Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Asian Forums' started by thebarron1989, Oct 18, 2010.
So wait, did it actually do a 7:20 yet?
GLUE FACTORY MOTHER#$%#ER DID THE CAR SMELL LIKE A GLUE FACTORY OR NOT
No. Word from GT-R forum members who are getting emails from Nissan is that 7:24 is the best they could manage. There will probably be official word from Nissan when the car is officially introduced at an auto show later this year.
oh no 4 seconds herp
how should i pronounce herp when saying it out loud
This is why I always suspected that 7.26 lap record was not really made with a 486 hp engine. It's correct that HvS run just 4 seconds faster with the new car, but I think for sure that Nissan's laps are surely made with much more commitment compared HvS's laps.
2 seconds are probably behind ABOUT a 510 hp engine compared the 530 hp of the new spec. There is no explanation behind almost 50hp difference.
You are assuming the conditions are the same, yes? HvS could have run in the same conditions as Nissan, which is to say foggy and damp in corners. That's a far cry from the supertest 7:38.
The 7:29 lap was close enough to 7:26, and from the telemetry of the 7:29 run, it closely duplicated Chris Harris's result even in the older version and with bad conditions (in terms of peak lateral g's and trap speed at the same point on Doettinger Hoehe).
Yeah it's not worth it anymore, goes into my ``shit`` category
Nissan said they spent long time for the 7.26 with the 486hp car and we agree with that for a 10/10ths attempt in ideal conditions. Today, they are saying they aren't able to no more than 7.24 with the new 530hp engine. It's the best they could manage.
Â I'm just saying that Nissan's claims, facts and words are just enough to answer the questions over the ideal (same) condition point.Â
I don't think the ZR-1 had chrome wheels
maybe as an option?
some people put chrome ZR-1 wheels on their cameros
It's the best they could manage...given the conditions, which for all we know could have been miserable compared to earlier efforts. We just don't know. Nor do we know anything about tire pressures, alignments, etc. We certainly don't need to assign supposed horespower numbers to lap time differences done in different conditions. It's not like a 510 hp GT-R suddenly "makes sense" for a 7:26 time where 486 hp somehow defies logic. While the Nissan car *could* be making 510 hp, that's not necessary to explain the time difference.
You mention the HvS test. In the new car, he clobbered the old car at Hatzenbachbogen by 11 km/h. Through Fuchsroehre, he's faster in the new car by 11 km/h. Yet at Ex-Muehle and Bergwerk, he is slower in the new car by 2 km/h. Slower at Klostertal 1 by 6 km/h than the old car and slower at Galgenkopf by 3 km/h. The new tires are supposed to be better than the older ones. What does HvS's 7:34 in the new car tell you? Same thing that HvS in 458 (7:38) vs Sascha Bert in 458 (7:32, with passenger and full course) tells us: using HvS's time as an indication of 10/10ths pace is absurd. And it's also pretty unrealistic to be drawing conclusions about horsepower discrepancies between cars.
I agree with the HvS's point, I said a lot of times that HvS is not an indication of 10/10ths, but no with the other. You are probably right when you said: "we just don't know." But. Being you not able to know about, you can't explain how about supposed horspower too. Hp can really affect a lap time.
486 hp somehow defies logic? What is 486hp GT-R's engine? it's magic? it's a miracle?
Often, what we are able to see, is that every time a powerful car version is trying on the track, lap times are always improved. We can verify it every time a just tuned engine car and every time a Mk2 version is on the track.
Porsche declared 3s gain from the 996 GT2 Mk1 to the Mk2, and every time come out a GT3 the time is improved by some seconds "even" due improved engines. We are really sure that hp always doesn't make sense even for few seconds when the Porsche average gain 3 seconds every 20 hp improved?
You really don't know about the 7.26 engine's spec, I don't know too, you can't exclude that saying just: The 7:29 lap was close enough to 7:26, but what make sense is that Nissan is claiming too much closed lap times even with 50hp difference. I'm not excluding that it could be right from the 7.29 to the 7.24. But I think we don't agree about this point <A BORDER="0" HREF="http://www.supercars.net/PitLane?displayFAQ=y"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="pitlane/emoticons/smile.gif"></A>
The condition is still too big a variable to pinpoint power (or lack thereof). HvS, driving at
a better look about factory claims....
My08 Vs MY09: from 7'29"0 to 7'26"7 (-2.3s) just with setup and improved tyres;
My09 Vs MY11 530ps: from 7'26"7 to 7'24"2 (-2.5s) with (according with Nissan's official website): +44hp (+9.05%), more torque, overall improved engine, improved setup, better G-centre, lighter tyres and rims, more grip-tyres, better brakes, better Cx, better downforce....
Nissan invalidates itself <A BORDER="0" HREF="http://www.supercars.net/PitLane?displayFAQ=y"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="pitlane/emoticons/wink.gif"></A>
and if we consider:
- HvS @ his 2nd run did 7'38"2 with the MY09
- Sascha Bert confirms HvS: 7'43"7 on 20.8 Km and with passenger but on the MY10 (it'd be 7'37" on 20.6 Km)
7'26"7 is a completly fake-laptime, accept it...
mafalda, what were the conditions of the 7:24 run? Don't know? STFU. You're just an anti-GTR fanboy who's pissed that the Japanese have developed a pig that can run that fast. Accept it.
Without knowing the conditions, how can you say with any certainty that Nissan is claiming too much closed lap times even with 50 hp difference? You can't. Any guess is just that: a crapshoot.
And it's not always a given that more hp automatically gives a faster lap time. Of course Porsche will always claim a faster time for newer models, but that doesn't always bear out in actual testing. Ex's:
996.1 Carrera (300 PS) - 1:15.9
996.2 Carrera (320 PS) - 1:17.1
993 Turbo (408 PS) - 1:14.4
996 Turbo (480 PS) - 1:14.6
SRT-10 convertible (500 hp) - 1:13.7
SRT-10 coupe (600 hp) - 1:14.2
Look at how close these times are:
996 Turbo (420 PS) - 7:56
997 Turbo (480 PS) - 7:54
Don't we expect 997, with 60 more PS and newer suspension + electronics, to be faster than only 2 seconds?
About 486 hp vs 510, I want to know: Why do you suspect 510 hp make any sense when 486 hp doesn't?
Guibo, I said Â "we just don't know." Â about the 1st point, then "Often" about the 2nd point: Are you able to read?
Now I answer the 3rd and much more important point looking the first two are just good for write a page more.
I suspect that. So? I can't suspect that 3rd Nissan's record could be made with a top tolerance engine? Why a can't? Are you sure that engine was dynoed 485hp coming out the test room? You can't know. Knowing the 7.29 was a 10/10ths, with a sure 480hp engine, for me 3seconds are a lot. And 3 secs was achiveble just with a top tolerance engine that Nissan had probably built for the event. Today, the 530hp spec is faster without the dame effort of the old sessions, but is anyway little faster by just 2 seconds, after a long time of GT-R development. This means I can mistake my guesses but this is my opinion, True or false. Right or not.
We Will see if Nissan is able of 7:20 in better conditions. Â
do you guys work? or like, have friends to go do shit with?
They're argueing about 3 seconds on a 23 km-long track.
So what if it's a top tolerance engine? How would you ever know? You don't. We know from the Italian Auto test that it doesn't have to be a 510 hp engine to produce similar acceleration numbers to a car that HvS, in a single flying timed lap, took to a 7:38 time.
Yes, I'm able to read. Are you able to understand that more hp doesn't always manifest itself in faster times? Your statement that Porsches with more power always lap faster is flat out false.
3 seconds is a lot? I suggest you re-read Chris Harris's comment about FIVE seconds being possible with the same driver/car combo in seemingly identical conditions. This is why I ask you (and others) if you have ever driven on the 'Ring. Anyone who has ever driven there can tell you that conditions can change within a few minutes at different parts of the track to produce very different conditions, even if it may seem the same at one particular point.
Today, you don't know how much faster the 530 hp spec car is because the variable of conditions is still UNKOWN. Are you not understanding this?? And of course the older car would take more effort; Suzuki didn't learn the car and track overnight. I'm sure if Nissan is able of 7:20 in better conditions, then you'd say it MUST have been a 580 hp engine.
i dont know how this is such a big deal. ayrton senna often qualified ahead of allan prost (who is obviously also top notch) with over a second to spare. i think it was the 88 monaco gp where he destroyed the rest of the pack with almost a second gap in qualifying.
the point im trying to make is that on a 1 or so minute long circuit, between a pack of extremely skilled drivers with setups within a tee of each other, there are seconds to be found. its ludicrous to expect identical lap times to nissan factory drivers who pretty much have unlimited track time, budgets, no fear of destroying the machine (its their job to push it beyond its capabilities for r&d where an owner worries about ooh so much more, crashing for instance an its financial probs).
my point is, if senna could squeeze a second out of a minute lap, a pro factory driver with no worries and lots of track time can possibly squeeze three or four seconds from a track as tricky, fast and long as the ring.
on a side note, awd cars, particularly those like a gtr with active diffs and yaw sensing etc, are often tricky to squeeze the last little bit out of even if it feels like its 10/10.
also, subtle changes to the logic of the awd system and its torque distribution, as well as alignment or suspension changes can have dramatic effects on lap times. its not like the car is low on power or grip, so working out HOW it uses the power and grip can yield good results.