997 TT beats GT-R at Ring. Nissan accused of cheating.
#631
10-11-2008, 01:31 PM
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: ga
Posts: 8,934
Rep Power: 551 
Kilodawg, I believe you have a good point. I think Porsche engineers know a thing or two about cars. It's Porsche engineers who have won Daytona more times than any other make, it's Porsche engineers who have won Le Mans more than any other make, it's Porsche engineers who have won Sebring more than any other make, it's Porsche enginners who designed and built the 956/962 which is the most successful racing prototype ever, It's Porsche engineers who built the 917/30 which was so successful it killed the CanAm, it's Porsche engineers who designed and built the 917/30 that ran the 221 mph lap at Talladega that set the world closed track record that stood for over a decade, It's Porsche engineers who give us the Porsche RS Spyder which not only has cleaned up in ALMS LMP2 for the last 3 years and, until they made it heavier could run neck and neck and defeat the LMP1 cars... I just got tired of typing " It's Porsche engineers", so I'll just type: that gave us the TAG Porsche motor that won the Formula 1 world championship three years in a row during the 1980's, that gave us the twin clutch transmission, the 959, that gave us the uber successful 935 that could actually turn laps faster than Formula 1 cars of the time, that built a hybrid car more than 100 years ago, and it was a Porsche engineer (old Ferdinand himself) who was voted the greatest automotive engineer of the 20th century. So yes, I agree with you, I'd have no trouble accepting the word of a Porsche engineer.
Pretty strong words there. Not to mention they've taken a classic design rear engine car and dominated ALMS for 7 of 9 years beating the "ideal" mid/front engine setups from the likes of Ferrari, won multiple FIA championships and sell the most race cars out of anyone worlwide, most of which are in the form of the old design (911).
So yeah, I would think Porsche engineers have to have a lot of knowledge and responsibility. Just the fact that he lapped in anything that close to a former F1 driver says that knowledge isnt his only skill.
While Nissan on the other hand, have continuously been caught lying:
7:59 ring time for R33 (unmatched by all the people who tried, and what do you know, questionable acceleration, but since no one has officially proven they lied, they thought they could get away with it again).
10.0 1/4 mile for Nismo R34 Nissan waits until the unveiling of the R35 to claim that they didnt have anything to do with the claim, but the claim came from Nismo, which is a owned and a by-product of Nissan
Sorry, video or no video, I'll take Porsches word over Nissan's video all day. Especially when the video shows the same tricks they've always been up to, cheating and lying.
I do think the GT-R is faster than what the guy ran, he could have been on the slower bridgestones though, while the other cars were on Dunlops, so while we are talking about feasibility, how about we start there, him getting so close on the tires that are claimed to be 3 seconds slower on normal circuits, could put the car mid to high 7:40's, so he may not have been sandbagging afterall.
But he'd have no way of getting a preproduction ringer GT-R capable of ZR-1 speeds on the straights, so there is no way he could be in the realm of the Nissan guys.
#632
10-11-2008, 01:40 PM
Reading comprehension > you.
Go look at my post, see why I continue to post. I said I don't care about the outcome of the battle personally speaking. But am still interested to know what it is no matter what it is. I wont lose any sleep in either any case, curiosity is good enough for me.
Secondly, I post rarely to point out logical fallacies in arguments no matter who makes them, the most recent being P-car owners claiming "magazine racing" when 99% of them are guilty of it themselves. HC fired back, so I replied, I have always credited HC with his knowledge, but he isn't bulletproof and since none of you notice where that is, I point it out, it's nothing personal. In fact I credit him for changing my perspective on the matter a great deal. Doesn't mean I'm going to come onto the board to verbally pleasure him with how great I think he is.
Ultimately my point was you don't have to have to have driven every car to talk about them, but if you are going to call people out for it and claim magazine racing/PS3 racing, be prepared to have it thrown back in your face. If you continue to use that argument, I will continue to ask how many laps you have had in a GTR...
Finally, since many owners contribute little to the discussion other than waiting for HC to make a point and then quoting him with a
attached, I called that out as well by telling them to stop brown nosing HC...sorry if it offended you.Good try though...
#633
10-11-2008, 02:01 PM
I can't explain the CGT scenario. I can, however, explain and prove the situation of a GT-R beating a 610HP Stage IV 997TT down the main straight. Please to examine the graph below. Green = GT-R (stock), Blue = 997TT with (at the time) 610HP (per tuner-- don't ask me for dyno). Note a couple of things. I get on the gas coming around Turn 14/15 at Thill sooner in GT-R than in TT. Not slope in blue line. Slope=acceleration. Note that blue slope > green slope (997TT has faster in-gear acceleration through 5th gear when stock turbos run out of breath). Note the steps in blue line where I am shifting. See how accel falls to zero until I get back in gear and boost builds? Note no such pause in green line. Magic.
That's your answer. #1, it's the dual clutch tranny. #2, for non-pro drivers, it's easier to get on the gas sooner with GT-R.
I also think it's shocking to see claims that GT-R is faster than cars like the Scud, CGT, etc. I agree that it makes no sense on paper. But I have real GPS data from me in real cars that help to begin to explain.
Look how much speed/time is lost to shifting. How many times do drivers shift on the Ring? 50 times? That adds up. How much faster does Porsche claim the PDK C2S is around the ring (or if normal track mulitply diff by 4).
#634
10-11-2008, 02:15 PM
Chris,
I hope you realize from my posts, I don't make things up even as I enjoy teasing about the GT-R so much. It's not about making up, it's about twisting things to an unreasonable extent.
Let's not beat around the bush about that VDC, despite of the rationalization and reassurance, bottom line is this: VDC on means the warranty is voided. See above. Your statement is false. Warranty is not VOIDED. Claims can be denied for damage done due to VDC being off (including doing LCs).
[a]ny intelligent shopper must be out of his mind to buy this car at this time. (I have this feeling you would not have bought yours had you known. You are too intelligent to do that.) At the risk of revealing myself as unintelligent, I would buy mine again today. E60 M5 had just as many teething pains and ended up being a great car. People don't buy these cars as investments, but rather to enjoy them. That's my plan. Bet you a beer that resale value on a GT-R bought today will lose less (as %) in next year than a TT Coupe bought today.
Am I the only one seeing the problem here?! Why oh why am I the only one seeing the big problem here?
When very few people see something and are confused that the crowd cannot see it, there is always the possibility that it is not there.
I hope you realize from my posts, I don't make things up even as I enjoy teasing about the GT-R so much. It's not about making up, it's about twisting things to an unreasonable extent.
Let's not beat around the bush about that VDC, despite of the rationalization and reassurance, bottom line is this: VDC on means the warranty is voided. See above. Your statement is false. Warranty is not VOIDED. Claims can be denied for damage done due to VDC being off (including doing LCs).
[a]ny intelligent shopper must be out of his mind to buy this car at this time. (I have this feeling you would not have bought yours had you known. You are too intelligent to do that.) At the risk of revealing myself as unintelligent, I would buy mine again today. E60 M5 had just as many teething pains and ended up being a great car. People don't buy these cars as investments, but rather to enjoy them. That's my plan. Bet you a beer that resale value on a GT-R bought today will lose less (as %) in next year than a TT Coupe bought today.
Am I the only one seeing the problem here?! Why oh why am I the only one seeing the big problem here?
When very few people see something and are confused that the crowd cannot see it, there is always the possibility that it is not there.
#635
10-11-2008, 03:16 PM
I agree that you are taking a risk. I disagree that VDC will not void warranty; it is in black and white. Which part of "driving with VDC off" doesn't make sense to you please?
#636
10-11-2008, 04:30 PM
Can:
That is a summary. The full text makes clear that the warranty is not "Void" but rather specific damage may be excluded if traced to that behavior.
Guys: every manufacturer excludes racing and abuse from warranty. Get a grip. The rubber will hit the road only after we have SEVERAL data points as to when claims are denied or granted. I had to fight with PNA to cover a defect in a PCCB rotor. Not fun.
BTW, Nissan also agrees with my read of the document:
http://wot.motortrend.com/6296554/au...ers/index.html
[Quote from link pasted below]
To get the word straight from the horse's mouth, we turned to our source at Nissan who summed up the situation: "Switching VDC off doesn't void the warranty nor does running the Launch Control on the car. However, if someone switches off VDC, enables Launch Control, and then breaks something while doing this, we wouldn't pay (under warranty) for the specific parts that break during this action."
That is a summary. The full text makes clear that the warranty is not "Void" but rather specific damage may be excluded if traced to that behavior.
Guys: every manufacturer excludes racing and abuse from warranty. Get a grip. The rubber will hit the road only after we have SEVERAL data points as to when claims are denied or granted. I had to fight with PNA to cover a defect in a PCCB rotor. Not fun.
BTW, Nissan also agrees with my read of the document:
http://wot.motortrend.com/6296554/au...ers/index.html
[Quote from link pasted below]
To get the word straight from the horse's mouth, we turned to our source at Nissan who summed up the situation: "Switching VDC off doesn't void the warranty nor does running the Launch Control on the car. However, if someone switches off VDC, enables Launch Control, and then breaks something while doing this, we wouldn't pay (under warranty) for the specific parts that break during this action."
#637
10-11-2008, 04:50 PM
Can:
That is a summary. The full text makes clear that the warranty is not "Void" but rather specific damage may be excluded if traced to that behavior.
Guys: every manufacturer excludes racing and abuse from warranty. Get a grip. The rubber will hit the road only after we have SEVERAL data points as to when claims are denied or granted. I had to fight with PNA to cover a defect in a PCCB rotor. Not fun.
BTW, Nissan also agrees with my read of the document:
http://wot.motortrend.com/6296554/au...ers/index.html
[Quote from link pasted below]
To get the word straight from the horse's mouth, we turned to our source at Nissan who summed up the situation: "Switching VDC off doesn't void the warranty nor does running the Launch Control on the car. However, if someone switches off VDC, enables Launch Control, and then breaks something while doing this, we wouldn't pay (under warranty) for the specific parts that break during this action."
That is a summary. The full text makes clear that the warranty is not "Void" but rather specific damage may be excluded if traced to that behavior.
Guys: every manufacturer excludes racing and abuse from warranty. Get a grip. The rubber will hit the road only after we have SEVERAL data points as to when claims are denied or granted. I had to fight with PNA to cover a defect in a PCCB rotor. Not fun.
BTW, Nissan also agrees with my read of the document:
http://wot.motortrend.com/6296554/au...ers/index.html
[Quote from link pasted below]
To get the word straight from the horse's mouth, we turned to our source at Nissan who summed up the situation: "Switching VDC off doesn't void the warranty nor does running the Launch Control on the car. However, if someone switches off VDC, enables Launch Control, and then breaks something while doing this, we wouldn't pay (under warranty) for the specific parts that break during this action."
If this is true, Chris, why are there multiple complaints from GT-R owners popping up on various forums about transmission damage and lack of warranty coverage? Are these just isolated cases being sensationalized on the forums or real issues?
Last edited by bbywu; 10-11-2008 at 06:18 PM.
#638
10-11-2008, 07:33 PM
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: ga
Posts: 8,934
Rep Power: 551
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">
There is your repsonse, and while you're still trying to make personal arguements, I'll still be having fun, and informing the TT sections of the nuances of this car that Nissan aimed at the Porsche Turbo and missed.
Originally Posted by StradaONE8
I agree and fully support a independent fully verified test so we can see who is lying and what is true so this can be set to rest once and for all so people can go back to doing whatever they want, oh wait they already will, regardless of how much you ***** and moan.
That being said, you always use the "magazine racer" argument to discredit anyone arguing against you. But you ARE NOT any different than them, you simply choose to ignore it in respect to yourself.
Point is, if you're going to make the argument about others not having driven a GTR, then expect to be called out on that point yourself.
I've seen NASA nationals quality drivers in the GT-R, and been on track with them, so I'm not quite as all mag racer as you've misjudged me to be. Of course, my car is not stock and I never saw the GT-R once I got on track, but I've had my same car up against GT3's and it took a lot more effort to leave them than it did that GT-R. Have you been on track with any of the aforementioned cars ever??? I've been on track with almost all of them, and have a lot of track time to draw my conclusions from. From pro's, to good DE drivers, to former pros, to international 24 hours of Nurburgring drivers, and have very few point by's to my name.
How about you???
I shy away from the mag times as much as possible, but until we have some more direct comparisons, same day same driver, no media, with a ADVANCED driver, I keep much of that to myself, because it's still not all that accurate and I have more pride than to take any pride in it.
I don't care who you are, I am in no way intimidated by your presence, and since others don't care to point out/notice the glaring logically fallacies in your arguments, I do.
I havent told you who I am, so why would you care? Sounds a bit insecure to me....... Fallacies? Interesting, I havent seen you show any such thing. Yet you being here and claiming to be neutral is a fallacy in and of itself. And better yet to claim to be a bigger Porsche fan than Nissan.
BWHAHAHAHAHAHAH, lets do a poll and see what the real Porsche enthusiasts think.
And again, I'm not enforcing a stop discussion, I've said many times I love to discuss cars. I merely point out how moot the point is until the independent head to head occurs and how silly the bickering is.
Also, if you happen to not know the definition of moot, it's an argument that is purely academic with little practical value or meaning.
I'm sorry if my take on what apparently is your life's crusade to defend Porsche/discredit Nissan offends you because I think it's petty and pointless.
I'm glad you have all day to argue on the internet with anonymous people and think that it actually matters in the least, I'm still going to make fun of you for it when I find time.
The bickering is part of what makes forum life fun, and you seem to be able to justify and sugarcoat your roid rage rants once someone points them out. I'm just giving the 997 TT section a chance to vent their frustrations based on some good humor at Nissan's expense. Not a life crusade, just a hobby. When I see you jumping on NAGTROC and bashing them for the exact same thing, I'll listen. Until then your words are meaningless to me.
But like I always say, until you can balance out your arguement, which is clearly one sided (and on foreign turf no less), and show yourself a reputable member of this forum, your demands and ctiticisms wont gain much ground.
Umm, my argument is that there isn't a good one until things are verified. You can pull up facts that favor Porsche others can do so for Nissan. I understand why you are skeptical and I'm saying until someone dispels that, all you are doing is have a slap fight with GTR fans. It isn't as productive nor as meaningful as you convince yourself it is.
It's productive in that it keeps the GT-R post count outside of the GT-R section down, check this section now. Two weeks ago before this thread came about, there were 5 GT-R threads in the first 7 topics. Now there is one in the first few pages. Goal accomplished.
And for the final time, I'm on 6speed for other reasons than this and I don't care how reputable a bunch of people I've never met think I am. Their opinon of me has little relevance to my life.
And anyways, I am a bigger Porsche fan than a Nissan one when considering each manufacturer anyways. Just because I have a G35 doesn't mean I care about the company.
In the battle between the 997TT vs GTR, I DONT CARE either way, I'd like to know the result, but I could give a rats *** the outcome.
Capital B Capital S you are full of it and you jump in here with your GT-R rants bashing all the guys who favor Porsche on a Porsche forum. Go figure. You couldnt sell that lie to the fanboys that Nissan has duped.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
That being said, you always use the "magazine racer" argument to discredit anyone arguing against you. But you ARE NOT any different than them, you simply choose to ignore it in respect to yourself.
Point is, if you're going to make the argument about others not having driven a GTR, then expect to be called out on that point yourself.
I've seen NASA nationals quality drivers in the GT-R, and been on track with them, so I'm not quite as all mag racer as you've misjudged me to be. Of course, my car is not stock and I never saw the GT-R once I got on track, but I've had my same car up against GT3's and it took a lot more effort to leave them than it did that GT-R. Have you been on track with any of the aforementioned cars ever??? I've been on track with almost all of them, and have a lot of track time to draw my conclusions from. From pro's, to good DE drivers, to former pros, to international 24 hours of Nurburgring drivers, and have very few point by's to my name.
How about you???
I shy away from the mag times as much as possible, but until we have some more direct comparisons, same day same driver, no media, with a ADVANCED driver, I keep much of that to myself, because it's still not all that accurate and I have more pride than to take any pride in it.
I don't care who you are, I am in no way intimidated by your presence, and since others don't care to point out/notice the glaring logically fallacies in your arguments, I do.
I havent told you who I am, so why would you care? Sounds a bit insecure to me....... Fallacies? Interesting, I havent seen you show any such thing. Yet you being here and claiming to be neutral is a fallacy in and of itself. And better yet to claim to be a bigger Porsche fan than Nissan.
BWHAHAHAHAHAHAH, lets do a poll and see what the real Porsche enthusiasts think.
And again, I'm not enforcing a stop discussion, I've said many times I love to discuss cars. I merely point out how moot the point is until the independent head to head occurs and how silly the bickering is.
Also, if you happen to not know the definition of moot, it's an argument that is purely academic with little practical value or meaning.
I'm sorry if my take on what apparently is your life's crusade to defend Porsche/discredit Nissan offends you because I think it's petty and pointless.
I'm glad you have all day to argue on the internet with anonymous people and think that it actually matters in the least, I'm still going to make fun of you for it when I find time.
The bickering is part of what makes forum life fun, and you seem to be able to justify and sugarcoat your roid rage rants once someone points them out. I'm just giving the 997 TT section a chance to vent their frustrations based on some good humor at Nissan's expense. Not a life crusade, just a hobby. When I see you jumping on NAGTROC and bashing them for the exact same thing, I'll listen. Until then your words are meaningless to me.
But like I always say, until you can balance out your arguement, which is clearly one sided (and on foreign turf no less), and show yourself a reputable member of this forum, your demands and ctiticisms wont gain much ground.
Umm, my argument is that there isn't a good one until things are verified. You can pull up facts that favor Porsche others can do so for Nissan. I understand why you are skeptical and I'm saying until someone dispels that, all you are doing is have a slap fight with GTR fans. It isn't as productive nor as meaningful as you convince yourself it is.
It's productive in that it keeps the GT-R post count outside of the GT-R section down, check this section now. Two weeks ago before this thread came about, there were 5 GT-R threads in the first 7 topics. Now there is one in the first few pages. Goal accomplished.
And for the final time, I'm on 6speed for other reasons than this and I don't care how reputable a bunch of people I've never met think I am. Their opinon of me has little relevance to my life.
And anyways, I am a bigger Porsche fan than a Nissan one when considering each manufacturer anyways. Just because I have a G35 doesn't mean I care about the company.
In the battle between the 997TT vs GTR, I DONT CARE either way, I'd like to know the result, but I could give a rats *** the outcome.
Capital B Capital S you are full of it and you jump in here with your GT-R rants bashing all the guys who favor Porsche on a Porsche forum. Go figure. You couldnt sell that lie to the fanboys that Nissan has duped.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
#639
10-11-2008, 07:41 PM
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: ga
Posts: 8,934
Rep Power: 551 Because it's not true, the guy that is the big topic of discussion said his tranny broke two weeks after his last use of LC and Nissan voided his.
So obviously it didnt break while he was using it. More lies from Nissan. And it seems there are several more people in his shoes. Most of the tranny failures I've seen havent happened during the actualy LC process, but failed after it.
#641
10-11-2008, 08:07 PM
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: ga
Posts: 8,934
Rep Power: 551
jaeS4: This is from a Nissan Test Driver and member of NNA.
<!--coloro:#f4a460--><!--/coloro--><!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
WHAT ARE THE LIMITATIONS OF THE ENGINE AND TRANSMISSION?
<!--coloro:#f4a460--><!--/coloro-->The engine can apparently take 650 HP conservatively and 700 HP with less of a safety buffer with no alteration to the bottom end.
The transmission, specifically clutches are limited to ~ 600 HP without some strengthening when looking at the base GT-R weight of 3800 pounds.
<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
Chrisn: This is the warranty vs VDC comment from the same guy.
WARRANTY:
(1) Do not drive with VDC off, unless you are driving in snow and driving 10 -15 miles per hour to get out of a hole. This history is looked at and apparently is a pretty serious trigger. Some may be able to get away with it, depending on your dealer and Master Tech, but if the warranty is REALLY important to you....
(2) POS service visits should be vigorously followed; they are free anyways. The more documentation of services, whether dealer or non-dealer is critical to coverage during the warranty period.
PAINT:
MC's issue and others should be brought to the attention of the dealer as soon as they are detected. If the dealer does not address the claim, follow the chain of command, and move up the ladder to Regional NNA customer service representative. These issues seem manufacturer-based and should be addressed positively and promptly.
LAUNCH CONTROL:
(Why did they create LC then? seems a contradiction.)
Nissan was going for numbers on this one. This was a mark set for magazines so that comparator numbers would be inferior. The power of the engines did not vary; it was more a matter of launch parameters, tire pressure and temperature, and driver technique:
(a) The 0-60 mph 3.2 second run is accomplished with LC in ideal conditions.
(b) The 0-60 3.4 - 3.5 second run is done in all R mode in ideal conditions.
There is another trick using the left brake, allowing the clutch time to engage within parameters (not brake boosting) that I will be learning on Tuesday at the track (FIR).
Keeps getting better.
<!--coloro:#f4a460--><!--/coloro--><!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
WHAT ARE THE LIMITATIONS OF THE ENGINE AND TRANSMISSION?
<!--coloro:#f4a460--><!--/coloro-->The engine can apparently take 650 HP conservatively and 700 HP with less of a safety buffer with no alteration to the bottom end.
The transmission, specifically clutches are limited to ~ 600 HP without some strengthening when looking at the base GT-R weight of 3800 pounds.
<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
Chrisn: This is the warranty vs VDC comment from the same guy.
WARRANTY:
(1) Do not drive with VDC off, unless you are driving in snow and driving 10 -15 miles per hour to get out of a hole. This history is looked at and apparently is a pretty serious trigger. Some may be able to get away with it, depending on your dealer and Master Tech, but if the warranty is REALLY important to you....
(2) POS service visits should be vigorously followed; they are free anyways. The more documentation of services, whether dealer or non-dealer is critical to coverage during the warranty period.
PAINT:
MC's issue and others should be brought to the attention of the dealer as soon as they are detected. If the dealer does not address the claim, follow the chain of command, and move up the ladder to Regional NNA customer service representative. These issues seem manufacturer-based and should be addressed positively and promptly.
LAUNCH CONTROL:
(Why did they create LC then? seems a contradiction.)
Nissan was going for numbers on this one. This was a mark set for magazines so that comparator numbers would be inferior. The power of the engines did not vary; it was more a matter of launch parameters, tire pressure and temperature, and driver technique:
(a) The 0-60 mph 3.2 second run is accomplished with LC in ideal conditions.
(b) The 0-60 3.4 - 3.5 second run is done in all R mode in ideal conditions.
There is another trick using the left brake, allowing the clutch time to engage within parameters (not brake boosting) that I will be learning on Tuesday at the track (FIR).
Keeps getting better.
#642
10-11-2008, 08:12 PM
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: ga
Posts: 8,934
Rep Power: 551
More info on the tires:
What are good / ideal hot tire pressures at the track?
<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
29 psi on the Bridgestones; that was all they were able to go to on the track in LV. TD stated he would probably try upwards of 32 psi hot if given the chance under different conditions.
NOTES: "slip angles don't increase much because of the stiffness of the run-flats".
Other wheel / tire combinations pending on Tuesday. He is going to try and get what they used at Buttonwillow.
If those tire pressures sound familiar, it's because they are R compound hot pressures, in fact lower than many. Durometer testing has showed them as soft as NT-01's and much softer than the regular market RE070's. And the kicker is that the Dunlops are even faster.
Stiff sidewall + Soft Rubber = Rcompound whether it's labeled that way or not. So like I've said for a long time, this car has more of a tire advantage than it's given credit for. Put it and the TT on the same tires and see what goes down.
But I guess some further explanation is required so I dont get bashed.
If you look at tires, the more aggressive the compound (I.E. Sticky and Soft) the lower the ideal operating temperature and tread life. The GT-R gets only 5k miles from a set of tires on it's track alignment and that's assuming even wear, not shoulder wear because of camber. This gives insight into the softness of the tread along with the durometer testing. The usual hot temps for full slicks is low 30's PSI to high 20's PSI. There are almost no street tires that have such a range of tire temps because the compound is too hard to get anything out of the lower air pressures.
Besides the sidewall on the average tire is much softer for ride compliance. The runflats actually have an advantage in the hard sidewalls because they dont flex as easily under load, which is great for a 3800 lbs GT-R. Combine that with the soft rubber compound on the contact patch, and you have a virtual slick (hard sidewall + soft rubber).
I still think Nissan put 20's on the car to keep the tire componds from reaching other cars, not for bling appeal. Bling people replace the wheels anyways. This is why there is strict instructions only to allow certified Nissan techs to mess with the tires as well and they shouldnt be replaced after being removed.
Wikpedia:
The development in cheater slick technology has affected the development of tyres for racing series other than drag racing as well. When other forms of auto racing similarly instituted classes which require DOT approved street tyres, some manufacturers similarly began to market tyres which superficially resembled their high performance street tyres, but with the least tread permissible and with very soft, sticky rubber, intended specifically for competition because the soft tread would wear too quickly for street use. These became known, loosely, as R compound tyres. With additional years of progress, this class of tyre has in its turn followed its own line of development, to the point where they have little in common with true street tyres of the same brand. Ironically, this has led to new classes of racing which require not only DOT approval, but also a minimum treadwear rating, in an effort to eliminate the R compound tyres from competition and require "true" street tyres.
Difference- at least Porsche admit when they are using R comps.
What are good / ideal hot tire pressures at the track?
<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
29 psi on the Bridgestones; that was all they were able to go to on the track in LV. TD stated he would probably try upwards of 32 psi hot if given the chance under different conditions.
NOTES: "slip angles don't increase much because of the stiffness of the run-flats".
Other wheel / tire combinations pending on Tuesday. He is going to try and get what they used at Buttonwillow.
If those tire pressures sound familiar, it's because they are R compound hot pressures, in fact lower than many. Durometer testing has showed them as soft as NT-01's and much softer than the regular market RE070's. And the kicker is that the Dunlops are even faster.
Stiff sidewall + Soft Rubber = Rcompound whether it's labeled that way or not. So like I've said for a long time, this car has more of a tire advantage than it's given credit for. Put it and the TT on the same tires and see what goes down.
But I guess some further explanation is required so I dont get bashed.
If you look at tires, the more aggressive the compound (I.E. Sticky and Soft) the lower the ideal operating temperature and tread life. The GT-R gets only 5k miles from a set of tires on it's track alignment and that's assuming even wear, not shoulder wear because of camber. This gives insight into the softness of the tread along with the durometer testing. The usual hot temps for full slicks is low 30's PSI to high 20's PSI. There are almost no street tires that have such a range of tire temps because the compound is too hard to get anything out of the lower air pressures.
Besides the sidewall on the average tire is much softer for ride compliance. The runflats actually have an advantage in the hard sidewalls because they dont flex as easily under load, which is great for a 3800 lbs GT-R. Combine that with the soft rubber compound on the contact patch, and you have a virtual slick (hard sidewall + soft rubber).
I still think Nissan put 20's on the car to keep the tire componds from reaching other cars, not for bling appeal. Bling people replace the wheels anyways. This is why there is strict instructions only to allow certified Nissan techs to mess with the tires as well and they shouldnt be replaced after being removed.
Wikpedia:
The development in cheater slick technology has affected the development of tyres for racing series other than drag racing as well. When other forms of auto racing similarly instituted classes which require DOT approved street tyres, some manufacturers similarly began to market tyres which superficially resembled their high performance street tyres, but with the least tread permissible and with very soft, sticky rubber, intended specifically for competition because the soft tread would wear too quickly for street use. These became known, loosely, as R compound tyres. With additional years of progress, this class of tyre has in its turn followed its own line of development, to the point where they have little in common with true street tyres of the same brand. Ironically, this has led to new classes of racing which require not only DOT approval, but also a minimum treadwear rating, in an effort to eliminate the R compound tyres from competition and require "true" street tyres.
Difference- at least Porsche admit when they are using R comps.
Last edited by heavychevy; 10-11-2008 at 08:34 PM.
#643
10-11-2008, 08:57 PM
Heavychevy, if that is the case, then it shouldn't be any problem for the GTR to make anywhere between 540hp to 575hp, correct. So what's your point?
Originally Posted by HC
WHAT ARE THE LIMITATIONS OF THE ENGINE AND TRANSMISSION?
The engine can apparently take 650 HP conservatively and 700 HP with less of a safety buffer with no alteration to the bottom end.
The transmission, specifically clutches are limited to ~ 600 HP without some strengthening when looking at the base GT-R weight of 3800 pounds.
The engine can apparently take 650 HP conservatively and 700 HP with less of a safety buffer with no alteration to the bottom end.
The transmission, specifically clutches are limited to ~ 600 HP without some strengthening when looking at the base GT-R weight of 3800 pounds.
#645
10-11-2008, 09:07 PM
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: ga
Posts: 8,934
Rep Power: 551 Point 1 is, like I've told you all along, is that all it would take for the GT-R to be over the threshold is a tune. And there are lots of GT-R's with tunes running around without slipping clutches.
The other point is that Amuses car is not WHP, again duely noted.
The lifespan of a clutch is such that if you put it the power so close to the threshold, the clutch wont last for long. More power = less clutch life. No way Nissan would put the clutch limit 60 and 25 hp over the base hp. It wouldnt last to the end of the warranty and cost owners tons in replaced clutches.
Like I keep saying, there are lots of fingers pointing at 480-500 hp and only your determination and motor trends idiocracy that say 540-575 hp. Not even the GT-R owners think it's making that much power. Most feel it's pretty docile, and "can drink a soda" while accelerating.
It's getting more obvious by the minute.