to understand this weight argument you might have to look deeper into the numbers eg the weight of the car,tyre grip, the inertia [ as somebody say before me] and the maximum G force you are aimming for.
Also what ever we think the fact this this set up/ package works.
One more thing
Colin Chapman [rip] Vs Kazutoshi Mizuno Fiiiiiighttt
I could listen to that guy talk all day. I think to understand this weight argument you might have to look deeper into the numbers eg the weight of the car,tyre grip, the inertia [ as somebody say before me] and the maximum G force you are aimming for.
Also what ever we think the fact this this set up/ package works.
One more thing
Colin Chapman [rip] Vs Kazutoshi Mizuno Fiiiiiighttt
roland82 said:
Great interview, Good work guys.
I could listen to that guy talk all day. I think to understand this weight argument you might have to look deeper into the numbers eg the weight of the car,tyre grip, the inertia [ as somebody say before me] and the maximum G force you are aimming for.
Also what ever we think the fact this this set up/ package works.
One more thing
Colin Chapman [rip] Vs Kazutoshi Mizuno Fiiiiiighttt
Huge tyres + huge weight + huge grip = performance.I could listen to that guy talk all day. I think to understand this weight argument you might have to look deeper into the numbers eg the weight of the car,tyre grip, the inertia [ as somebody say before me] and the maximum G force you are aimming for.
Also what ever we think the fact this this set up/ package works.
One more thing
Colin Chapman [rip] Vs Kazutoshi Mizuno Fiiiiiighttt
But small tyres, low weight, and low grip = performance.
The GTR isn't astounding in it's performance for it's specification, it is just the sum of it's parts.
Dave
A big thumbs up for PH for getting such an interesting guy in front of a camera and asking those pertinent questions (leveraging the PH community for the input as well). Also having the subject on the foreground and a minimum role for the interviewer felt as a breath of fresh air amongst today's Ego warfare I must admit. Please, more of this!
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff