Base GT-R lobs 7:38 Nordschleife Supertest Lap Time
#196
06-19-2009, 08:29 AM
You keep posting the same message like the words have changed, there is NOTHING about that passage that says the 7:27 lap had any fuel issues, it says the
SUBSEQUENT LAP
It seems pretty appearant that they were monitoring the engine perameters during the run, otherwise they wouldn't have know to abort the next lap. Which ALSO MEANS THE CAR WAS FINE WHICH IS WHY THEY KEPT DRIVING UNTIL IT WAS NO LONGER RUNNING PROPERLY.
If a car runs a 24 hour race, and the motor blows in the 23rd hour, it does not mean the motor was blown the whole time. Could have been any number of factors related to the previous stresses (I.E. heat, or a small problem that over time turned into a big one)
The fact here is that they drove the car for a flyer
BEFORE
any signs of fuel starvation. Which is the video we are watching. THE NEXT LAP IS NOT THE ONE IN THE VIDEO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
SUBSEQUENT LAP
It seems pretty appearant that they were monitoring the engine perameters during the run, otherwise they wouldn't have know to abort the next lap. Which ALSO MEANS THE CAR WAS FINE WHICH IS WHY THEY KEPT DRIVING UNTIL IT WAS NO LONGER RUNNING PROPERLY.
If a car runs a 24 hour race, and the motor blows in the 23rd hour, it does not mean the motor was blown the whole time. Could have been any number of factors related to the previous stresses (I.E. heat, or a small problem that over time turned into a big one)
The fact here is that they drove the car for a flyer
BEFORE
any signs of fuel starvation. Which is the video we are watching. THE NEXT LAP IS NOT THE ONE IN THE VIDEO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
7:27 lap did have fueling issues, chevy. Read it again, carefully:
"Last year [2007] the team, with the help of Horacio Pagani himself, broke the production-car lap record with this very car. In the hot seat then [2007], as now [2008] , was ALMS racer and Ring specialist Marc Basseng. Immediately after setting that [2007] record time – 7min 27.82sec – he and the F were on a lap believed to be some four to six seconds faster, but a fuel starvation problem forced it to be abandoned. The team may have left with the record but there was some unfinished business too.
Now [2008] they’re back to go faster..."
--Evo Magazine, November [2008]
I think it's pretty clear that the 7:27.82 car did have fueling issues. How can you deny this?
I said it was faster than the ACR in some curves. Not just one. Take a look:
You said Steve Millen was associated with this test. Can you provide more information on this?
Are you denying the 'Ring video? Take a look at the ACR just before the 1st overhead banner (notice the red, vertical downforce meter on the right):
Now, take a look at it again, a few seconds later, just after it has passed the overhead. Full 1000lbs of downforce.
If Dodge engineers tuned the car for the straight, why did it produce so much downforce so early? Why did it max out on the DF meter so soon on the straight? Does it really need 1000+ lbs of downforce on the straight? And wouldn't the ACR have been going about 150 by then? Dodge cites 1000 lbs of downforce at 150 mph in extolling the virtues of the ACR over the standard Viper coupe (100 lbs at the same speed).
It needed something at Buttonwillow, seeing how the GT-R beat it in 3 areas.
We don't know. What we do know is that DR's test took place late in the season, with a storm and leaves on the track. That's a lot different from Nissan's conditions. A few kph's difference on the straight doesn't point to a ringer.
Where is Nissan's press release saying they hit 290 kph twice?
"Last year [2007] the team, with the help of Horacio Pagani himself, broke the production-car lap record with this very car. In the hot seat then [2007], as now [2008] , was ALMS racer and Ring specialist Marc Basseng. Immediately after setting that [2007] record time – 7min 27.82sec – he and the F were on a lap believed to be some four to six seconds faster, but a fuel starvation problem forced it to be abandoned. The team may have left with the record but there was some unfinished business too.
Now [2008] they’re back to go faster..."
--Evo Magazine, November [2008]
I think it's pretty clear that the 7:27.82 car did have fueling issues. How can you deny this?
I said it was faster than the ACR in some curves. Not just one. Take a look:
You said Steve Millen was associated with this test. Can you provide more information on this?
Are you denying the 'Ring video? Take a look at the ACR just before the 1st overhead banner (notice the red, vertical downforce meter on the right):
Now, take a look at it again, a few seconds later, just after it has passed the overhead. Full 1000lbs of downforce.
If Dodge engineers tuned the car for the straight, why did it produce so much downforce so early? Why did it max out on the DF meter so soon on the straight? Does it really need 1000+ lbs of downforce on the straight? And wouldn't the ACR have been going about 150 by then? Dodge cites 1000 lbs of downforce at 150 mph in extolling the virtues of the ACR over the standard Viper coupe (100 lbs at the same speed).
It needed something at Buttonwillow, seeing how the GT-R beat it in 3 areas.
We don't know. What we do know is that DR's test took place late in the season, with a storm and leaves on the track. That's a lot different from Nissan's conditions. A few kph's difference on the straight doesn't point to a ringer.
Where is Nissan's press release saying they hit 290 kph twice?
#197
06-19-2009, 08:57 AM
The ACR has ran 7:22 as has the ZR1, I think the truth is the ACR might really truthfully be the bang for the buck handling car! And since Chrysler took a team of race engineers to the ring with them, they just might have a clue how to setup the car to run fast. 
#199
06-19-2009, 09:14 AM
The ZR1 has not run a 7:22. That is just a rumor that got completely out of control. Tadge Jeuchter himself confirmed that no such lap ever took place. GM has not returned to the 'ring since running the 7:26.4.
#200
06-19-2009, 09:35 AM
Sport Auto test. In many of the figures the GTR is just a match to the GT3, in all honesty the GTR is turning out to be roughly a 7:40's car and not a mid 7:20's.
The last comment section was translated by someone in the GTR forum.......
Pretty good comments but they did admit that it didnt quite reach Nissan's lofty expectations, they also admitted that the car was quite easy to drive. Porsches and Corvettes in my opinion would be harder for someone to just step in and drive, this might be why HvS's result for the ZO6 and Turbo were so bad. A driver more accustomed to the car might be able to do a better job case in point a fellow forumer Jamie Furman for quarter miles in a ZO6.
The last comment section was translated by someone in the GTR forum.......
Its really hard to translate everything,so i just do the "Fazit" at the end:
Time of guessing is over,the awesome drive characteristics of the Nissan GTR are real,even when they didn´t meet exactly what Nissan said,they are slightly off....but still on a level where just a few more expensive supersportscars are,so well done Nissan.
The most amazing thing is how the GTR works,its so easy to go at the limit,youll nearly never feel the 1.8 ton weight,its a technical masterpiece,the complete drivetrain with engine & gearbox is the best you can have,nothing bad about it.
The 2+2 seater sportscar can do everything from normal daily driving to racing on Racetracks at the limit like no other befor.....even when its maintainancecosts are very high.....
Time of guessing is over,the awesome drive characteristics of the Nissan GTR are real,even when they didn´t meet exactly what Nissan said,they are slightly off....but still on a level where just a few more expensive supersportscars are,so well done Nissan.
The most amazing thing is how the GTR works,its so easy to go at the limit,youll nearly never feel the 1.8 ton weight,its a technical masterpiece,the complete drivetrain with engine & gearbox is the best you can have,nothing bad about it.
The 2+2 seater sportscar can do everything from normal daily driving to racing on Racetracks at the limit like no other befor.....even when its maintainancecosts are very high.....
#201
06-19-2009, 09:55 AM
Oh damn a true manual, for many people that would be so much more enjoyable than driving the automatic like transmission found in the Nissan GTR.
Dodge had one of the most half arsed attempt at a record run around the Nurburgring. The only reason the Viper scored that time is because the car is truely frighteningly fast. No one doubts Dodges time
.
"Then, just a month later, following Chevrolet's declaration that its 638-horsepower supercharged Corvette ZR1 was the king of the hill, breaking the GT-R's record with a time of 7:26, Viper people became downright mad. Not the folks who work for Dodge, mind you, but the members of the Viper Club of America, a group of Viper fanatics that in fact stretches its arms well beyond America, as far as Japan and Germany. Sick and tired of hearing about other cars setting records at the Nordschleife, they wanted to see their pride and joy-namely, Dodge's new track-attacking 600-horsepower Viper ACR (American Club Racer)-take a shot at the record books. But what could they do about it?
Well, they could (and did) bug Dodge-specifically, the Street & Racing Technology team-to the point that SRT said, What the heck, let's go for it. So SRT rented the Nordschleife for a half-day (at a cost of $2000 Euro per hour), shipped two ACRs over to Germany, hired a pro driver through Zakspeed (a race team that runs Vipers in the ADAC Zurich 24h Race at the Nurburgring), and hoped for good weather and, more important, a lap time quicker than 7:26."
#202
06-19-2009, 10:02 AM
"sorry to take this even more off topic"
Although i agree that viper has a horrible interior and even the ZR1 is nothing to look at inside the car..........but in all fairness even exotics as recent as the diablo and 550 maranello had pretty crappy interiors.
i think both dodge and chevy decided to put all the money in the performance
#203
06-19-2009, 10:06 AM
I'm meant the Dodge Status/Intrepid interior. This is a $100,000 car. Its very fast, but come on. Its basically a race car.
#204
06-19-2009, 10:33 AM
You keep posting the same message like the words have changed, there is NOTHING about that passage that says the 7:27 lap had any fuel issues, it says the
SUBSEQUENT LAP
It seems pretty appearant that they were monitoring the engine perameters during the run, otherwise they wouldn't have know to abort the next lap. Which ALSO MEANS THE CAR WAS FINE WHICH IS WHY THEY KEPT DRIVING UNTIL IT WAS NO LONGER RUNNING PROPERLY.
If a car runs a 24 hour race, and the motor blows in the 23rd hour, it does not mean the motor was blown the whole time. Could have been any number of factors related to the previous stresses (I.E. heat, or a small problem that over time turned into a big one)
The fact here is that they drove the car for a flyer
BEFORE
any signs of fuel starvation. Which is the video we are watching. THE NEXT LAP IS NOT THE ONE IN THE VIDEO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
SUBSEQUENT LAP
It seems pretty appearant that they were monitoring the engine perameters during the run, otherwise they wouldn't have know to abort the next lap. Which ALSO MEANS THE CAR WAS FINE WHICH IS WHY THEY KEPT DRIVING UNTIL IT WAS NO LONGER RUNNING PROPERLY.
If a car runs a 24 hour race, and the motor blows in the 23rd hour, it does not mean the motor was blown the whole time. Could have been any number of factors related to the previous stresses (I.E. heat, or a small problem that over time turned into a big one)
The fact here is that they drove the car for a flyer
BEFORE
any signs of fuel starvation. Which is the video we are watching. THE NEXT LAP IS NOT THE ONE IN THE VIDEO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Are you denying that the 7:27.82 lap took place in 2007? It states plain as day that the 7:27.82 lap occurred LAST YEAR, meaning the year prior to 2008, which would mean...2008? Did you even click on the Autocar link? No? Fine, here's Evo (from Oct 2007):
http://www.evo.co.uk/videos/planetev...ng_record.html
Still not enough? Fine. Here's an article that was posted on another forum (by gangajas) on 11-25-2007. I know you will skip right over it and miss it entirely, so I'll post the important passage here:
"The news is fantastic: on his first lap Basseng bettered the Carrera GT's record by over 4sec with a stunning 7 min 27.82sec lap. Incrediby, on his second flying lap he was a further 4sec quicker before fuel starvation caused the car to stutter through the last few corners and cost into the paddock. Basseng believes that, unhindered, this could have been a 7min 20sec lap."
The subsequent lap was abandoned. The subsequent lap was NOT the 7:24, as you have been saying.
Face it: a Maserati outdragged that Zonda F Club Sport on the straight. According to your hp/wt theory, this should be impossible.
Are you being serious here? Or are you just trolling?
#205
06-19-2009, 10:36 AM
As many have stated before and i'll say it again.....competition makes everyone better!!!!!!!!
A little smack talk and rivalry does not hurt anyone, it's actually pretty fun to see all the jabs being thrown around.
But i can't be the only who is excited about the role the GTR will play in the next gen 911tt.
I think Porsche fans should be flattered that nissan decided to use a 997tt as benchmark, the compliment is self evident.
Now that GTR has been able to beat a 997tt (and even a GT3/ZR1 which it has no business even running with) i can't wait for the next gen 911tt.....it's gonna be a mighty beast
and that in turn will make everything up the line in porsche even better.
How could that be a bad thing?
So give credit where credit is due and buy/enjoy/admire/drive//pick up chicks/track/race in the car you like..there are so many awesome options out there right now.
A little smack talk and rivalry does not hurt anyone, it's actually pretty fun to see all the jabs being thrown around.
But i can't be the only who is excited about the role the GTR will play in the next gen 911tt.
I think Porsche fans should be flattered that nissan decided to use a 997tt as benchmark, the compliment is self evident.
Now that GTR has been able to beat a 997tt (and even a GT3/ZR1 which it has no business even running with) i can't wait for the next gen 911tt.....it's gonna be a mighty beast
and that in turn will make everything up the line in porsche even better.How could that be a bad thing?
So give credit where credit is due and buy/enjoy/admire/drive//pick up chicks/track/race in the car you like..there are so many awesome options out there right now.
#206
06-19-2009, 10:43 AM
^Thanks for the link.
Looks like the total drag area on the GT-R isn't quite as good as Nissan figured. Downforce, while much better than the Z06, doesn't seem that great. On par with the Turbo. There have been discrepancies between SA's downforce numbers and Ferrari's too. But this makes for a level comparison (same equipment used for all).
The GT-R is slower than the GT3 (on MPSC's) by 5.2 seconds on the wet-handling course.
Looks like, overall, Harris got closer to HvS's effort in the GT2 than he did in the GT-R.
276 kph on Doettinger Hohe straight is 1 kph slower than my estimation for the 7:29 GT-R.
Supertest score of 74 points beats 997TT (72), but not as high as GT3's (79). So, it's not only bribed US/UK mags that reached the same conclusion.
Looks like the total drag area on the GT-R isn't quite as good as Nissan figured. Downforce, while much better than the Z06, doesn't seem that great. On par with the Turbo. There have been discrepancies between SA's downforce numbers and Ferrari's too. But this makes for a level comparison (same equipment used for all).
The GT-R is slower than the GT3 (on MPSC's) by 5.2 seconds on the wet-handling course.
Looks like, overall, Harris got closer to HvS's effort in the GT2 than he did in the GT-R.
276 kph on Doettinger Hohe straight is 1 kph slower than my estimation for the 7:29 GT-R.
Supertest score of 74 points beats 997TT (72), but not as high as GT3's (79). So, it's not only bribed US/UK mags that reached the same conclusion.
Nissan advertised drag coefficient for the R35 = 0.27
Sport Auto tested drag coefficient for the R35 = 0.31
I wonder what else Nissan has lied about, my bet would be power, possibly gearing and possibly suspension setup on their record breaking Nissan GTR.
Also, its widely known that Ferrari's numbers have been quite optimistic in the past, the Enzo is however a totally different animal.
------------------------------------------------------
Driver Republic top speed for the GTR: 270km/h
Sport Auto top speed for the GTR: 276km/h
Nissan top speed for the GTR: 290km/h
#207
06-19-2009, 10:51 AM
As many have stated before and i'll say it again.....competition makes everyone better!!!!!!!!
A little smack talk and rivalry does not hurt anyone, it's actually pretty fun to see all the jabs being thrown around.
But i can't be the only who is excited about the role the GTR will play in the next gen 911tt.
I think Porsche fans should be flattered that nissan decided to use a 997tt as benchmark, the compliment is self evident.
Now that GTR has been able to beat a 997tt (and even a GT3/ZR1 which it has no business even running with) i can't wait for the next gen 911tt.....it's gonna be a mighty beast and that in turn will make everything up the line in porsche even better.
How could that be a bad thing?
So give credit where credit is due and buy/enjoy/admire/drive//pick up chicks/track/race in the car you like..there are so many awesome options out there right now.
A little smack talk and rivalry does not hurt anyone, it's actually pretty fun to see all the jabs being thrown around.
But i can't be the only who is excited about the role the GTR will play in the next gen 911tt.
I think Porsche fans should be flattered that nissan decided to use a 997tt as benchmark, the compliment is self evident.
Now that GTR has been able to beat a 997tt (and even a GT3/ZR1 which it has no business even running with) i can't wait for the next gen 911tt.....it's gonna be a mighty beast
and that in turn will make everything up the line in porsche even better.How could that be a bad thing?
So give credit where credit is due and buy/enjoy/admire/drive//pick up chicks/track/race in the car you like..there are so many awesome options out there right now.
I agree that competition is a good thing, however its hard to compete against someone when that someone isnt following the same set of rules and guidelines. Take for example an athlete full of performance enhancing drugs, wouldnt you think that you got cheated out of a win?
#208
06-19-2009, 10:58 AM
#209
06-19-2009, 11:01 AM
That GT-R was slower than BMW M3's in a straight line. 1/4 mile trap speed of 111 mph.
Now you say the GT-R and Z06 have "similar times" on Nurburgring.
Z06 supertest: 7:49
GT-R supertest: 7:38
An 11-sec difference is "similar", but a 9 second difference between Sport Auto and Nissan is not "similar"??
Chris Harris lost time on both the straight in and in the curves. Examples:
@ Schwedenkreuz
Harris faster in GT2 than GT-R by 5.3 mph
HvS faster in GT2 than GT-R by 3.7 mph
thru the Foxhole
Harris faster in GT2 than in GT-R by 1.8 mph
HVS sets same speed in both
@ Angstkurve
Harris faster in GT2 than in GT-R by 2.7 mph
HvS faster in GT-R than in GT2 by 5.0 mph
@ Galgenkopf 2nd apex
Harris faster in GT2 than in GT-R by 1.9 mph
HvS faster in GT-R than in GT2 by 1.2 mph
A longer track than the 13-mile Nurburgring...
Now you say the GT-R and Z06 have "similar times" on Nurburgring.
Z06 supertest: 7:49
GT-R supertest: 7:38
An 11-sec difference is "similar", but a 9 second difference between Sport Auto and Nissan is not "similar"??
@ Schwedenkreuz
Harris faster in GT2 than GT-R by 5.3 mph
HvS faster in GT2 than GT-R by 3.7 mph
thru the Foxhole
Harris faster in GT2 than in GT-R by 1.8 mph
HVS sets same speed in both
@ Angstkurve
Harris faster in GT2 than in GT-R by 2.7 mph
HvS faster in GT-R than in GT2 by 5.0 mph
@ Galgenkopf 2nd apex
Harris faster in GT2 than in GT-R by 1.9 mph
HvS faster in GT-R than in GT2 by 1.2 mph
A longer track than the 13-mile Nurburgring...
