RE: Nissan GT-R: Kazutoshi Mizuno Interview
Discussion
What I think he means is that corner speed is a function of mass - tyre grip - down force.
Perhaps that in his mind it's the compromise they wanted?
To get a nice comfortable 4 seater family car, that is also a high performance sports car that can beat the 911 Turbo time around the Nordschleife as it's performance comparative.
So can he be totally wrong?
The car is clearly a Japanese car? By design? By looks? By Technology?
This I suspect has more to do with it's current incarnation, simply to be Japanese.
Weight wise it is the same weight as some other high performance luxury cars.
However it weighs much more than the year 2000 Subaru Impreza I had, which was the most uncomfortable and noisy car I have EVER driven!
Epic on twisty back roads, but a real pain in every other situation.
So is it just a compromise that works?
Perhaps that in his mind it's the compromise they wanted?
To get a nice comfortable 4 seater family car, that is also a high performance sports car that can beat the 911 Turbo time around the Nordschleife as it's performance comparative.
So can he be totally wrong?
The car is clearly a Japanese car? By design? By looks? By Technology?
This I suspect has more to do with it's current incarnation, simply to be Japanese.
Weight wise it is the same weight as some other high performance luxury cars.
However it weighs much more than the year 2000 Subaru Impreza I had, which was the most uncomfortable and noisy car I have EVER driven!
Epic on twisty back roads, but a real pain in every other situation.
So is it just a compromise that works?
He is right and wrong.
I think the problem these days is marketing talk takes over.
You won't get an engineer telling you how it is, you get the 'authorised' marketing speak.
Nothing is a compromise, everything was the way it was because they chose it to be that way, not because on a cost benefit analysis it worked out the best, by the way here is the weight of pro's and con's.
It would be more interesting to hear about those things to be honest, because it's real rather than what people want you to hear.
It would be good to hear something about where the GTR isn't 'perfect', or where the balance of cost vs engineering ended up seeing cost a priority, but it is made out as if everything was the perfect choice, but it clearly doesn't happen like that.
That said, it was less annoying than the Ford Focus RS pre-release video with Jost Capito talking about the big exhaust tips adding performance and other silly things
Dave
I think the problem these days is marketing talk takes over.
You won't get an engineer telling you how it is, you get the 'authorised' marketing speak.
Nothing is a compromise, everything was the way it was because they chose it to be that way, not because on a cost benefit analysis it worked out the best, by the way here is the weight of pro's and con's.
It would be more interesting to hear about those things to be honest, because it's real rather than what people want you to hear.
It would be good to hear something about where the GTR isn't 'perfect', or where the balance of cost vs engineering ended up seeing cost a priority, but it is made out as if everything was the perfect choice, but it clearly doesn't happen like that.
That said, it was less annoying than the Ford Focus RS pre-release video with Jost Capito talking about the big exhaust tips adding performance and other silly things
Dave
When I bought my e46M3 I A/B'd it against a e39M5 to make sure the M3 was for me. I had actually always wanted a M5, but the M3 looked so mean and had come down in cost that I wanted a M3.
Anyway, driving both the M3 and the M5 around bumpy b-roads around Huntingdon I realised something very quickly.
The M3 was lighter. M5 heavier. Both similar power to weight.
For me having never driven performance cars before, hussling the M5 along was much easier - that thing just ABSORBED the bumps, and effectively "lowpass filtered" the road. I have a similar thing at the moment with my quattro v.s. the cerb.
When I first listened to the justification that heavier was better a few years ago I thought Kazutoshi Mizuno was talking nonsense - but I realise the point now totally.
A/B for the average driver, on an average road, a heavy car can maximise performance.
OK it's not an elegant solution to the problem, but when a car is easier to drive you can approach the limits more comfortably. You only have to listen to the commentry on F1 when they discuss which cars are a handfull to drive and which are well balanced - the well balanced cars normally go faster.
Anyway, point taken that it's a quick car. I prefer something that's a challenge to drive, as ultimately speed limits dictate progress round these parts, not car peroformance, but I finally understand the point & from my experience can actually agree with it.
Cheers,
Stu
Anyway, driving both the M3 and the M5 around bumpy b-roads around Huntingdon I realised something very quickly.
The M3 was lighter. M5 heavier. Both similar power to weight.
For me having never driven performance cars before, hussling the M5 along was much easier - that thing just ABSORBED the bumps, and effectively "lowpass filtered" the road. I have a similar thing at the moment with my quattro v.s. the cerb.
When I first listened to the justification that heavier was better a few years ago I thought Kazutoshi Mizuno was talking nonsense - but I realise the point now totally.
A/B for the average driver, on an average road, a heavy car can maximise performance.
OK it's not an elegant solution to the problem, but when a car is easier to drive you can approach the limits more comfortably. You only have to listen to the commentry on F1 when they discuss which cars are a handfull to drive and which are well balanced - the well balanced cars normally go faster.
Anyway, point taken that it's a quick car. I prefer something that's a challenge to drive, as ultimately speed limits dictate progress round these parts, not car peroformance, but I finally understand the point & from my experience can actually agree with it.
Cheers,
Stu
stuthemong said:
When I first listened to the justification that heavier was better a few years ago I thought Kazutoshi Mizuno was talking nonsense - but I realise the point now totally.
A/B for the average driver, on an average road, a heavy car can maximise performance.
OK it's not an elegant solution to the problem, but when a car is easier to drive you can approach the limits more comfortably.
IMHO you've missed the real point. A heavier car doesn't maximise the performance...a better-set-up car maximises the performance. The E39 M5 has better springs and dampers than the E46 M3, which allow it to 'breathe' with the road better. Fit comparably-expensive suspension to the E46 and it'd be quicker.A/B for the average driver, on an average road, a heavy car can maximise performance.
OK it's not an elegant solution to the problem, but when a car is easier to drive you can approach the limits more comfortably.
I'd suggest that, on a dry road with decent visibility, a lighter car (with the same bhp/tonne) SHOULD be quicker than a heavier car as it can change direction quicker and stop quicker. Importantly, a lighter car also has to make less compromises regarding spring- and damper-rates than a heavy car!!! Grip is a complex little b'gger to quantify, but I'd argue that effective grip should be similar, as the lighter car will probably have a lower c-o-g and less mass for the grip to have to contain.
I do agree with your last point though, which is why I'm despairing of the current crop of "honed at the N'ring" ultra-stiff machines...this (and very-low-profile tyres) does not make a car easier to drive...
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff