Finally: Some facts on the GT-R's Ring time
Discussion
flemke said:
Pugsey said:
Dr S said:
flemke said:
Pugsey said:
Sabine faster than Walter?!? She shared a drive in my mates car at the 'Ring a while back. Seemed quite wound up, was slower than said mate and other two drivers - all good but keen club drivers only - and then stacked it on the first lap! Guess, as with everything, it depends who you talk to............
Sabine isn't the fastest out there, but she is quite good, especially in the wet.I'm not sure how well your "keen club drivers" know the circuit, but Sabine is probably within 8, maybe 10, seconds of the absolute fastest times in equivalent equipment, and there are not more than a handful of people in Britain who are that quick.
Perhaps the day in question was atypical?
The fastest guys out there, such as Menzel, Alzen, Basseng and Lieb, are really effing quick.
On the original topic: It amuses me to see how desperate some people are to believe the Nissan times (despite better knowledge) and put very different standards on "facts" for the pro and con side of the claimed times.
The only thing we have as "fact" for Nissan's claims is a video that shows that a car has been able to get around the ring in 07:29 (which quite a number have done already) but not what type of car it was. I would like to see the evidence in that video that it was a standard car. Could you folks please point that out to me? Thanks.
I still think that the GT-R is a fantastic machine, a great achievement and a highly desirable car - especially for the money we're talking. It just annoys me when a manufacturer thinks he can bullsh*t me.
Anyway, it's close to impossible to make people doubt something they want so much to believe.
Not sure why you attached that mini rant to my quote. I was merely commenting on another posters comment re Sabine/Wallter. I haven't expressed any views re the great (but pointless) 'Nissan lap times' debate. I don't possess any 'brand loyalty' frankly.
Flemke.
They've all either won or finished at the front of their class at the 'Ring and spend a fair bit of time there so not bad I guess. My comment was really in response to someone who stated (via third party info) that Sabine was faster than Herr R round the 'Ring and was made to demonstrate that these 'facts' really depend on 'who you speak to'. Having spent time in car with Sabine and been round the 'Ring once with Walter I have no idea frankly who would be faster given identical cars and don't really care. I suspect that there's a local out there who for years has taken out his ratty Mk1 Golf every week come rain or shine but never bothers to race who might blow EVERYONE into the weeds given the equipment. We'll never know.
I spoke with two fellows about this. If there are five people in the world who are in a position to have an authoritative opinion about this, they are two of them. Their names are well-known.
The question related speficially to the Nordschleife.
One said that - currently - Walter is as fast as the fastest guys, who would be Menzel, Alzen, Lieb and Dumas, maybe a couple of others.
The other said - currently - Walter is nearly as fast, maybe within a second or two, as those guys.
They agreed that Walter is not quite as fast as he was at his peak, although his superior circuit knowledge compensated for some of that diminution. They said that, as expected, the younger drivers would definitely be faster than Walter on a modern circuit, such as 'ring GP.
They reckon that Sabine is 8-10 sec a lap slower.
One would need to have experienced how genuinely fast such a 8-10-sec-slower-lap is to know that is it really bloody fast. Some very "keen British club racers" might think that they were quicker than whatever demo lap Sabine gave them, but it's doubtful that they would have been.
To give you an example, Richard Westbrook is as fast as anyone alive in a GT3 Cup car. Last year Westbrook did, IIRC, three VLN races. He started out not knowing the circuit, but what the pros do is to follow someone fast who does know the circuit, and in that way they're able to keep up with almost anyone as they learn it.
Again, IIRC, by the third race Westbrook's times were about 8-10 seconds off those of Menzel, who was in an identical car. My point is that if Sabine's times are the same as those of the world's best Cup driver, the difference being that she knows the circuit better than anyone does whilst he knows it moderately well, that is still damn fast. I couldn't prove it, but I doubt that there are half-a-dozen Britons who would be as quick.
Back to the main point: Walter Rohrl is still the man. Whatever NS time he sets in a Porsche will be as fast as it can go.
With regard my chums, I may have played them down a little since they are all very successful but non pro drivers. In fact I'm sure that there are probably a few 'club' racers around who are as quick as most but have no interest in either becoming pros or being 'known'. Regards Sabine, if you reread my post you'll see that we're not talking 'demo' laps here and I can only comment on what I saw and on the day(s) when Sabine was slower than all of them in practice - which she put down to 'learning the car' - and crashed very early in the race. Of course we can all have 'off' days!
Thanks again for the info - nice to know life doesn't end at 25!!
gp900bj said:
Dr S said:
...
...If you had read my post properly you'd have realised that the data logs I referred to were from the tests the former rallye champion (Wolf) did last Monday. He used an overseas customer car - Nissan were not involved in this. The test was initiated by KW.
Your comment on "random dude" just shows how little you know. Here another quote from this thread which you apparently have not read either:
Dr S I see you have carefully avoided my question. When I spoke of random dude I was referring to the Guesthouse owner. How did this Guesthouse owner see a stripped out interior when the the car in the 7:29 video clearly shows a FULL interior....If you had read my post properly you'd have realised that the data logs I referred to were from the tests the former rallye champion (Wolf) did last Monday. He used an overseas customer car - Nissan were not involved in this. The test was initiated by KW.Your comment on "random dude" just shows how little you know. Here another quote from this thread which you apparently have not read either:
Furthermore, since when do highly competitive and secretive Auto manufacturers allow Guesthouse owners to observe the inner workings of their development program. Plainly this is complete BS from beginning to end.
This story is flimsy at best. You and this magical Guesthouse owner will need to dream up something far more substantial.
Good Luck
You have carefully avoided that point in your post. I differentiated very well between what I saw last Monday and what I was told by other people. The latter only offers an explanation to the former - which you are lacking to do.
Dr S said:
The essence of the "story" is, that both, Wolfgang W. and Walter R., both professional racers with indepth knowledge of the Ring were not able to repeat the time claimed by Nissan - by a bl*dy 15 seconds. And Wolfgang W had all the incentive to be as fast as he could that day. Now, if these two pros can't get closer than 15 seconds to the time claimed by Nissan, then nobody can.
Now if you had just said that instead of some story about a friend of a friend who heard a story from someone who runs a bar down the road who thought that they were cheating and then decided from his bar (after how many Jagermeisters?) that the car was using special race car fuel and had no cats and was on slicks and had no interior and ...After driving the GT-R I would be surprised if it was not capable of a comfortably quicker time around the 'Ring than a 997 Turbo.
Trommel said:
Dr S said:
The essence of the "story" is, that both, Wolfgang W. and Walter R., both professional racers with indepth knowledge of the Ring were not able to repeat the time claimed by Nissan - by a bl*dy 15 seconds. And Wolfgang W had all the incentive to be as fast as he could that day. Now, if these two pros can't get closer than 15 seconds to the time claimed by Nissan, then nobody can.
Now if you had just said that instead of some story about a friend of a friend who heard a story from someone who runs a bar down the road who thought that they were cheating and then decided from his bar (after how many Jagermeisters?) that the car was using special race car fuel and had no cats and was on slicks and had no interior and ...After driving the GT-R I would be surprised if it was not capable of a comfortably quicker time around the 'Ring than a 997 Turbo.
Trommel said:
But - do you really think Nissan would massage such a high-profile result when they had already shown the car to be very quick?
Why not, they did the last time they put a Skyline around the ring in an 'official' capacity.I'm not into bashing the GTR as I like the car, but I'm 99% sure Nissan have been cheating... AGAIN!!!
DanH said:
Why not, they did the last time they put a Skyline around the ring in an 'official' capacity.
No, they didn't.Find where the Schoysman R33 time was advertised as being a stock car, or indeed advertised at all.
Best Motoring did an 8.01 at the 'Ring in a V Spec though - the video is on YouTube.
I would like to remind you of the remarkable transition your story has undergone since posting a new thread with the rather grand title:
Finally: Some facts on the GT-R's Ring time
Your Opening Post:
You are forgetting that HVS produced an abysmal 7:54 Supertest lap in the 997 turbo on MPSCs where Porsche claims a 7:38 is possible. Should we open a new thread re. the 911 turbo's lap time?
T.Suzuki's capability in the GT-R is unmatched and certainly will never be tested by drivers who have never driven anything as dynamically unique as the GT-R.
When was the last time W.Rorhl or Wolfgang drove an ATTESSA platformed AWD car with a 600lb engine over the front axle and a 350lb gearbox over the rear axle?
I'll tell you: Never.
Nissan understands this situation completely. For the Nurburgring press intro to the GT-R last year they had called in a group of drivers for the purpose of taking the less experienced press for a lap around the nurb. During their time there these drivers produced lap times of 7:44 upwards with most coming in at 7:55 to 7:58 and some as low as 8:13.
Suzuki, being the primary test driver, is the only one capable of driving the GT-R to it's real limit.
Finally: Some facts on the GT-R's Ring time
Your Opening Post:
Dr S said:
Here a couple of interesting observations from Nissan's GT-R record drive, that come from a highly reliable source without any connections to/interest in Porsche.
Nissan had a couple of GT-R's at the Ring that day. The car that did the record run featured:
Porsche had Walter Rohrl checking out the GT-R and his best time was 07:45. Yesterday another former Rallye champion (who holds the fastest lap on the Ring in the wet - so no rookie either) managed to get near 07:50 in not fully ideal conditions using a stock customer car from overseas.
Given these data points the 07:29 posted by Nissan were not set by a standard car. End of story.
Given that Walter R managed a truly excellent 07:45 I wonder why Nissan bothered to cheat at all. It's a fantastic time well into 997TT/GT3RS territory for a fraction of the price that should really get the guys at Porsche (and potential customers) thinking. IMHO the car also has a dramatic presence in the metal and sounds great.
The 07:29 from a standard GT-R, however, only people could believe who like to ignore some basic laws of physics and/or are happy to find a reason to look down on people who can afford more expensive cars than themselves.
And now your remarkably revised stance after my highlighting all the incredible flaws in the fundamental claims being made in this thread, namely that you claimed to have proof that the 7:29 car was modified:Nissan had a couple of GT-R's at the Ring that day. The car that did the record run featured:
- stripped out interior
- missing pre-cat
- use of 110 octane race fuel
Porsche had Walter Rohrl checking out the GT-R and his best time was 07:45. Yesterday another former Rallye champion (who holds the fastest lap on the Ring in the wet - so no rookie either) managed to get near 07:50 in not fully ideal conditions using a stock customer car from overseas.
Given these data points the 07:29 posted by Nissan were not set by a standard car. End of story.
Given that Walter R managed a truly excellent 07:45 I wonder why Nissan bothered to cheat at all. It's a fantastic time well into 997TT/GT3RS territory for a fraction of the price that should really get the guys at Porsche (and potential customers) thinking. IMHO the car also has a dramatic presence in the metal and sounds great.
The 07:29 from a standard GT-R, however, only people could believe who like to ignore some basic laws of physics and/or are happy to find a reason to look down on people who can afford more expensive cars than themselves.
Dr S said:
The essence of the "story" is, that both, Wolfgang W. and Walter R., both professional racers with indepth knowledge of the Ring were not able to repeat the time claimed by Nissan - by a bl*dy 15 seconds. And Wolfgang W had all the incentive to be as fast as he could that day. Now, if these two pros can't get closer than 15 seconds to the time claimed by Nissan, then nobody can.
Seems you have abandoned the entire premise of this thread and resorted to subjective claims based on laps conducted by other drivers on a different day.You are forgetting that HVS produced an abysmal 7:54 Supertest lap in the 997 turbo on MPSCs where Porsche claims a 7:38 is possible. Should we open a new thread re. the 911 turbo's lap time?
T.Suzuki's capability in the GT-R is unmatched and certainly will never be tested by drivers who have never driven anything as dynamically unique as the GT-R.
When was the last time W.Rorhl or Wolfgang drove an ATTESSA platformed AWD car with a 600lb engine over the front axle and a 350lb gearbox over the rear axle?
I'll tell you: Never.
Nissan understands this situation completely. For the Nurburgring press intro to the GT-R last year they had called in a group of drivers for the purpose of taking the less experienced press for a lap around the nurb. During their time there these drivers produced lap times of 7:44 upwards with most coming in at 7:55 to 7:58 and some as low as 8:13.
Suzuki, being the primary test driver, is the only one capable of driving the GT-R to it's real limit.
Edited by gp900bj on Tuesday 11th November 01:29
Edited by gp900bj on Tuesday 11th November 01:51
gp900bj said:
Seems you have abandoned the entire premise of this thread and resorted to subjective claims based on laps conducted by other drivers on a different day.
You are forgetting that HVS produced an abysmal 7:54 Supertest lap in the 997 turbo on MPSCs where Porsche claims a 7:38 is possible. Should we open a new thread re. the 911 turbo's lap time?
T.Suzuki's capability in the GT-R is unmatched and certainly will never be tested by drivers who have never driven anything as dynamically unique as the GT-R.
When was the last time W.Rorhl or Wolfgang drove an ATTESSA platformed AWD car with a 600lb engine over the front axle and a 350lb gearbox over the rear axle?
I'll tell you: Never.
Nissan understands this situation completely. For the Nurburgring press intro to the GT-R last year they had called in a group of drivers for the purpose of taking the less experienced press for a lap around the nurb. During their time there these drivers produced lap times of 7:44 upwards with most coming in at 7:55 to 7:58 and some as low as 8:13.
Suzuki, being the primary test driver, is the only one capable of driving the GT-R to it's real limit.
You make me laugh. Your point is that two highly experienced racers, who have driven about any high-end metal there is, know every detail of the Ring by heart and are regarded as the fastest drivers around that track do not come closer than 15 seconds to magic Suzuki in the same car?You are forgetting that HVS produced an abysmal 7:54 Supertest lap in the 997 turbo on MPSCs where Porsche claims a 7:38 is possible. Should we open a new thread re. the 911 turbo's lap time?
T.Suzuki's capability in the GT-R is unmatched and certainly will never be tested by drivers who have never driven anything as dynamically unique as the GT-R.
When was the last time W.Rorhl or Wolfgang drove an ATTESSA platformed AWD car with a 600lb engine over the front axle and a 350lb gearbox over the rear axle?
I'll tell you: Never.
Nissan understands this situation completely. For the Nurburgring press intro to the GT-R last year they had called in a group of drivers for the purpose of taking the less experienced press for a lap around the nurb. During their time there these drivers produced lap times of 7:44 upwards with most coming in at 7:55 to 7:58 and some as low as 8:13.
Suzuki, being the primary test driver, is the only one capable of driving the GT-R to it's real limit.
The times set by Wolfgang are not subjective but - as I have seen the logs - a fact. The GT-R is a rather easy car to drive, that's what all the motoring press claims and which was confirmed by Wolfgang as well.
The lap times set by Walter and Wolfgang prove that there was something non-standard about the car that did the 07:29. The observations of the guesthouse owner indicate in what areas the car was likely to be non-standard.
But if Suzuki is such a magician as you claim, I'm sure he can drive any Porsche 15 seconds faster around the Ring than Röhrl or Wolfgang, wich gives us a 07:23 for the 997TT and 07:15 or so for the 997GT2. And I seriously doubt these cars are capable of such times.
Given the rather aggressive tone of your post, I guess you must be employed by Niassan's press office...
Dr S said:
gp900bj said:
Seems you have abandoned the entire premise of this thread and resorted to subjective claims based on laps conducted by other drivers on a different day.
You are forgetting that HVS produced an abysmal 7:54 Supertest lap in the 997 turbo on MPSCs where Porsche claims a 7:38 is possible. Should we open a new thread re. the 911 turbo's lap time?
T.Suzuki's capability in the GT-R is unmatched and certainly will never be tested by drivers who have never driven anything as dynamically unique as the GT-R.
When was the last time W.Rorhl or Wolfgang drove an ATTESSA platformed AWD car with a 600lb engine over the front axle and a 350lb gearbox over the rear axle?
I'll tell you: Never.
Nissan understands this situation completely. For the Nurburgring press intro to the GT-R last year they had called in a group of drivers for the purpose of taking the less experienced press for a lap around the nurb. During their time there these drivers produced lap times of 7:44 upwards with most coming in at 7:55 to 7:58 and some as low as 8:13.
Suzuki, being the primary test driver, is the only one capable of driving the GT-R to it's real limit.
You make me laugh. Your point is that two highly experienced racers, who have driven about any high-end metal there is, know every detail of the Ring by heart and are regarded as the fastest drivers around that track do not come closer than 15 seconds to magic Suzuki in the same car?You are forgetting that HVS produced an abysmal 7:54 Supertest lap in the 997 turbo on MPSCs where Porsche claims a 7:38 is possible. Should we open a new thread re. the 911 turbo's lap time?
T.Suzuki's capability in the GT-R is unmatched and certainly will never be tested by drivers who have never driven anything as dynamically unique as the GT-R.
When was the last time W.Rorhl or Wolfgang drove an ATTESSA platformed AWD car with a 600lb engine over the front axle and a 350lb gearbox over the rear axle?
I'll tell you: Never.
Nissan understands this situation completely. For the Nurburgring press intro to the GT-R last year they had called in a group of drivers for the purpose of taking the less experienced press for a lap around the nurb. During their time there these drivers produced lap times of 7:44 upwards with most coming in at 7:55 to 7:58 and some as low as 8:13.
Suzuki, being the primary test driver, is the only one capable of driving the GT-R to it's real limit.
The times set by Wolfgang are not subjective but - as I have seen the logs - a fact. The GT-R is a rather easy car to drive, that's what all the motoring press claims and which was confirmed by Wolfgang as well.
The lap times set by Walter and Wolfgang prove that there was something non-standard about the car that did the 07:29. The observations of the guesthouse owner indicate in what areas the car was likely to be non-standard.
But if Suzuki is such a magician as you claim, I'm sure he can drive any Porsche 15 seconds faster around the Ring than Röhrl or Wolfgang, wich gives us a 07:23 for the 997TT and 07:15 or so for the 997GT2. And I seriously doubt these cars are capable of such times.
Given the rather aggressive tone of your post, I guess you must be employed by Niassan's press office...
Similarly I doubt Suzuki could perform as well as the german test drivers in the porsche[s].
The question is, does that stack up to 15 seconds in a particular car. I'm on the fence there, I can see both arguments.
I have driven all types of race car and currently drive in Carrera cup. In my opinion - which is a view shared by just about every driver that i know including 2 F1 drivers - The 911 race car is one of the most difficult cars to drive. The rule commonly shared in motorsport is that if you can drive a 911 quickly, you can drive anything quickly. It is extremely unlikely that it has been engineered to be even more difficult to drive than a 911. I therefore find it almost impossible to believe that any Specialist GTR drivers will be any quicker, or indeed as quick as Walter or Wolfgang. To claim that they would be 15 seconds slower in what is a road car - which are far easier to drive on the limit than a race car - would be rediculous.
Ultimately though I think that we are splitting hairs. Even if it is 15 seconds slower than claimed, for a 1700 kg road car it is still very quick indeed.
Ultimately though I think that we are splitting hairs. Even if it is 15 seconds slower than claimed, for a 1700 kg road car it is still very quick indeed.
15 seconds is an eternity. It would mean that in equal spec GTR's Suzuki could pull over at BTG and light up a cigarette waiting for Walter to catch up. More likely that Suzuki's car was far from standard.
Here in the states real roadcourse performances are starting to come in. The GTR is very respectable but not ahead of the Porsches. At my home track in Houston, Car & Driver ran a GTR during the One Lap of America and posted laps over 20 seconds slower than a typical 997 GT3 lap. At Willow Springs there have been many magazine run-offs using "Pro Drivers" who happen to be sponsored by Nissan (Steve Millen). His best laps in the GTR have been surpassed by other less famous drivers such as Craig Stanton by 1-3 seconds in a 997tt and 997GT3. I think Nissan has done a great job but to distort the performance of the car and now to cover up the transmission issues is a very poor tact indeed.
Here in the states real roadcourse performances are starting to come in. The GTR is very respectable but not ahead of the Porsches. At my home track in Houston, Car & Driver ran a GTR during the One Lap of America and posted laps over 20 seconds slower than a typical 997 GT3 lap. At Willow Springs there have been many magazine run-offs using "Pro Drivers" who happen to be sponsored by Nissan (Steve Millen). His best laps in the GTR have been surpassed by other less famous drivers such as Craig Stanton by 1-3 seconds in a 997tt and 997GT3. I think Nissan has done a great job but to distort the performance of the car and now to cover up the transmission issues is a very poor tact indeed.
Same old fanboys (both Pork and Rice), same old lines, same old silly and personal comments, same old lack of conclusions, same old "yes but" stock lines. My view, for what it's worth, is that Nissan is not being totally open and the car will not get within 10 seconds of that claimed time in any independent test of a Euro specification GT-R in the next 3 years. No point trying to convince me otherwise unless you have the test results....and Nissan or a Porsche released test are not independent.
To suggest the Nissan driver is 'special' and the other drivers are not as experienced or even journeymen is an astonishingly foolish stance too. The reason more and more 'hands' are casting doubt, many having driven the Ring and the GT-R though not at the same time unfortunately is because the numbers being quoted for the car suggest it's a slighly ambitious time and if the Nissan is actually 550bhp (as many have suggested) then we have a clear example that Nissan is more than happy to be 'less clear' in its marketing so extending this to conclude the said lap time might also have some 'greyness' is not unreasonable...
The GT-R is an amazing bit of kit with an astonishing bang for back that much is 100% clear. It would be nice however if the fanboys took their black and white blinkers off as they are being naïve for being so definitive on something lacking independent confirmation. I don’t take sides I believe I can be objective most of the time…………though it’s still a Datsun driven by people on council estates and the Porsche is driven by city boys with big hair. So glad I have an RS4, its goes so well with my Breitling and Bluetooth headset now MOVE OUT OF MY WAY!!!
As you were men.
To suggest the Nissan driver is 'special' and the other drivers are not as experienced or even journeymen is an astonishingly foolish stance too. The reason more and more 'hands' are casting doubt, many having driven the Ring and the GT-R though not at the same time unfortunately is because the numbers being quoted for the car suggest it's a slighly ambitious time and if the Nissan is actually 550bhp (as many have suggested) then we have a clear example that Nissan is more than happy to be 'less clear' in its marketing so extending this to conclude the said lap time might also have some 'greyness' is not unreasonable...
The GT-R is an amazing bit of kit with an astonishing bang for back that much is 100% clear. It would be nice however if the fanboys took their black and white blinkers off as they are being naïve for being so definitive on something lacking independent confirmation. I don’t take sides I believe I can be objective most of the time…………though it’s still a Datsun driven by people on council estates and the Porsche is driven by city boys with big hair. So glad I have an RS4, its goes so well with my Breitling and Bluetooth headset now MOVE OUT OF MY WAY!!!
As you were men.
noumenon said:
Dr S said:
gp900bj said:
Seems you have abandoned the entire premise of this thread and resorted to subjective claims based on laps conducted by other drivers on a different day.
You are forgetting that HVS produced an abysmal 7:54 Supertest lap in the 997 turbo on MPSCs where Porsche claims a 7:38 is possible. Should we open a new thread re. the 911 turbo's lap time?
T.Suzuki's capability in the GT-R is unmatched and certainly will never be tested by drivers who have never driven anything as dynamically unique as the GT-R.
When was the last time W.Rorhl or Wolfgang drove an ATTESSA platformed AWD car with a 600lb engine over the front axle and a 350lb gearbox over the rear axle?
I'll tell you: Never.
Nissan understands this situation completely. For the Nurburgring press intro to the GT-R last year they had called in a group of drivers for the purpose of taking the less experienced press for a lap around the nurb. During their time there these drivers produced lap times of 7:44 upwards with most coming in at 7:55 to 7:58 and some as low as 8:13.
Suzuki, being the primary test driver, is the only one capable of driving the GT-R to it's real limit.
You make me laugh. Your point is that two highly experienced racers, who have driven about any high-end metal there is, know every detail of the Ring by heart and are regarded as the fastest drivers around that track do not come closer than 15 seconds to magic Suzuki in the same car?You are forgetting that HVS produced an abysmal 7:54 Supertest lap in the 997 turbo on MPSCs where Porsche claims a 7:38 is possible. Should we open a new thread re. the 911 turbo's lap time?
T.Suzuki's capability in the GT-R is unmatched and certainly will never be tested by drivers who have never driven anything as dynamically unique as the GT-R.
When was the last time W.Rorhl or Wolfgang drove an ATTESSA platformed AWD car with a 600lb engine over the front axle and a 350lb gearbox over the rear axle?
I'll tell you: Never.
Nissan understands this situation completely. For the Nurburgring press intro to the GT-R last year they had called in a group of drivers for the purpose of taking the less experienced press for a lap around the nurb. During their time there these drivers produced lap times of 7:44 upwards with most coming in at 7:55 to 7:58 and some as low as 8:13.
Suzuki, being the primary test driver, is the only one capable of driving the GT-R to it's real limit.
The times set by Wolfgang are not subjective but - as I have seen the logs - a fact. The GT-R is a rather easy car to drive, that's what all the motoring press claims and which was confirmed by Wolfgang as well.
The lap times set by Walter and Wolfgang prove that there was something non-standard about the car that did the 07:29. The observations of the guesthouse owner indicate in what areas the car was likely to be non-standard.
But if Suzuki is such a magician as you claim, I'm sure he can drive any Porsche 15 seconds faster around the Ring than Röhrl or Wolfgang, wich gives us a 07:23 for the 997TT and 07:15 or so for the 997GT2. And I seriously doubt these cars are capable of such times.
Given the rather aggressive tone of your post, I guess you must be employed by Niassan's press office...
Similarly I doubt Suzuki could perform as well as the german test drivers in the porsche[s].
The question is, does that stack up to 15 seconds in a particular car. I'm on the fence there, I can see both arguments.
As you have understood, what i am trying to highlight is the fact that Suzuki grew with this car. What the GT-R has become in terms of track dynamics, right down to the subtleties of it's handling, is the direct result of feedback that Suzuki (and only Suzuki) has given his engineering team. As often occurs when cars (or motorbikes, aircraft, roller blades, computers etc.) are tuned and redesigned iteratively, based on the feedback of one test driver, the GT-R's track dynamics have been customized to suit his driving style.
The exact same can be said of the 911 and W Rorhl.
Suzuki would be as uncomfortable in a 911 as WR would be in a GT-R.
Edited by gp900bj on Wednesday 12th November 00:17
gp900bj said:
As you have understood, what i am trying to highlight is the fact that Suzuki grew with this car. What the GT-R has become in terms of track dynamics, right down to the subtleties of it's handling, is the direct result of feedback that Suzuki (and only Suzuki) has given his engineering team. As often occurs when cars (or motorbikes, aircraft, roller blades, computers etc.) are tuned and redesigned iteratively, based on the feedback of one test driver, the GT-R's track dynamics have been customized to suit his driving style.
The exact same can be said of the 911 and W Rorhl.
Suzuki would be as uncomfortable in a 911 as WR would be in a GT-R.
You seem to be saying that one and only one driver is capable of doing a 7:26 or anything close to it in the GT-R. If that is true, then how meaningful is his unreproducible 'ring time?The exact same can be said of the 911 and W Rorhl.
Suzuki would be as uncomfortable in a 911 as WR would be in a GT-R.
The modern 911s may have been designed around Rohrl, but it is a fact that they are raced every weekend of the year by world-class drivers. At the 'ring alone, as noted above, there are several drivers who can pilot a Porsche as quickly as he can.
eclou said:
At my home track in Houston, Car & Driver ran a GTR during the One Lap of America and posted laps over 20 seconds slower than a typical 997 GT3 lap. At Willow Springs there have been many magazine run-offs using "Pro Drivers" who happen to be sponsored by Nissan (Steve Millen). His best laps in the GTR have been surpassed by other less famous drivers such as Craig Stanton by 1-3 seconds in a 997tt and 997GT3. I think Nissan has done a great job but to distort the performance of the car and now to cover up the transmission issues is a very poor tact indeed.
One Lap of America results are largely driver-dependent. For example, the 135i was lapping faster than the E90 M3. This is nigh on impossible when identical drivers are involved, based on other testing of bone-stock models.Steve Millen's GT-R time at Willow Springs (on Dunlops) was not that much faster than a customer GT-R driven by pro driver Sam Hubinette with only 700 miles on it, shod with the Bridgestones. Take a look at how he did in the GT3 here:
In the dragrace, the GT-R blitzed the GT3, even though the GT3 got off the line first.
Stanton might even be faster than Millen in a GT-R (and faster than he is with the GT3); with this driver variable still present, we'll never know. What we do know is that the GT-R is 2-0 against the GT3 in same day independent testing. And these are customer-delivered cars with low miles (the one tested by Evo had less than 400 km on it when they picked it up).
Rohrl is an exceptional driver, but Porsche lists the time for the Ferrari 599 at 7:59 in its promotional literature. This is not only the same time as a Cadillac CTS-V (unlikely), it's also 12 seconds slower than HvS managed in the supertest. If 15 seconds is an eterenity, 12 seconds is no doubt still a very noticeable difference (in favor of Porsche, naturally).
What we need to keep in mind is that Nissan never said every driver will get the 7:29 time. They even said that among their own drivers, there is a spread of some 20 seconds. They also said Suzuki turned thousands of laps in the GT-R, over no fewer than 7 separate testing sessions, and the 7:29 time came in "perfect conditions." The GT-R could not go faster, that was the optimum. It's not an ordinary result; by their own admission it is extraordinary. It is about as relevant as the GT2's time of 7:32; I doubt even 1% of GT2 customers who track their cars at the 'Ring will ever get that time.
Until Porsche familiarizes itself with the GT-R for thousands of laps, and reaches the same perfect conditions, their findings are far from airtight; their results for the 599 indicates a less-than-optimal lap time, but then what what the incentive be to show the 599 at its optimum? They're not out to sell Ferraris.
Anyone know what tires Porsche were using on the GT-R? How about tires for Webber's testing? Open or closed track? I'm also wondering what took the "guesthouse observer" so long to come out with this information. It's been many, many months since Nissan released the time. Was there an issue of whether a time undercutting Porsche's initial claim of 7:54 by 9 seconds might reduce the impact of the claim, and leave Nissan with a reasonable doubt given test and weather conditions?
flemke said:
gp900bj said:
As you have understood, what i am trying to highlight is the fact that Suzuki grew with this car. What the GT-R has become in terms of track dynamics, right down to the subtleties of it's handling, is the direct result of feedback that Suzuki (and only Suzuki) has given his engineering team. As often occurs when cars (or motorbikes, aircraft, roller blades, computers etc.) are tuned and redesigned iteratively, based on the feedback of one test driver, the GT-R's track dynamics have been customized to suit his driving style.
The exact same can be said of the 911 and W Rorhl.
Suzuki would be as uncomfortable in a 911 as WR would be in a GT-R.
You seem to be saying that one and only one driver is capable of doing a 7:26 or anything close to it in the GT-R. If that is true, then how meaningful is his unreproducible 'ring time?The exact same can be said of the 911 and W Rorhl.
Suzuki would be as uncomfortable in a 911 as WR would be in a GT-R.
The modern 911s may have been designed around Rohrl, but it is a fact that they are raced every weekend of the year by world-class drivers. At the 'ring alone, as noted above, there are several drivers who can pilot a Porsche as quickly as he can.
My point is simply that a difference in lap times, on it's own, does not constitute cheating, particularly when we are talking about 21km of the most difficult track in the entire world.
Horst von Saurma's abysmal 7:54 in the 997 911 turbo is proof of this.
eclou said:
Here in the states real roadcourse performances are starting to come in. The GTR is very respectable but not ahead of the Porsches. At my home track in Houston, Car & Driver ran a GTR during the One Lap of America and posted laps over 20 seconds slower than a typical 997 GT3 lap. At Willow Springs there have been many magazine run-offs using "Pro Drivers" who happen to be sponsored by Nissan (Steve Millen). His best laps in the GTR have been surpassed by other less famous drivers such as Craig Stanton by 1-3 seconds in a 997tt and 997GT3. I think Nissan has done a great job but to distort the performance of the car and now to cover up the transmission issues is a very poor tact indeed.
Thanks for highlighting the many hazards of magazine racing eclou. 20 seconds you say? Would that have anything to do with the all day downpour during both #1 and #2 sessions? That is your home track isn't it?Considering the GT-R was the ONLY car in the field sporting run-flat tires it's still pretty impressive that the car came 11th outright in it's first ever OLAP, despite an autocross DNF and a launch control bungle.
"Yesterday another former Rallye champion (who holds the fastest lap on the Ring in the wet - so no rookie either) managed to get near 07:50 in not fully ideal conditions using a stock customer car from overseas."
"...Due to the fact, that there where some passing manouvers and 2 small mistakes in my line, the theoretical best time, calculated from my best sectors (with data logger), was a 7.46. ( a real lap was 7,49)"
Hmmm...is this not apples vs oranges? Suzuki is on record as saying "conditions were perfect." And here we have "not fully ideal conditions." "Some passing manuevers" would be how many? 2? 7? 10? Correct me if I'm wrong, but the vids Nissan released clearly showed zero passing manuevers; ie. closed track session. Can't claim to be an expert on the 'Ring, but if there's a fault in Suzuki's line, I couldn't see it. Suzuki said it was an optimum lap, that the car couldn't go any faster, so I reckon there were no mistakes in his lines.
I wonder if any cheating is going on here:
7:50 BMW E46 M3 CSL (sport auto); 253 hp/tonne
7:59 Corvette C6 (GM); 271 hp/tone
8:13 Dodge Viper SRT-10 (sport auto); 319 hp/tonne (+23% compared to CSL)
7:22.9 Loaded M3 CSL; 373 hp/tonne
7:24.29 Maserati MC12 (Evo); 394 hp/tonne
7:33.55 Koenigsegg CCX (Evo); 612 hp/tonne (+64% compared to Loaded CSL, +55% compared to MC12)
"...Due to the fact, that there where some passing manouvers and 2 small mistakes in my line, the theoretical best time, calculated from my best sectors (with data logger), was a 7.46. ( a real lap was 7,49)"
Hmmm...is this not apples vs oranges? Suzuki is on record as saying "conditions were perfect." And here we have "not fully ideal conditions." "Some passing manuevers" would be how many? 2? 7? 10? Correct me if I'm wrong, but the vids Nissan released clearly showed zero passing manuevers; ie. closed track session. Can't claim to be an expert on the 'Ring, but if there's a fault in Suzuki's line, I couldn't see it. Suzuki said it was an optimum lap, that the car couldn't go any faster, so I reckon there were no mistakes in his lines.
I wonder if any cheating is going on here:
7:50 BMW E46 M3 CSL (sport auto); 253 hp/tonne
7:59 Corvette C6 (GM); 271 hp/tone
8:13 Dodge Viper SRT-10 (sport auto); 319 hp/tonne (+23% compared to CSL)
7:22.9 Loaded M3 CSL; 373 hp/tonne
7:24.29 Maserati MC12 (Evo); 394 hp/tonne
7:33.55 Koenigsegg CCX (Evo); 612 hp/tonne (+64% compared to Loaded CSL, +55% compared to MC12)
Gassing Station | Porsche General | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff