GT-R Sport Auto - New Nissan GT-R lap on the Nordschleife

[Guibo]

We can have the longest discussion we want but the the only laptime that matters when you want to compare with other cars is lap done with independent driver/same driver - such as Sportauto.

Do no try do explain that Im wrong.

I'll give an explanation of how there is a problem: Sascha Bert beating Sport Auto's time by 6 seconds (full course + passenger) in the 458; if such a test weren't done, we'd have to accept HvS's time is best. And there are a lot of cars not tested by Bert. Motoharu Kurosawa beating HvS in the NSX-R by 12 seconds.

Here's another explanation: some cars are faster with their stability control systems on. Others are faster with them off. In only one flying timed lap, a driver is not going to find which is which. And this goes to the point of my question: Is the purpose of comparing lap times to determine one car's 10/10ths pace against another car's 9/10ths pace? Is the purpose to compare the threshold of one car's stability control systems vs another?

 

[Guibo]

The general point must be to test how cars perform compared to eachother.

The time is quite irrelevant if it is done by the manufacturer and no-one else has managed to get close. That is my way of looking at it - it is allowed to have a different view.

How are you certain it is the cars in question being compared, and not the conditions or the skill of the driver? Or the leniency of their stability controls systems? Or user-specified suspension settings? All of these variables are up in the air when it comes to magazine testing, unless the magazine specifically states which settings they use. For a manufacturer's test, there is no doubt: they will use the best setting for the optimum lap result. And in Nissan's case, when they released the 7:29 time, they said flat out "Conditions were perfect; the car cannot go any faster."
How do you define "close"? 2 seconds? That technically can be considered "failing to repeat" a result. 5 seconds? 6 seconds? What is the cutoff, and why is it chosen?

The case of the ACR is important in two ways:
1st it shows that even a racing driver familiar with that type of car needs a few laps to learn how the vehicle responds to the track; merely knowing the track like the back of your hand is not enough. The ACR pilot shaved 5 seconds without any adjustments to the car. With further tweaking and more familiarity, he worked it down 20 seconds faster from his first flying lap. If that first lap were to stand as the only time, it would be gross misrepresentation of the car's true potential.
2ndly, no one has independently verfied it. Yet is it irrelevant or otherwise fanciful wishing on the part of the manufacturer? Based on the video evidence (with flubbed shifts and some missed lines), it's reasonable to assume that that car can go even faster. Based on same-day track results elsewhere (Laguna Seca, VIR, Willow Springs, Streets of Willow, Buttonwillow, Spring Mountain), we know for sure it is much faster than a lot of other cars on the 'Ring list.

I accept you can have a different view. Just discussing here. I think it's too limiting to say "well, no one has independently verified it so let's not discuss irrelevance."

 

[Mr Robert]

The best way to compare things is when as many unknown conditions as possible are eliminated.

As I said, anyone can feel free to go by manufacturer claims, it is just that I don't.

 

[Guibo]

OK, fair enough.

To add a bit, the GT-R really does demand a particular driving style to extract the most from it, so that the front tires are provoked and the car goes from primarily RWD to AWD. Adopting this more aggressive style to other cars would be fairly suicidal.

 

[Zafiro]

I have no intrest what Schumi can make in a Ferrari or what Kurt does in his Pontiac. It's still not comparable with other cars. You need same driver and preferably also the exact same conditions but I know its impossible so its the same driver that matters to me.
Also it need to be with a production ready car, not a testcar under development.

Period!

 

[Guibo]

OK, same driver. Suppose a test, same day, with both production-ready cars. Suppose a Ferrari 458 vs a Turbo S. Suppose the test day is damp on 90% of the track, with autumn leaves on the pavement. The driver for the day: Walter Rohrl. One flying timed lap. Do you think this will be a fair representation of both car's abilities?

 

[Zafiro]

There will never be 110% fair testresult but its better than drivers with different skills. There was once a source that M5 V10 did N-ring in 7.52 min but I dont care. Its not relevant and not a comparable time.
I know I might be stubborn but sorry, i've stated my opinion and I stand by it.

 

[Guibo]

I just wanted to know if you thought that was a fair representation of each car's ability. Forget about 110%, is it even close to 100%?
But isn't the driver's skill a huge variable in how he can extract speed from a car?

As for the M5 time, BMW never officially acknowledged that time. No press release. No video. They did not invite media to try the car for themselves. That is much different from what Nissan have done. Nissan invited press to examine the cars, take pictures, even walk within pit area and released telemetry data for some of the runs (which showed straight speeds comparable to Chris Harris's single flying timed lap in horrid conditions). The access is unprecedented. To say that both claims hold the same water is too simplistic, IMO.

 

[Zafiro]

Back then no one was asking for videos or asking for evidence and wanted to see some kind of proof. If the M5 V10 was tested today and everyone didnt believe in it, you might have seen a video. Yesterday and today is not relevant.
I dont want to be mean so for the last time, different driver, different skills is a 'big no no', it might work in your world but not mine. GTR did in 7.34 min and thats the time I'll stick to when I compare it to other cars. Please respect that.

 

[footie]

There's only one test result any of us are truly interested in, the one car in which we are quickest in. Everything else is irrelevant.

 

[Guibo]

So the answer to the question is that such a test would certainly not reflect the true capability of the 458. That's a perfectly reasonable assumption.

The M5 example isn't really relevant to our discussion. Even long before the M5, nobody was asking for video evidence for the 964 Turbo or the NSX-R, but they were provided. More than any support of claimed times (indeed, I don't even recall each manufacturer even making a claim), the videos show the kind of commitment that is absent in HvS's driving.

 

[DeDe]

New GT-R against its competitors (and its old version)

Made this little chart for better and easier comparison. I hope you'll like it.

 

[Tarek]

The GT-R is amazing..was that time done with Spec-V version?

 

[DeDe]

The GT-R is amazing..was that time done with Spec-V version?

No, stock 2011 GT-R

 

[Sunny]

Thanks DeDe, awesome work. BTW do you have the scans for the 11 GTR test? Again thanks .

 

[DeDe]

Thanks DeDe, awesome work. BTW do you have the scans for the 11 GTR test? Again thanks .

Thank you, Sunny.

Probably I'll be able to scan all the articles (inc. this GT-R Ring-test, 911 GT2 RS Supertest, R8 GT test, etc.) tomorrow. 90%.

 

[DeDe]

[scans] Sport Auto - 2011 Nissan GT-R Nürburgring-test

 

[footie]

I know looks are subjective but I don't think Nissan have done the GTR any favours with their aerodynamics tweaks. Apart from that they have turned an exceptional car into an even better one, and I thought they had set the bar extremely high already.