Why GT-R is so fast - the answer is here.
#1
06-21-2009 | 01:14 PM
Thread Starter
|
Registered User
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 542
From: Toronto
Rep Power: 45
Why GT-R is so fast - the answer is here.
#2
06-21-2009 | 02:07 PM
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 561
From: US
Rep Power: 63
Circuit times are a result of many, many factors relating to physics. Not just hp/wt. That article doesn't go into all of them (would be 15+ pages worth), but does address one key point: the problem with using peak hp/wt figures to compare two very different cars:
"Take two of our fine examples, the 485 PS GT-R and the 647 PS ZR1. Granted, if both cars were at full power for the same number of seconds around a track, the more powerful would naturally yield a better time. Trouble is, that doesn’t describe any track I know of, other than (don’t make me say it… ) a drag race.."
And for those who couldn't explain why the CCX was slower than weaker competitors on the 'Ring, Basseng (and Maserati) made it clear. In summary: even though the CCX had 900 hp, it couldn't deploy it effectively on anywhere but the straight. On Doettinger Hoehe, it was 8.4 mph (13.5 kph) faster than the Zonda, yet its lap time was nearly 9 seconds slower; the Zonda doesn't "hang with" the CCX on a straight, yet it laps almost 9 seconds faster. It doesn't have to "hang with" the CCX on the straight.
The CCX's chassis and aero package weren't developed well enough, so the net result was that any extra power it had over competitors was effectively squandered. Useable power is much more relevant to circuit times than headline "peak" power figures. And thus the car with the lowest power/wt (MC12) in that group was able to set the fastest time.
"Take two of our fine examples, the 485 PS GT-R and the 647 PS ZR1. Granted, if both cars were at full power for the same number of seconds around a track, the more powerful would naturally yield a better time. Trouble is, that doesn’t describe any track I know of, other than (don’t make me say it… ) a drag race.."
And for those who couldn't explain why the CCX was slower than weaker competitors on the 'Ring, Basseng (and Maserati) made it clear. In summary: even though the CCX had 900 hp, it couldn't deploy it effectively on anywhere but the straight. On Doettinger Hoehe, it was 8.4 mph (13.5 kph) faster than the Zonda, yet its lap time was nearly 9 seconds slower; the Zonda doesn't "hang with" the CCX on a straight, yet it laps almost 9 seconds faster. It doesn't have to "hang with" the CCX on the straight.
The CCX's chassis and aero package weren't developed well enough, so the net result was that any extra power it had over competitors was effectively squandered. Useable power is much more relevant to circuit times than headline "peak" power figures. And thus the car with the lowest power/wt (MC12) in that group was able to set the fastest time.
#3
06-21-2009 | 04:19 PM
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 517
From: usa
Rep Power: 45
Good point Guibo. Also its the whole package working in harmony that results in a car being fast all around. That sums up the whole GTR package to a T. It aint the power, it aint the brakes, it aint the tranny..It isnt just one thing that you can point to. Its the whole engineered package that just phenominal. Same with Dodge and the ACR package imho.
#5
06-24-2009 | 04:22 AM
Banned
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,363
From: Malibu
Rep Power: 117
Circuit times are a result of many, many factors relating to physics. Not just hp/wt. That article doesn't go into all of them (would be 15+ pages worth), but does address one key point: the problem with using peak hp/wt figures to compare two very different cars:
"Take two of our fine examples, the 485 PS GT-R and the 647 PS ZR1. Granted, if both cars were at full power for the same number of seconds around a track, the more powerful would naturally yield a better time. Trouble is, that doesn’t describe any track I know of, other than (don’t make me say it… ) a drag race.."
And for those who couldn't explain why the CCX was slower than weaker competitors on the 'Ring, Basseng (and Maserati) made it clear. In summary: even though the CCX had 900 hp, it couldn't deploy it effectively on anywhere but the straight. On Doettinger Hoehe, it was 8.4 mph (13.5 kph) faster than the Zonda, yet its lap time was nearly 9 seconds slower; the Zonda doesn't "hang with" the CCX on a straight, yet it laps almost 9 seconds faster. It doesn't have to "hang with" the CCX on the straight.
The CCX's chassis and aero package weren't developed well enough, so the net result was that any extra power it had over competitors was effectively squandered. Useable power is much more relevant to circuit times than headline "peak" power figures. And thus the car with the lowest power/wt (MC12) in that group was able to set the fastest time.
"Take two of our fine examples, the 485 PS GT-R and the 647 PS ZR1. Granted, if both cars were at full power for the same number of seconds around a track, the more powerful would naturally yield a better time. Trouble is, that doesn’t describe any track I know of, other than (don’t make me say it… ) a drag race.."
And for those who couldn't explain why the CCX was slower than weaker competitors on the 'Ring, Basseng (and Maserati) made it clear. In summary: even though the CCX had 900 hp, it couldn't deploy it effectively on anywhere but the straight. On Doettinger Hoehe, it was 8.4 mph (13.5 kph) faster than the Zonda, yet its lap time was nearly 9 seconds slower; the Zonda doesn't "hang with" the CCX on a straight, yet it laps almost 9 seconds faster. It doesn't have to "hang with" the CCX on the straight.
The CCX's chassis and aero package weren't developed well enough, so the net result was that any extra power it had over competitors was effectively squandered. Useable power is much more relevant to circuit times than headline "peak" power figures. And thus the car with the lowest power/wt (MC12) in that group was able to set the fastest time.
#7
07-07-2009 | 03:09 AM
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 547
From: Tampa Bay, fl
Rep Power: 40
Trending Topics
#8
07-09-2009 | 12:46 PM
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 124
From: Charlotte, NC
Rep Power: 20
Circuit times are a result of many, many factors relating to physics. Not just hp/wt. That article doesn't go into all of them (would be 15+ pages worth), but does address one key point: the problem with using peak hp/wt figures to compare two very different cars:
"Take two of our fine examples, the 485 PS GT-R and the 647 PS ZR1. Granted, if both cars were at full power for the same number of seconds around a track, the more powerful would naturally yield a better time. Trouble is, that doesn’t describe any track I know of, other than (don’t make me say it… ) a drag race.."
And for those who couldn't explain why the CCX was slower than weaker competitors on the 'Ring, Basseng (and Maserati) made it clear. In summary: even though the CCX had 900 hp, it couldn't deploy it effectively on anywhere but the straight. On Doettinger Hoehe, it was 8.4 mph (13.5 kph) faster than the Zonda, yet its lap time was nearly 9 seconds slower; the Zonda doesn't "hang with" the CCX on a straight, yet it laps almost 9 seconds faster. It doesn't have to "hang with" the CCX on the straight.
The CCX's chassis and aero package weren't developed well enough, so the net result was that any extra power it had over competitors was effectively squandered. Useable power is much more relevant to circuit times than headline "peak" power figures. And thus the car with the lowest power/wt (MC12) in that group was able to set the fastest time.
"Take two of our fine examples, the 485 PS GT-R and the 647 PS ZR1. Granted, if both cars were at full power for the same number of seconds around a track, the more powerful would naturally yield a better time. Trouble is, that doesn’t describe any track I know of, other than (don’t make me say it… ) a drag race.."
And for those who couldn't explain why the CCX was slower than weaker competitors on the 'Ring, Basseng (and Maserati) made it clear. In summary: even though the CCX had 900 hp, it couldn't deploy it effectively on anywhere but the straight. On Doettinger Hoehe, it was 8.4 mph (13.5 kph) faster than the Zonda, yet its lap time was nearly 9 seconds slower; the Zonda doesn't "hang with" the CCX on a straight, yet it laps almost 9 seconds faster. It doesn't have to "hang with" the CCX on the straight.
The CCX's chassis and aero package weren't developed well enough, so the net result was that any extra power it had over competitors was effectively squandered. Useable power is much more relevant to circuit times than headline "peak" power figures. And thus the car with the lowest power/wt (MC12) in that group was able to set the fastest time.
ALSO, no one every really takes into consideration, "USEABLE" Power.
Peak is wonderfull if you are at redline all the time.
But, most of the time, it's not plausible.
So, midrange, and torque, and how the power is put down to the ground.
Unfortunately, that spec. doesn't sell cars. MAX HP sells cars.
MINES BIGGER THEN YOURS.
.
#9
07-09-2009 | 02:14 PM
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 561
From: US
Rep Power: 63
^Yup.
It's like comparing a smaller displacement turbocharged engine vs a larger displacement normally aspirated one. Both can make the same peak hp, but that doesn't mean both kinds of power are equally accessible. As an example, here are two engines which make similar levels of hp, 650-700 hp. One on the left is naturally aspirated Viper, one on the right is a turbocharged Supra.
At 4k rpm, the Viper is making more than 3 times as much power. Even by 5k, it still has the edge. The more peaky Supra needs constant shifting to keep it anywhere near the Viper to maintain 600+ hp, and you better pray you're holding on tight if you happen to be at 4500 rpm in a corner. These shifts also take out time, as drive is momentarily disengaged (at which point hp/wt is effectively zero). Not a problem in the GT-R, which has power being delivered even as one gear gives way to the next. You don't have to wait in corners for a gearchange out of fear of upsetting the chassis.
The CCX has a similar problem with peaky power delivery. Here's the video commentary.
"It's the turn of the Koenigsegg CCX. When the superchargers reach full boost, the power delivery is savage. And the driver needs to be focused with keeping the rear of the car in line. On the Doettinger Hoehe, the CCX manages to reach 305.8 kph, despite the lower corner exit speed before the straight. The V8 powerhouse can play its game on the straights...The CCX was not able to take full advantage of its power on the twisty Nordschleife."
Marc Basseng:
"Actually, it was, like I said before, the engine is incredible. The horsepower, no question. But the gear ratio's not perfect for the Nordschleife. The 2nd gear's too short, 3rd gear's too long, you're falling down of the revs too much into the corners. The car's a little bit difficult to drive, so that's why the lap time was not that good. But actually, we expected that a little bit before the hot lap."
After Basseng set that time, he crashed the car where the track was moist and had an odd camber. Even w/o the crash, he estimated it would still be not as fast as the less powerful cars.
"Mind you, Basseng is doubtful that any of the other cars would have reacted in quite the same way to those awkward cambers. ‘You are always fighting with the Koenigsegg. It often feels like it’s working against you,’ he explains. ‘For sure, it has monster power and it’s the quickest down the straight, but that power only arrives between 7000 and 8000rpm. There’s very little low-down torque, so you’re always waiting, waiting, waiting, and the gear ratios don’t match this track either – second is too short and third too long.
‘As a driver you don’t get a good feeling with it. It’s an amazing car on the road, but it’s not close to the others on the Nordschleife. In testing we did a ’31 and I believe a sub 7:30 would be possible, but never 7:24.’"
He's not the only one to have gone off course in a Koenigsegg. Evo also went off onto the grass at Bedford, as did The Stig on TopGear's track. The CCX is proof that you cannot always accurately estimate a car's finishing order on the Nordschleife on the basis of its power/wt ratio. Ferrari, Maserati, Nissan, GM, Pagani, and Dodge are not employing black magic or "defying the laws of physics" to acheive their times.
It's like comparing a smaller displacement turbocharged engine vs a larger displacement normally aspirated one. Both can make the same peak hp, but that doesn't mean both kinds of power are equally accessible. As an example, here are two engines which make similar levels of hp, 650-700 hp. One on the left is naturally aspirated Viper, one on the right is a turbocharged Supra.
At 4k rpm, the Viper is making more than 3 times as much power. Even by 5k, it still has the edge. The more peaky Supra needs constant shifting to keep it anywhere near the Viper to maintain 600+ hp, and you better pray you're holding on tight if you happen to be at 4500 rpm in a corner. These shifts also take out time, as drive is momentarily disengaged (at which point hp/wt is effectively zero). Not a problem in the GT-R, which has power being delivered even as one gear gives way to the next. You don't have to wait in corners for a gearchange out of fear of upsetting the chassis.
The CCX has a similar problem with peaky power delivery. Here's the video commentary.
"It's the turn of the Koenigsegg CCX. When the superchargers reach full boost, the power delivery is savage. And the driver needs to be focused with keeping the rear of the car in line. On the Doettinger Hoehe, the CCX manages to reach 305.8 kph, despite the lower corner exit speed before the straight. The V8 powerhouse can play its game on the straights...The CCX was not able to take full advantage of its power on the twisty Nordschleife."
Marc Basseng:
"Actually, it was, like I said before, the engine is incredible. The horsepower, no question. But the gear ratio's not perfect for the Nordschleife. The 2nd gear's too short, 3rd gear's too long, you're falling down of the revs too much into the corners. The car's a little bit difficult to drive, so that's why the lap time was not that good. But actually, we expected that a little bit before the hot lap."
After Basseng set that time, he crashed the car where the track was moist and had an odd camber. Even w/o the crash, he estimated it would still be not as fast as the less powerful cars.
"Mind you, Basseng is doubtful that any of the other cars would have reacted in quite the same way to those awkward cambers. ‘You are always fighting with the Koenigsegg. It often feels like it’s working against you,’ he explains. ‘For sure, it has monster power and it’s the quickest down the straight, but that power only arrives between 7000 and 8000rpm. There’s very little low-down torque, so you’re always waiting, waiting, waiting, and the gear ratios don’t match this track either – second is too short and third too long.
‘As a driver you don’t get a good feeling with it. It’s an amazing car on the road, but it’s not close to the others on the Nordschleife. In testing we did a ’31 and I believe a sub 7:30 would be possible, but never 7:24.’"
He's not the only one to have gone off course in a Koenigsegg. Evo also went off onto the grass at Bedford, as did The Stig on TopGear's track. The CCX is proof that you cannot always accurately estimate a car's finishing order on the Nordschleife on the basis of its power/wt ratio. Ferrari, Maserati, Nissan, GM, Pagani, and Dodge are not employing black magic or "defying the laws of physics" to acheive their times.
#12
07-13-2009 | 10:21 PM
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 560
From: Sydney
Rep Power: 40
The problem with the GTR hanging with Enzos is that it is deficient in many areas including brakes, tires, aero (contrary to what Nissan sprouts out), power, torque and weight.
So again what total package are you talking about?
So again what total package are you talking about?
#13
07-13-2009 | 10:52 PM
Registered User
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 79
From: USA
Rep Power: 24
The handling dynamics.
How is puts the power is has to the ground.
Still kicking and screaming huh?
The 7.26 video is here The GTR didnt lift off the ground and magically transport itself to the finish line. It happened in real life, in a a real GTR. Besides the Enzo is BARELY a car anyway. How many people drive their Enzo's to work? How many track them? The Enzo gets 8 MPG.
The GTR is an actual car.
Last edited by kp117; 07-13-2009 at 11:21 PM.
#14
07-14-2009 | 02:54 AM
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 561
From: US
Rep Power: 63
Tires...the Enzo's are from a generation ago. As are its electronics. Ferrari cites advancements in electronics (particularly in the traction management through the diff) and tires as reasons why cars like the 599 and Scuderia are so close to the Enzo on Fiorano. Note: FIORANO. The GT-R and its tire package has been honed by over a thousand laps to cope with the rigours of the Nurburgring. The Enzo was not. Basseng does a lot better with the Enzo than the CCX, but there are still sections where he is frantically sawing at the wheel, reacting to power oversteer situations.
You forgot the transmission: the GT-R's is better. Delivers torque during gearchanges, at which point the Enzo is not.
Brakes...we have already discussed this. The 'Ring is not particularly hard on the brakes. A car can start to fade near the end and still return a very respectable time. The long straight allows them to cool and it's precisely in the hard braking zone into Tiergarten and thru to the end where Suzuki is making up a lot of time against other cars.
Power and torque...again, you are looking at PEAK power and torque figures. Have you still learned nothing? I'd wager that coming out of a turn, the GT-R is far more able to use more of its available power and torque than the Enzo. With the 'Ring's base elevation of 600m, you can also bet the naturally aspirated Enzo's power figure isn't as impressive as it is in a dyno room corrected to ideal elevation and conditions.
For handling dynamics, look at the speeds on the Nurburgring
GT-R / Enzo
Flugplatz: 175 / 161 kph
Aremberg: 102 / 103
Fuchsroehre: 252 / 258
Metzgesfeld: 162 / 160
Ex-Muehle: 117 / 111
Bergwerk: 105 / 110
Hohe Act: 117 / 108
Schwalbenshwanz: 92 / 94
As you can see, the 1770kg GT-R is losing little to nothing against the Enzo. In some corners, it is considerably faster than the Enzo. Especially in a high-speed kink like Flugplatz. +14 kph against an Enzo is substantial.
A lot of what you're saying also applies to the LP640: more power, more torque, current generation of semi-slick R-compound non-runflats, carbon brakes, same CdA but verified more downforce than the GT-R, AWD grip for putting down power out of turns. Yet it is 9 seconds slower in the supertest than the GT-R.
Nissan claimed 1.3-1.4g on the 'Ring. Sport Auto verified 1.25-1.45g
Nissan claimed ~277 kph on the uphill part at Doettinger Hoehe. Sport Auto verified 276. What more is there to say? You have no grounds for continuing to claim cheating.
#15
07-14-2009 | 06:04 AM
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 560
From: Sydney
Rep Power: 40
And you actually believe that a stock GTR can hang with the Enzo? I know that a GTR has ran a 7:26, my question has always been...............was it a STOCK GTR?
And yet nissan has a best time of 7:26 while sport Auto can only muster a time of 7:38. The GTR must have been making up time on the straights (please see your comments). Also where are you getting that 277kph has Nissan actually said that they only reached that speed?
Nissan claimed 1.3-1.4g on the 'Ring. Sport Auto verified 1.25-1.45g
Nissan claimed ~277 kph on the uphill part at Doettinger Hoehe. Sport Auto verified 276. What more is there to say? You have no grounds for continuing to claim cheating.
Nissan claimed ~277 kph on the uphill part at Doettinger Hoehe. Sport Auto verified 276. What more is there to say? You have no grounds for continuing to claim cheating.