Because when you read the paragraph in its entirety it's very clear what the writer means to convey.

That is precisely what he means. The cars in the earlier groups dried the track for the cars in the later groups. He states explicitly, the Nissan was driving on a wet track for the early runs. If he had meant the track was a mix of wet and dry, he would have stated as much. You're reading too much into what was written and coming up with a "creative" interpretation.

Let me ask you this, do you think a GT-R shod with some high performance rain tires (maybe Goodyear eagle F1's if they could be fit) would be more competitive with a GT3 or GT2 in the rain? I certainly do.

 

I think it would be more competitive than with the Bridgestones, though I'd accept that lap times could still be way off. Just conjecture.

 

 

I'm not going to even try to follow that tortured stream of reasoning. The track was predominantly wet for the GT-R's first two sessions. It had dried by the third. You're making this much more complicated than it really is. You would have us believe that the GT-R, with it's AWD and trick differential system was more hampered by this theoretical mix of wet and dry than it was during a downpour at the Texas speedway. That is just nonsensical. Furthemore, trying to use One-Lap rankings, a compeitition which is a free-for-all with a thousand different variables, to gauge a car's relative performance from one event to the next is an inexact science at best. The DR test was FAR more controlled.

So you're agreeing that when the AWD system has traction to work with, it can be more effective. The car is not so heavy that a few wet or oily patches on a predominantly dry Nurburgring put it at a disadvantage relative to a HiPo RWD GT2. Hey, now we're getting somehwere.

 

The car is not so heavy...again, how do you know this? How many kg's is enough? 280kg's isn't exactly a minor difference. Take a look at Angstkurve: The difference in tires can't possibly explain how much slower CH was in the GT-R, while HvS was 5 mph faster than in the GT2 in the dry.
I'm not so sure what you're tyring to prove with all of this conjecturing. Are you saying the GT2 would be, say, 20 seconds clear of the GT-R if both were driven in the dry?

 

No, not at all. I think the GT2 would be a few seconds faster in the dry (EDIT: by that I mean a few seconds added to the difference of 6.9 seconds DR came up with), but that's vs. a GT-R on Bridgestones, just like the car was configured during the DR test. This is very important to note because that's the context in which Harris makes his conclusion. I fully believe that a 7:38 time represents very close to the max potential of the GT-R on Dunlops. And Nissan themselves states that the Dunlops are good for at least 5 seconds over the Bridgestones. So, take the 7:33 for the GT2 and compare to 7:38+5 for the GT-R and you have a 10 second delta. Doesn't that make sense and seem fair?

 

It doesn't sound outrageous. I think the margin is lower than that, but it's not really worth discussing this miniscule difference. We'll have to agree to diasagree.
A 7:43 sounds about right, for HvS driving a GT-R on Bridgestones at something less than 100% in unknown conditions and only ~8 laps. That's not to say that another driver, living with the car for months/years, testing day in and day out to the point he can drive the car like he's signing his own name, couldn't be faster with perfect conditions and driving 100% for sure. And we already have the lap and telemetry of Nissan doing the 7:38 with Bridgestones with some wet sections of track.
We also know 7:33 is not the best the GT2 can do. Rohrl ran a 7:29 while passing multiple cars during that lap.

 

I can't believe that this debate is still going on. Honestly, Nissan's claims about what the GT-R can or cannot do do not matter any more.

The (original) topic of this thread is living breathing proof that the GT-R slams it's competitors hard. A 7:38 lap time makes a righteous mockery of those foolish people who believed that the GT-R is a 7:55 car.

Now that the Supertest has been completed, there is nothing to debate.

I know for a fact that there are numerous folks on this forum who were desperately hoping that the GT-R would flop during it's Supertest.

This thread is dedicated to you,

Cheers. GP

 

7:38 also makes a mockery of those that believed that the car can do 7:26.

The GTR was basically beaten by the GT3 in all categories of the test apart from the Nurburgring run. We arent even talking Enzo or Zonda here, its just a GT3.

 

According to airtrackk's logic this skater below was the best and fastest out of the group, afterall he did win it didnt he?

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

 

Fact is that it was still beaten by the GT2 and GT3 on the same day using the same driver.

Fact is that the car has never gotten close to a 7:26 time stock.

Care to argue facts?

 

I never said the GT-R would beat the GT2 on the same day using the same driver.
The fact is the GT3 was given twice as many laps, was in LHD which the driver was used to (he wasn't used to the RHD GT-R)
The fact is HvS had far much less seat time than Suzuki.
HvS (on the fly) was 16 seconds slower than GM (from a dead stop). If you want to insist that Nissan cheated on the basis of 12 seconds, then so did GM (on the basis of 16+ seconds).
Rohrl's time in the CGT has varied by 9 seconds; and it is not yet proven that the 7:28 was done on a closed track.
You were wrong in saying the GT-R could never post a sub-7:40 time, on the basis of its power and its weight.
Those are the facts.

 

^ Monaro won't acknowledge all of those... It will hurt his agenda.

 

Until Monaro admits GTR>997TT, which he was obviously wrong on from the beginning, how can anything he says be taken at face value. By him not admitting he was wrong on saying the 997tt was faster than the GTR, it explicitly reveals he has an axe to grind and is incapable of the balanced reasoning he is feigning. MonaroFail

 

How about it, monaro? Can you at least admit the Turbo is slower than the GT-R? You say that the 5 seconds separating the GT-R and the GT2 in the supertests isn't close. Then the 16 seconds separating the GT-R and the Turbo (with ceramics and Cups) must be an eternity. Your entire agenda has been based on faulty theories, all of which have been debunked. Deep down, I bet you still think a CTS-V is capable of a 7:38 in HvS's hands, right?