Finally: Some facts on the GT-R's Ring time
Discussion
Panayiotis said:
For a better test just get a group of average GTR owners to drive around the ring and then get agroup of average 911tt owners to do the same, average out their times and compare.
What racing drivers do is one thing, and its great to say that this car is fastest etc etc, but at the end of the day people that are forking out the money probably don't decide on buying either car on how fast it goes around the ring, its just information for fan boys of either sides to argue about on the net.
Well done.
Yes, that's what I eluded to earlier.What racing drivers do is one thing, and its great to say that this car is fastest etc etc, but at the end of the day people that are forking out the money probably don't decide on buying either car on how fast it goes around the ring, its just information for fan boys of either sides to argue about on the net.
Well done.
noumenon said:
My conclusion - both are great cars and more capable than 99.99% of the people that will ever drive them.
Panayiotis said:
For a better test just get a group of average GTR owners to drive around the ring and then get agroup of average 911tt owners to do the same, average out their times and compare.
What racing drivers do is one thing, and its great to say that this car is fastest etc etc, but at the end of the day people that are forking out the money probably don't decide on buying either car on how fast it goes around the ring, its just information for fan boys of either sides to argue about on the net.
Well done.
Part of the argument is to see what the *car* is capable of when driven by a professional driver. The fact that the majority of drivers will not be able to extract that much performance out of the car is not relevant. e.g. take your average kings road driver in a Scud or LP560, etc, etc. The car is capable of far more than they are capable of giving it.What racing drivers do is one thing, and its great to say that this car is fastest etc etc, but at the end of the day people that are forking out the money probably don't decide on buying either car on how fast it goes around the ring, its just information for fan boys of either sides to argue about on the net.
Well done.
I'm not a fanboy of either btw. I just find the whole defensive Porker attitude amusing.
fergus said:
Part of the argument is to see what the *car* is capable of when driven by a professional driver. The fact that the majority of drivers will not be able to extract that much performance out of the car is not relevant. e.g. take your average kings road driver in a Scud or LP560, etc, etc. The car is capable of far more than they are capable of giving it.
I'm not a fanboy of either btw. I just find the whole defensive Porker attitude amusing.
I appreciate that, however my point is that if I had £100k to spend on a car I wouldn't make my buying decision on the fact a racing driver can drive car X around the ring 20 seconds (4%) faster than car Y. I'd drive both and see which one suits me and driving style better. All bets are off when you are handing over your hard earned.I'm not a fanboy of either btw. I just find the whole defensive Porker attitude amusing.
As for the attitude, well the less said about that the better.
Edited by Panayiotis on Wednesday 5th November 14:03
Streetrod said:
I have used this example before but I think it is worth repeating here. The F1 cars of the 80's produced close to 1500hp with their turbo motors and weighed about the same as current F1 cars which only produce about 700hp. If we apply your logic then those F1 cars of the 80's would have produced lap times far in excess of the current cars but they don’t, and why is that? Well it comes down to superior aerodynamics and the ability to carry speed through the corners which is a combination of superior suspension and aero. And this is what the GT-R brings to the party, the ability to carry speed into the corners and manage its aero performance.
Hopefully this puts that argument to bed
I agree with what you're saying but the 1500bhp figure were only probably used in qualifying as back then they often used a different engine for qualifying or turned the boost up (and most circuits have changed since then so difficult to compare - checkout a mid 80s Silverstone lap record - avg speed 160mph(!) - they probably raced with not more than 1000bhp mainly for fuel consumption though. However all this power was very very peaky too and with a "normal" gearbox which can give away seconds on a lap, so probably not as useable as a modern 800bhp n/a engine with a fraction-of-a-second gearchange [plus the advance in tyres/chassis/aerodynamics as you said].Hopefully this puts that argument to bed
The problem with this argument is I think the GT2 has a better power to weight and better aero! it could be down to traction round/out of corners perhaps.
Edited by c_w on Wednesday 5th November 14:32
Dr S said:
only people could believe who like to ignore some basic laws of physics
There you go the Gtr can defy the Laws of Physics that's why it is Faster.
II. The relationship between an object's mass m, its acceleration a, and the applied force F is F = ma. Acceleration and force are vectors, in this law the direction of the force vector is the same as the direction of the acceleration vector.
This is the most powerful of Newton's three Laws, because it allows quantitative calculations of dynamics: how do velocities change when forces are applied. Notice the fundamental difference between Newton's 2nd Law and the dynamics of Aristotle: according to Newton, a force causes only a change in velocity (an acceleration); it does not maintain the velocity as Aristotle held
Edited by mgv8dave on Wednesday 5th November 14:50
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.
Edited by Pugsey on Wednesday 5th November 09:19
Trommel said:
Yawn.
If the car was stripped-out, why does it have a full interior on the video?
Photoshop.If the car was stripped-out, why does it have a full interior on the video?
Trommel said:
Who measured the octane of the fuel?
He could smell the difference.Trommel said:
Who checked underneath to see if it the cats were removed?
Specially trained dogs.Trommel said:
Why doesn't the one in the video sound any different to the standard ones I drove?
C'etait un Rendezvous.hth
flemke said:
Pugsey said:
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.
In the next couple of days I'll be seeing someone who will have a very good idea of how fast Rohrl (now 61) is these days. I shall try to remember to ask his opinion, and then report back.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.
c_w said:
Streetrod said:
I have used this example before but I think it is worth repeating here. The F1 cars of the 80's produced close to 1500hp with their turbo motors and weighed about the same as current F1 cars which only produce about 700hp. If we apply your logic then those F1 cars of the 80's would have produced lap times far in excess of the current cars but they don’t, and why is that? Well it comes down to superior aerodynamics and the ability to carry speed through the corners which is a combination of superior suspension and aero. And this is what the GT-R brings to the party, the ability to carry speed into the corners and manage its aero performance.
Hopefully this puts that argument to bed
I agree with what you're saying but the 1500bhp figure were only probably used in qualifying as back then they often used a different engine for qualifying or turned the boost up (and most circuits have changed since then so difficult to compare - checkout a mid 80s Silverstone lap record - avg speed 160mph(!) - they probably raced with not more than 1000bhp mainly for fuel consumption though. However all this power was very very peaky too and with a "normal" gearbox which can give away seconds on a lap, so probably not as useable as a modern 800bhp n/a engine with a fraction-of-a-second gearchange [plus the advance in tyres/chassis/aerodynamics as you said].Hopefully this puts that argument to bed
The problem with this argument is I think the GT2 has a better power to weight and better aero! it could be down to traction round/out of corners perhaps.
Edited by c_w on Wednesday 5th November 14:32
As for the aero the facts are that the GT-R has a Cd of 0.27 and produces positive downforce and the GT2 has a Cd of 0.32 and also produces positive downforce. So it might not look like it but the GT-R is the more aerodynamic car. And this is another reason why the GT-R does not need as much power as the Porsche to go the same speed.
Streetrod said:
Also, as has been shown by various independent Dyno tests the GT-R's produces more than the quoted 480hp, and you would expect that to be the case with a hand built engine.
Could somebody explain this to me please.Why would you expect a hand built engine to produce more than quoted
I keep hearing this over and over and just don't get it. Blueprinted I understand but not hand built. But even then why not quote what it produces Also what exactly do they mean by hand built in this case anyway. I am sure there is not one engine out there that isnt put together in some way by a human.
Edited by Pesty on Wednesday 5th November 17:36
Pesty said:
Streetrod said:
Also, as has been shown by various independent Dyno tests the GT-R's produces more than the quoted 480hp, and you would expect that to be the case with a hand built engine.
Could somebody explain this to me please.Why would you expect a hand built engine to produce more than quoted
I keep hearing this over and over and just don't get it. Blueprinted I understand but not hand built. But even then why not quote what it produces Also what exactly do they mean by hand built in this case anyway. I am sure there is not one engine out there that isnt put together in some way by a human.
Edited by Pesty on Wednesday 5th November 17:36
Streetrod said:
c_w said:
Streetrod said:
I have used this example before but I think it is worth repeating here. The F1 cars of the 80's produced close to 1500hp with their turbo motors and weighed about the same as current F1 cars which only produce about 700hp. If we apply your logic then those F1 cars of the 80's would have produced lap times far in excess of the current cars but they don’t, and why is that? Well it comes down to superior aerodynamics and the ability to carry speed through the corners which is a combination of superior suspension and aero. And this is what the GT-R brings to the party, the ability to carry speed into the corners and manage its aero performance.
Hopefully this puts that argument to bed
I agree with what you're saying but the 1500bhp figure were only probably used in qualifying as back then they often used a different engine for qualifying or turned the boost up (and most circuits have changed since then so difficult to compare - checkout a mid 80s Silverstone lap record - avg speed 160mph(!) - they probably raced with not more than 1000bhp mainly for fuel consumption though. However all this power was very very peaky too and with a "normal" gearbox which can give away seconds on a lap, so probably not as useable as a modern 800bhp n/a engine with a fraction-of-a-second gearchange [plus the advance in tyres/chassis/aerodynamics as you said].Hopefully this puts that argument to bed
The problem with this argument is I think the GT2 has a better power to weight and better aero! it could be down to traction round/out of corners perhaps.
Edited by c_w on Wednesday 5th November 14:32
As for the aero the facts are that the GT-R has a Cd of 0.27 and produces positive downforce and the GT2 has a Cd of 0.32 and also produces positive downforce. So it might not look like it but the GT-R is the more aerodynamic car. And this is another reason why the GT-R does not need as much power as the Porsche to go the same speed.
Ok I did asume that could be a reason but then that justs gives more questions
1)how much variation, 5-10-20 bhp?
2)if hand built means variation then build the f
kers by robot and dont have any 
3)if they expect variatins surley they have tolerances for this and an engine that low or even high would be rejected
nope Im not buying that as a reason surely every engine in any car has variations don't they do the same and quote lower as well? would have to be a very very big variations to be noticable.
Perhaps I am being a bit thick here but I'm having a mental block over it
1)how much variation, 5-10-20 bhp?
2)if hand built means variation then build the f
kers by robot and dont have any 3)if they expect variatins surley they have tolerances for this and an engine that low or even high would be rejected
nope Im not buying that as a reason surely every engine in any car has variations don't they do the same and quote lower as well? would have to be a very very big variations to be noticable.
Perhaps I am being a bit thick here but I'm having a mental block over it
Pesty said:
Streetrod said:
Also, as has been shown by various independent Dyno tests the GT-R's produces more than the quoted 480hp, and you would expect that to be the case with a hand built engine.
Could somebody explain this to me please.Why would you expect a hand built engine to produce more than quoted
I keep hearing this over and over and just don't get it. Blueprinted I understand but not hand built. But even then why not quote what it produces Also what exactly do they mean by hand built in this case anyway. I am sure there is not one engine out there that isnt put together in some way by a human.
Edited by Pesty on Wednesday 5th November 17:36
As to what I mean by hand built, The GT-R's engines are literally built by a small team of engineers, by hand, using hand tools. And each engine has a plaque with the builders name on it stuck on the engine, a bit like Aston Martins. They are not constructed on a production line using robots like most engines.
And just to prove the point check out these articalson the GT-R's dyno runs, the first two from the USA and the third from the UK
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupes/112_080...
http://www.motorauthority.com/nissan-gt-r-dyno-475...
http://www.maxpower.co.uk/article.asp?asset=5761
Weds or Fri engine anyone....
Couldnt that be easily explained away as differences is the dyno's,atmospheric conditions and calculations rather than the individual engines? I mean unles all three cars were tested on the same dyno in the same conditions surley that is meaninless?
If some are producing over 500 and some the quoted 475 Im sure the japs would want to know why. There would be a million black belt 5s projects on it
If some are producing over 500 and some the quoted 475 Im sure the japs would want to know why. There would be a million black belt 5s projects on it
Edited by Pesty on Wednesday 5th November 18:08
Pesty said:
Couldnt that be easily explained away as differences is the dyno's,atmospheric conditions and calculations rather than the individual engines? I mean unles all three cars were tested on the same dyno in the same conditions surley that is meaninless?
If some are producing over 500 and some the quoted 475 Im sure the japs would want to know why. There would be a million black belt 5s projects on it
You are right, individual dynos will give slightly different reading, but you can see a trend here. Also I have another test where 3 production GT-R's were tested on the same dyno and again produced numbers higher than was expected but none were the same.If some are producing over 500 and some the quoted 475 Im sure the japs would want to know why. There would be a million black belt 5s projects on it
Edited by Pesty on Wednesday 5th November 18:08
Gassing Station | Porsche General | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff