Nissan GT-R: 7:50 at the Nurburgring

Discussion in 'Asian Forums' started by ajzahn, Nov 24, 2007.

  1. holy shit, I just realized how many posts I have!
  2. That's just caused by the time dilation of the GT-R traveling at relativistic speeds.
  3. #128 MindlessOath, Nov 28, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
  4. Its because youre exaggerating.

    Also if you watch as both cars pass under the overhead banner on the start of the main straight, the GTR is around 10-11 seconds behind.
  5. pause it justbefore the zonda finishes.look at the two clocks and you will see that the nissan clock is .46-.51 second behind the zonda clock

    I was refering to the clocks themselves. not the cars or their position on the track.
  6. Dunno about that one. I guess the dude who composed the video might have been using different framerates per source. i.e. 24/25/29 fps. This can cause things to go out of sync when compositing and encoding.

    Although I wouldnt say its really got any significance to the comparison? It still clearly shows how much further behind the GTR finishes.
  7. How the GT-R'd be faster than a Gallardo Superleggera?!?
    Gallardo SL is more powerfull and 250 Kg lighter!!
    Something is wrong here...
  8. The GT-R has 550-560HP.
  9. its not. 7:50 vs 7:46.

    and as PB pointed out, the GTR's power is hugely underrated.
  10. MindlessOath is as bad as Raging Balls, FNAF and Lambornima rolled into one
  11. I didnt feel like reading everything because Im worried there will be a mindlessoak post that will completely ruin the way I look at the GTR. But did I read someone comparing the GTR to a Zonda?!?!
  12. Top Gear Magazine wrote GT-R and VEYRON in the same sentence.
  13. Please read the first two words of your sentence... That explains everything <A BORDER="0" HREF=""><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="pitlane/emoticons/wink.gif"></A>
  14. LOL <A BORDER="0" HREF=""><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="pitlane/emoticons/grin.gif"></A>
  15. 1. 7'50" with "partially wet track"
    2. Why Nissan daclairs 480hp!?!?
    3. It still heavy
  16. Why do people still ignore the 7'38" time around the ring?

    Where is this great infallible evidence that makes this time invalid?
  17. there´s no proof for that
  18. What was the deal with tha '7.38' run that the GTR did, i have heard various comments such as that it didnt complete a full lap, it missed out the finish straight. and that the car a camo'ed example and running semi-slick tyres. anyone got any answers or comments?
  19. It was a full lap.
    It had stock tires which are not semi slicks.
  20. Except for a video.
  21. #146 MindlessOath, Jan 2, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
    a video and almost every magazine has posted the time 7:38
    i dont see that proof enough.

    i wish everyone would learn how to read.

    Lift Coefficient comparisons enclosed. GTR is -.09

    Tdf = 0.5 * Cl * A * r * V^2

    Total downforce of the GTR =.5*-.09*7.47*1.225 * Velocity squared

    Total Downforce of the GTR =0.4117*V2

    1.50 mph = 22.32m/s L=0.4117*(22.32^2) = 205N (46 lbs)
    2.100mph = 44.7 m/s L=0.4117*(44.7^2) = 822N (185lbs)
    3. 150mph = 67.05 m/s L=0.4117*(67.05^2) = 1850N (416 lbs)
    4. 200mph = 89.4 m/s L=0.4117*(89.4^2) = 3290N (740 lbs)
    5. 250mph = 111.7 m/s L=0.4117*(111.7^2) = 5136N (1155 lbs)

    Nissan have done an outstanding job creating significant downforce at low drag.

    Key issues relating to downforce (aerodynamic induced stability) are:

    Improved vehicle stability
    Reduced Pitch and roll
    Predictable behaviour on the limit
    Increased cornering speed


    these can be found at nissans website here:
    for easier reading you can try these links...
  22. #147 EliseS2, Jan 2, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
    "Key issues relating to downforce (aerodynamic induced stability) are"

    First downforce is not "aerodynamic induced stability". Any sort of aerodynamic stability would probably be related to yaw stability.

    "Improved vehicle stability"

    What axis does it make it more stable? The available grip for a car with downforce will be proportional to the vehicles speed. So if a driver starts to enter a corner and starts to slow during the corner, there is less available grip, so the driver may need to slow down even more to maintain traction. This makes it less stable to drive than a car with no downforce, because you have narrowed the dynamic envelope during high speed cornering.

    Granted, a car with lots of lift would be unstable also, but a car with no lift and no downforce, would be very stable and easier to drive. Of course this is in reference to the cornering at the dynamic limit of the downforce car. I would agree that the downforce car driving at limits of the neutral car would be more stable, since it has a much wider envelope, but if they were both driving at 5/10 they would pretty much have the similar margin.

    "Reduced Pitch and roll"

    Why the hell would downforce reduce pitch and roll, the greater dynamic envelope of the car would increase the pitch and the roll.

    "Predictable behaviour on the limit"

    Downforce will make it less predictable, since now your available grip is now dependant on your speed. I would a consider a car with no downforce or lift probably more predictable, since the limits would be similar at any speed.

    This totally ignores the sensitivity of the downforce to pitch and other movements. Looking at the car, it is obvious that it generates most of its downforce from the underbody. So that means any changes in ride height will change the amount of downforce. As an example as the car brakes into a corner, the nose will pitch down a little, this will probably increase the downforce on the front. This will allow more grip for the front wheels. Then the driver will turn in, with this extra bit of grip, but as the nose starts to lift up, there will be less downforce and consequently a loss of grip. This will make it tricky to drive at the limit/.

    "Increased cornering speed"

    This part is correct, it will increase cornering speed.

    Where did you get the area of 7.47m^2? Do you have frontal area numbers, that would be very interesting to see if it has less drag than a 911 or a corvette.

    Really saying things like:


    You should really understand what you are saying before you start telling other to.

    Also that press release is awesome! The GT-R does not just have downforce, but "POWERFUL DOWNFORCE". Those japanese are hilarious. There are so many just silly wordings in those press releases.
  23. I really think this is the best car in its class.
  24. EliseS2 your just being stubborn, dare i say ignorant. something you dont understand and you flail around cause you dont like it.

    please did you read the LINKS? those numbers are from lotus, they helped engineer the GT-R.

    why wouldnt it have better stats than the vette or 911? it was made to compete directly against them, nissan knows this and so made the GT-R better.

    im sorry you dont care to understand or care. your fear of something differnt ... its scary to know people like yourself still exist. Stop spreading FUD because you dont like something. you probably just dont like the name "nissan" because they make a sentra or whatever. sounds to me like bullcrap child **** to me.
  25. You're just regurgutating shit you've read, EliseS2 actually knows what's going on.

Share This Page