Finally: Some facts on the GT-R's Ring time

[Housey]

Nissan used special gunpowder, it's been proved though it was never used for marketing.











What's viral marketing then..........oh right, its not REAL its just, well, stuff on the internet...

[Guyr]

I cannot see the fuss about the gearbox on the GTR. Some have broken when driven hard or really abused with launch control or sticky tyres or power upgrades etc. My GT2 gearbox failed and was replaced by Porsche at about 10,000 miles, does that make the GT2 a similarly crap car - no of course it doesn't.

At least on most UK forums the owners of one Marque of car can respect other cars and enjoy them, the US forums seem different where in order to like one Marque you must hate every other, I guess it comes from their geopolitical outlook on the world............

[Steve Rance]

Housey said:

Nissan used special gunpowder, it's been proved though it was never used for marketing.











What's viral marketing then..........oh right, its not REAL its just, well, stuff on the internet...

I knew it!!

[Guibo]

Danger_Mouse said:

Thats the worst argument of this thread so far.
Are you they were only making mistakes because of the cars? Try good old Jim going the wrong way on a stage, was that the fault of the car too?
The GT2 and Lambo were miles quicker in the stages they successfully finished.
It's an achievement for the driver but certainly not the car that was a lot slower than the GT2/Lambo.

What do you consider "miles quicker?" How many stages were there where Jim went the wrong way, and which ones were they? And if you're going to be completely fair, you might consider that the newbie to the GT-R also made mistakes that would lead to your conclusion. Pretty amazing that in a rally with 31 stages, it's always the Lambo or GT2 that takes the wrong turn.
Even if you arbitrarily throw out the result where the GT-R was 39 seconds faster than the SL, it would finish with a 1 hour 39 min 11 second total time. The Lambo would have finished in 1hr 38min 53s. A difference of 18 seconds after 5,933 seconds of competition sounds like miles ahead?



OK, so the cars don't matter. Poor Jim, he could have won this event in a clapped-out 912 on all-season tires. With the money he saved, he could have gotten a top-notch navigator, maybe a new hearing aide and bifocals in his rapidly decaying state.

[kVA]

Guibo said:

Danger_Mouse said:

Thats the worst argument of this thread so far.
Are you they were only making mistakes because of the cars? Try good old Jim going the wrong way on a stage, was that the fault of the car too?
The GT2 and Lambo were miles quicker in the stages they successfully finished.
It's an achievement for the driver but certainly not the car that was a lot slower than the GT2/Lambo.

What do you consider "miles quicker?" How many stages were there where Jim went the wrong way, and which ones were they? And if you're going to be completely fair, you might consider that the newbie to the GT-R also made mistakes that would lead to your conclusion. Pretty amazing that in a rally with 31 stages, it's always the Lambo or GT2 that takes the wrong turn.
Even if you arbitrarily throw out the result where the GT-R was 39 seconds faster than the SL, it would finish with a 1 hour 39 min 11 second total time. The Lambo would have finished in 1hr 38min 53s. A difference of 18 seconds after 5,933 seconds of competition sounds like miles ahead?

Are we sure we are talking about a RALLY here? GT2s, Lambos, and SLs... Sounds more like the Cannonball run to me

Sorry, but none of those cars are suited to rallying and should be beaten by a Scooby, Evo, or GT-R with any self-respecting driver behind the wheel. Even on tarmac. I remember Walter Rohrl having a go on the Manx Rally once in a 911: It had a considerably higher power to weight ratio than the Group A cars of the time, and arguably the most accomplished driver entered. However, after frightening himself silly on the narrow twisty roads (by his own admission), he came nowhere... Didn't even win a single stage. Some cars are suited to rallying, some aren't...

Sounds like this Tassie 'race' is used by some Gentlemen racers to blow the cobwebs off their race cars out of season

[Guibo]

It's not Rohrl driving a Group B Audi Quattro, but I'd say it's a lot closer to that than Burt Reynolds in a Trans Am.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aAZ4sFaV6wg

Yes, that's 1700+ kg's of machinery hurtling through the countryside on stock OEM tires...

[kVA]

Just as I thought... not rallying as we know it! A whole stage covered in less than 3 minutes - WTF!

As for the GT-R winning the stage, the other competitors must have been REALLY slow... I only saw one tiny bit of opposite lock on just one corner and WTF was all that see-sawing at the wheel about? Has the GT-R got really awful steering or something? Or is the guy just a crap driver?

I'm sorry, but those clips (I found another two of the same car) say more about the event, and the standard of entry, than they do about any of the cars in it. I reckon I could drive quicker in a showroom spec ST-i or an Evo. Any of the European rally stars would have p!ssed all over those times.

I think the GT-R fans should forget the Targa Tasmania and get back on topic... Did Nissan cheat at the 'Ring?

[Guibo]

kVA said:

Just as I thought... not rallying as we know it! A whole stage covered in less than 3 minutes - WTF!

As for the GT-R winning the stage, the other competitors must have been REALLY slow... I only saw one tiny bit of opposite lock on just one corner and WTF was all that see-sawing at the wheel about? Has the GT-R got really awful steering or something? Or is the guy just a crap driver?

I'm sorry, but those clips (I found another two of the same car) say more about the event, and the standard of entry, than they do about any of the cars in it. I reckon I could drive quicker in a showroom spec ST-i or an Evo. Any of the European rally stars would have p!ssed all over those times.

I think the GT-R fans should forget the Targa Tasmania and get back on topic... Did Nissan cheat at the 'Ring?

The guy may not be a crap driver, but he is new to that car. I counted 2 moments of opposite lock, but that course is pretty narrow and the GT-R's AWD tends to react pretty quickly, so long moments of oversteer are hard to come by. In other videos, where it's more open, you can see the driver purposefully invoking oversteer and opposite lock. In any event, based on known cornering speeds of the GT-R vs the GT2 in other tests, if the GT-R is being driven that hard to the ragged edge, you can't assume the other cars are going "REALLY slow"; possibly quite the contrary, as the speed at which a GT-R gets out of shape should be pretty damn high.
Wow, you can surmise that you would outdrive these guys based on the video? How would you know unless you have experience with that course? The steering of the GT-R is actually quite good, based on all available information. With a more track-oriented alignment and obviously rural roads that may not see the highest degree of maintenance, you'd expect some see-sawing at the wheel wouldn't you?
There are 31 of these stages, as many as 10 stages a day, with some lasting for 8-9 minutes. It's not a WRC course (no one ever said it was). But even you'll have to agree it's nothing like the Cannonball that you alluded to earlier. Even a full-out sprint for 3 minutes is not too unlike most magazine road course tests, right? Most are barely half that...

[Danger_Mouse]

Guibo said:

kVA said:

Just as I thought... not rallying as we know it! A whole stage covered in less than 3 minutes - WTF!

As for the GT-R winning the stage, the other competitors must have been REALLY slow... I only saw one tiny bit of opposite lock on just one corner and WTF was all that see-sawing at the wheel about? Has the GT-R got really awful steering or something? Or is the guy just a crap driver?

I'm sorry, but those clips (I found another two of the same car) say more about the event, and the standard of entry, than they do about any of the cars in it. I reckon I could drive quicker in a showroom spec ST-i or an Evo. Any of the European rally stars would have p!ssed all over those times.

I think the GT-R fans should forget the Targa Tasmania and get back on topic... Did Nissan cheat at the 'Ring?

The guy may not be a crap driver, but he is new to that car. I counted 2 moments of opposite lock, but that course is pretty narrow and the GT-R's AWD tends to react pretty quickly, so long moments of oversteer are hard to come by. In other videos, where it's more open, you can see the driver purposefully invoking oversteer and opposite lock. In any event, based on known cornering speeds of the GT-R vs the GT2 in other tests, if the GT-R is being driven that hard to the ragged edge, you can't assume the other cars are going "REALLY slow"; possibly quite the contrary, as the speed at which a GT-R gets out of shape should be pretty damn high.
Wow, you can surmise that you would outdrive these guys based on the video? How would you know unless you have experience with that course? The steering of the GT-R is actually quite good, based on all available information. With a more track-oriented alignment and obviously rural roads that may not see the highest degree of maintenance, you'd expect some see-sawing at the wheel wouldn't you?
There are 31 of these stages, as many as 10 stages a day, with some lasting for 8-9 minutes. It's not a WRC course (no one ever said it was). But even you'll have to agree it's nothing like the Cannonball that you alluded to earlier. Even a full-out sprint for 3 minutes is not too unlike most magazine road course tests, right? Most are barely half that...

This whole rally argument is plainly ridiculous.

The GT2 and Lambo both made serious mistakes which cost them the win. The Lambo was clearly the quickest followed by the GT2 and then the GTR however as in racing things don't always go to plan and mistakes are made thats what racing is about. Claiming some victory for the GTR just makes you look silly when the Lambo and GT2 were putting in much quicker times in the stages they didn't cock up on. Jim is a good driver but was obviously not having a good time of it on that particular event.

Your argument makes no sense whatsoever, this clearly wasn't about the ability of any of the cars. If it was the race would have finished 1. Lambo 2. GT2 and 3. GTR.

[Guibo]

Danger_Mouse said:

The GT2 and Lambo both made serious mistakes which cost them the win. The Lambo was clearly the quickest followed by the GT2 and then the GTR however as in racing things don't always go to plan and mistakes are made thats what racing is about. Claiming some victory for the GTR just makes you look silly when the Lambo and GT2 were putting in much quicker times in the stages they didn't cock up on.

Which stages exactly are you talking about? How much is "much quicker"? I asked you for this information before. I did not ask for you to repeat the statements.

[Danger_Mouse]

Guibo said:

Danger_Mouse said:

The GT2 and Lambo both made serious mistakes which cost them the win. The Lambo was clearly the quickest followed by the GT2 and then the GTR however as in racing things don't always go to plan and mistakes are made thats what racing is about. Claiming some victory for the GTR just makes you look silly when the Lambo and GT2 were putting in much quicker times in the stages they didn't cock up on.

Which stages exactly are you talking about? How much is "much quicker"? I asked you for this information before. I did not ask for you to repeat the statements.

That's a daft question, go back and have a look at stage times for "much quicker"

Clearly the Lambo was capable of the quickest pace followed by the GT2 then GTR. The point we were all making is the victory is a great achievement for the young lad but is no reflection on the cars.

[Housey]

[Guibo]

It's not a daft question. Because there were 6 stages where the GT-R was faster than the Lambo by 4 or more seconds, not including the one where it finished 39 seconds faster. Against the GT2, there were 8 stages where it finished 4 or more seconds faster. Pretty hard to believe the Lambo/GT2 cocked up 6/8 stages while the GT-R wouldn't also cock up by the same amount if not more.

Number of stages where the Lambo beat the GT-R by 4+ seconds: 7
Number of stages where the GT2 beat the GT-R by 4+ seconds: 6
These figures include the one stage where the GT-R was slower than both by 15-21s; surely that counts as a cock-up, no?

Edited by Guibo on Wednesday 24th December 11:04

Edited by Guibo on Wednesday 24th December 11:05

[kVA]

Guibo said:

Wow, you can surmise that you would outdrive these guys based on the video? How would you know unless you have experience with that course? The steering of the GT-R is actually quite good, based on all available information. With a more track-oriented alignment and obviously rural roads that may not see the highest degree of maintenance, you'd expect some see-sawing at the wheel wouldn't you?
There are 31 of these stages, as many as 10 stages a day, with some lasting for 8-9 minutes. It's not a WRC course (no one ever said it was). But even you'll have to agree it's nothing like the Cannonball that you alluded to earlier. Even a full-out sprint for 3 minutes is not too unlike most magazine road course tests, right? Most are barely half that...

Mate, you are talking to an ex-rally driver... That's the thing about Internet forums and pseudonyms... you never know who you are talking to do you?

IMO that guy is just using the acceleration of the car to point and squirt - he's not taking any risks on the corners - the co-driver's head is hardly even moving! Anyone can do that if the car has good enough acceleration.

The GT2 in particular would be taking a lot more risks and presumably the Old guy behind the wheel (who is a race-driver, relatively unused to bumps, potholes, poor road edges, variable grip, etc.) made a few errors and lost some time on one or two stages.

Again... forget the Tasmania thing... you are starting to make a prat of yourself now

[Guibo]

kVA said:

Mate, you are talking to an ex-rally driver... That's the thing about Internet forums and pseudonyms... you never know who you are talking to do you?

IMO that guy is just using the acceleration of the car to point and squirt - he's not taking any risks on the corners - the co-driver's head is hardly even moving! Anyone can do that if the car has good enough acceleration.

The GT2 in particular would be taking a lot more risks and presumably the Old guy behind the wheel (who is a race-driver, relatively unused to bumps, potholes, poor road edges, variable grip, etc.) made a few errors and lost some time on one or two stages.

Again... forget the Tasmania thing... you are starting to make a prat of yourself now

There are videos on youtube of Richard Burns on tarmac and his hands are also see-sawing, and he doesn't throw the car into opposite lock too often either. Of course, you're a better driver than Burns was, eh?
The co-driver's head hardly moves...are you watching the same video I was watching? Seems like not.
Prat? You're the one saying the Targa West was like the Cannonball. That's pretty absurd. But then you'd already made up your mind even before seeing the video. As an "ex-rally driver," you should have known what it's like.

Edited by Guibo on Wednesday 24th December 18:31

[kVA]

Don't know where you're from Guibo, but Targa West never been on my radar 12,000 miles away - obviously not significant enough with its Mickey-Mouse 3 minute stages

Anyway, my point is that these results are completely insignificant in the GT-R vs GT2 debate: There are far too many variables other than the car's performance on this type of event... Rallying in any form is not something the GT2 was ever conceived for, so pointless judging it doing something it was never designed to do - regardless of who is behind the wheel: My Isuzu Trooper will get through most Welsh Forest rally stages much quicker than my 911 (which would probably fall apart in the process) - does that make it a faster car in the context of this debate?

Check the title of this thread again... The discussion WAS about the Ring time, where the drivers are expected to be 'Ring Specialists' such that the car alone is the main variable.

[Guibo]

Targa West is around 8,000 miles away from me. But info about it is only a fingertip away.
Would your Trooper beat your Porsche on the tarmac?
Agreed, this thread is about the GT-R's 'Ring time. But if news of a 600++ hp GT-R breaking its tranny after 100+ launches is fair game in this thread...

[Joecooool]

The Veyron runs the ring in 7:40.

A few weeks ago Top Gear ran the Veyron around their track and it did it in 1:18.3

When Top Gear ran the Nissan GT-R, it went 1.19.7

If the GT-R is slower than the Veyron on a small track, there is no way in hell it will beat the Veyron on a large open track like the ring. If the Veyron is running 7:40, the 7:55 times Porsche and Drivers Republic came up with is the believable number.

How anyone still buys the 7:29 nonsense is beyond me.

[Guyr]

The Veyron has never been timed at the ring.

The 7:40 was an estimate by an Australian magazine called wheels - get your facts right!

[Joecooool]

Guyr said:

The Veyron has never been timed at the ring.

The 7:40 was an estimate by an Australian magazine called wheels - get your facts right!

I've spent half an hour searching for where this was an "estimate" and haven't seen that. In fact, what I did find was that this time was done during a "touring" session and the driver actually passed four cars obtaining the time.

Perhaps you could prove that this is an estimate only?

Several sources most people consider to be accurate for ring times list the number to be factual.

http://www.supercars.net/PitLane?viewThread=y&...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordschleife_fastest_...

http://www.dpccars.com/car-videos/07-25-07page-Bug...