2012 Nissan GT-R: 530HP, 7.20 Ring Time

Discussion in 'Asian Forums' started by thebarron1989, Oct 18, 2010.

  1. ^Excellent post. Though I'm sure there will be some who believe that Senna's car MUST have been making 30 more hp. Even on more controlled, shorter F1 tracks, you'd likely see variances of multiple seconds from the same driver/car combination when tested just days apart.
    As to why it's such a big deal...well, it's not coincidence that the same 2 Ferrari fans are in yet another thread raising doubts about hp levels in GT-R's driven in different conditions on a long-ass track. Next, they'll tell you that 50.5 hp is necessary to extract 4.5 seconds between cars tested months apart, even if they can't tell if one was tested in damp conditions.
  2. "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"

    I said OFTEN at the beginning of the phrase. I know what you are saying, I'm not so stupid you are thinking. You think I'd not seen something like these examples in past? Yes, I have two eyes and a brain, me too. I think sometimes you dont understand the sense of my english that is not so perfect. Saying OFTEN, I'm not saying ALWAYS.

    "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"

    3 seconds are a lot or nothing, it depends to the context. Chris Harris said about 5 secs behind drivers or conditions but it could been behind a part of a "car develop" too. I dont know if I'm explain well, or you think or meaning an other one time something other.(?)

    "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."

    Your are writing something I'm not thinking. What are you saying? I'm JUST said "top tolerance", and nothing against you or the GT-R. Are you trying to divert the sense? I hope not.
  3. Doubts? Are doubts if we are talking that MAYBE (being not able to know, both) we are talking about top tolerance engine about the 7.26 lap? Why is that so offensive for you think that? you think they could not have done it, being right? You think they used a tired engine for the 3rd record? You think for the event it's a crime build a perfect car with a top tolerance blueprinted engine?

    You think I'm not knowing the GT-R is a great car for its merits and the Ring conformations? Or are you trying to throwing mud on others?

  4. Even with the OFTEN part, the second doesn't makes sense:
    "...every time a powerful car version is trying on the track, lap times are always improved."

    That pretty much negates the OFTEN part. But nevermind, you now accept that hp increases don't always manifest themselves in faster lap times.

    Um, review what Chris Harris actually said, and keep in mind the CONTEXT of this other part:
    "On days that seemed climatically identical but were months apart, [race] cars have seen up to a five second dispcrepancy in lap times. Including ours.
    I don't really care about Nurburgring lap times, largely because I think they often say far more about the condition of the circuit and the size of the driver's sexual organs...than they do the vehicle in question."
    His point isn't to do with "car develop." The point was the variability in lap times even with seemingly identical conditions. Second part says different conditions and driver commitment can say more than the condition of the vehicle. In other words, we don't *have* to consider "top tolerance." The Italian Auto test indicates you don't have to have a "top tolerance" engine.

    No, not trying to divert. Try 556 hp then.
  5. No, I'm wondering why variability of conditions can't explain the time differences. You did not allow such variability in your post:
    "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."

    To which I replied with times for those Porsche and Viper, the Viper being a coupe (more rigid, more aerodynamic, and lighter by 37 kilos) with 100 more hp, TWICE the difference you are talking about. Yet it was slower.

    Why must we look to "top tolerances" when we don't have to? You throw mud on yourself when you continue to doubt these times (and hp levels), and each time you bring no conclusive evidence. The point is, unless you KNOW the conditions, you really can't quibble about 20 hp unless you want to make yourself look like a complete douchebag.

    Why is it so offensive to think that a 486 hp GT-R could have set those times?

  6. im offended
  8. Sometimes I CAN mistake the ideal word on my phrases. Accept that. Is normal for someone that write english is not simple.

    I understand how Harris is saying. But because I'm an idiot, I have made a mistake considering the car's conditions a variable more, and, because Harris don't said that, it's surely not important and we don't care about it.
  9. Because a factory mule is surely built with the same care of the production customer car, because the factory doesn't care about it, before to send the car to the press or some other particular events. Yes. Ok I'm a complete douchebag.
  10. The factory mule was slower on an autobahn roll test than a 997.1 Turbo, both driven at the same time by TopGear.
    Nissan sent a GT-R to Car & Driver for testing that was slower in a straight line than BMW M3's (yet it still outlapped a Z06).
    The factory S1/S2 hybrid mule, driven by the GT-R's ace driver in perfect conditions and with its faster tires, was only 1-2 kph faster at the same point on Doettinger Hoehe compared to Chris Harris in a stock customer S1 car with Bridgestones, despite Harris having a damp lead-up corner.
    Randy Pobst, driving a bone stock customer GT-R, said the customer's car was so much better and more powerful than the red press car he used for Motor Trend at Laguna Seca.
    Nissan sent Evo Magazine a GT-R on the cheaper P Zeros they used for their driving academy, for the eCOTY article (GT-R still won despite less precision feel than on OEM tires).
    Italian mag Auto dyno'ed their press car at 489.6 PS vs 485 claimed. A difference of only 0.9%.
    I dunno, you tell me: How careful are these cars prepped? Maybe they're running at top tolerance (C&D car, probably not!). Doesn't appear to be much different from customer-spec cars (C&D car much slower). This is quite different from Ferrari sending their small team of redcoats and F1 trailer with 458/599/Scuderia (and sometimes with F1 test driver who develop the car on track) for mag tests, isn't it?

    As for your last sentence, finally! Something we agree on!
  11. How the hell is this discussion still going on?
  12. Oh you are my God, I'm happy we agree on!
    The only problem is that your proofs are all good but nothing about the 7.26 car or something about the specific mule we talking about, you can't, or you are so idiot thinking that Nissan sent too much fast mule or fast factory cars to the press. Wich is the gain for Nissan, looking their choice of marketing, sending fast mules to the press? Confirm to the world that some mules setting with particular care are probably faster? Oh. I think they are not so stupid. They can sent at their events what they prefere because they are able to see you what they want. What they prefere for their marketing (wasn't the Ring?) You said Ferrari sent their cars with the small team of redcoats, Nissan don't behind their choice. This is for you a proof to be honest sending no fast cars to the press. An additional proof they were surely honest that day at the Ring. Wich type of proofs for honesty about the specific 7.26 mule are that? Now the problem is not Gt-r but you: We Are talking about a specific mule, in a specific event, then, you answer me with other proofs, Other cars, other events nothing about that case, it's crazy, but, and this is the most stupid thing, excluding the shorter way: they are all able to see you what they want.  Then, you are free, you can believe your no specific proofs or any shit you want!  
  13. i bet my honda could do a sub 9min run
  14. 7:29 vs 7:26...jesus christ. Do you seriously think once car is going to be so much faster than another? You are so fvcking dense as to guess at horsepower numbers on a 23 km track when you don't even know the conditions, LOL.
  15. put the gtr against a pro tuned 2jz supra with 1000rwp then see who wins 2jz king 4 life
  16. the n-ring can suck my left testicle for all i care
  17. the n-ring is a racetrack and it could not suck on your left testicle
  18. what if i told u my left testicle is a car. <A BORDER="0" HREF="http://www.supercars.net/PitLane?displayFAQ=y"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="pitlane/emoticons/wink.gif"></A>
  20. uh, at last:
    Other guys with their suppositions and nothing to prove are idiots or they look like complete douchebags.
    You, with your suppositions without any proof, who are you?
  21. You made the assertion that the small time difference CANNOT be attributed to conditions. I posted proof of cars with MORE power (20% more in the case of the Viper) being SLOWER even when driven by the same driver.

    I quoted a person who has driven on the 'Ring, raced there in VLN races, 24-hour enduro there. I'd say that overrides your supposition, doesn't it?
  22. God damn this thread... everytime theres a new post I think of checking it out in case theres news... instead I'm greeted with this.
  23. These are objective proofs at the case for you? Who are you? both.
  24. Well, Sport Auto didn't *feel* the Porsches and Vipers were slower. They timed them. That's objective. By the same token, I'd wager Chris Harris knows something about timing of his Porsche racer on the Nordschleife.
  25. you both look like douchebags lol

Share This Page