Crown

Suzuki made it to the F1 so did Danner but so what...the old Walter has all the acolates of a racer including 2 world champion in rally racing when cars were still real cars. Even at 62 he will make you puke, trust me...

You need to not only have talent but also know the track. lets not forget this is not a GP track with 10 turns - that is why everyone uses it for benchmarking...

Walter:

MKSGR:

Actually, Patrick Simon is the record holder with a street legal car on the NBR-NS  He did the NS in 7.15 on an EDO...

I doubt that a guy like Suzuki will be much quicker than him. Also, HvS has been broadly on par with Röhrl's NBR lap times many many times (CGT, GT2 etc.). Sure, Suzuki might be quicker than him - but 12s? Dream on 

Röhrl is 62 years old and he does his laps with traffic.

So because Simon has set a record for tuned cars makes him better than Suzuki?

You don't seem to understand. The argument is not that Simon is faster than Suzuki. The argument is that it is very unlikely that Suzuki is 12s faster in the same car. Very simple.

Who told you in which traffic conditions WR does his NBR laps? Do you imply that he is too old to drive fast now 

MKSGR:

You don't seem to understand. The argument is not that Simon is faster than Suzuki. The argument is that it is very unlikely that Suzuki is 12s faster in the same car. Very simple.

Who told you in which traffic conditions WR does his NBR laps? Do you imply that he is too old to drive fast now 

Suzuki can very well be 12s faster than Simon in the GT-R which is the car that Suzuki has been driving even before Simon knew it even existed.

Röhrl said it himself. Read that in a few interviews/tests.

No, I'm not saying that he is too old to drive, just that he isn't as fast as he used to be.

I thought the idea was that the GTR was very easy to drive fast by anyone...

This just reaffirms that the GTR is a very fast car, just not as fast as Nissan says it is... again, no one has been able to independently replicate Nissan’s claim.  This does not come as a surprise to anyone who predicted this exact outcome when the claim first came out.

Walter:

MKSGR:

You don't seem to understand. The argument is not that Simon is faster than Suzuki. The argument is that it is very unlikely that Suzuki is 12s faster in the same car. Very simple.

Who told you in which traffic conditions WR does his NBR laps? Do you imply that he is too old to drive fast now 

Suzuki can very well be 12s faster than Simon in the GT-R which is the car that Suzuki has been driving even before Simon knew it even existed.

Röhrl said it himself. Read that in a few interviews/tests.

No, I'm not saying that he is too old to drive, just that he isn't as fast as he used to be.

You have a very exotic view on certain things... What kind of cars do you own/drive privately, if I may ask? How often do you drive high-performance cars on the track? Not that it is necessary to own and drive lots of high-end cars. It is just wise to know one's limits when discussing with people who know their subject based on experience...

 The argument is that it is very unlikely that Suzuki is 12s faster in the same car. 

Suzuki improved his own time by 12 seconds in the last 18 months. it took thousands of laps to improve from 7.38 to 7.26.

If HvS invested 18 months and completed thousands of laps there would certainly be an improvement in his time. 12 seconds is a 3% difference. We see bigger differences in A1GP with identical spec cars.  

BTW your manners seem to have improved recently. What happened?

--

AUM:

 

BTW your manners seem to have improved recently. What happened?

 

 

--

Since your last criticism I immediately started working on this issue. I am most happy that you appreciate the positive development  This will make me work even harder 

AUM:

 The argument is that it is very unlikely that Suzuki is 12s faster in the same car. 

 

Suzuki improved his own time by 12 seconds in the last 18 months. it took thousands of laps to improve from 7.38 to 7.26.

If HvS invested 18 months and completed thousands of laps there would certainly be an improvement in his time. 12 seconds is a 3% difference. We see bigger differences in A1GP with identical spec cars.  

 

--

Your argument is not convincing... Would you argue that Porsche test drivers do less testing than Nissan does? Your argument should then also apply to Porsche. However, we know the offical lap times for the GT2 or the CGT: both are not far from the HvS lap times. How could this be explained by your theory? In particular, if you consider that the GTR "is so easy to drive" 

MKSGR:

AUM:

 The argument is that it is very unlikely that Suzuki is 12s faster in the same car. 

 

Suzuki improved his own time by 12 seconds in the last 18 months. it took thousands of laps to improve from 7.38 to 7.26.

If HvS invested 18 months and completed thousands of laps there would certainly be an improvement in his time. 12 seconds is a 3% difference. We see bigger differences in A1GP with identical spec cars.  

 

--

 

Your argument is not convincing... Would you argue that Porsche test drivers do less testing than Nissan does? Your argument should then also apply to Porsche. However, we know the offical lap times for the GT2 or the CGT: both are not far from the HvS lap times. How could this be explained by your theory? In particular, if you consider that the GTR "is so easy to drive" 

Markus, I've really enjoyed your posts in this thread. 

Another question which needs to be answered and is very relevant to this discussion is this: There has been mention here during the last few days, that the customer GT-Rs are nowhere near as fast at Döttinger Höhe as it has previously been claimed. What speed is the car supposed to have done there on the record run? There is a 12-second delta between the two cars, which is currently being attributed to driver skill (regardless of the fact that the GT-R is hailed for being remarkably easy to drive at the limit). I suspect that the difference in times can at least in part be explained by a very 'healthy' engine in the test car.

 Crash, great to hear from you 

You are 100% right: the speed on Doettinger Hoehe will be very interesting. If it is too low this will support doubts about Suzuki's test car. If it is too high (compared to what the GTR owner I wrote about told me) one might discuss about the test car used by SportAuto. Although I would expect SportAuto to see through too obviously modded test cars...

BTW, I was quite shocked when reading that you now live in Antarctica  Then I read the part before Antarctica 

 I find these argument hilarious. When the GTR first was announced with the goal that it would compete with the Porsche TT most on the board laughed and smirked with indignation. No way in hell will a $75,000 even come close to a Porsche let only a TT.

Shortly there after, magazines began to sing the praise of the GTR and times in Japan were unbelievable. So what do members of this board say? The car is a ringer and you can't believe what the car can do until SportAuto tests it on the Ring.

NOw that SportAuto has verified it is indeed a faster car than all Porsche's except the GT2 (that still may be in doubt) now I witness an argument that Nissan lied about the car time at the Ring. Let's forget that it destroyed the TT, GT3 times. Rather complain about S time.

Is there no shame?

Walter:

So if the 7:38 is true, then I really don't see how a 7:26 would be impossible for someone who has driven the car on that track since the first test mule was build and done hundreds if not thousands of laps there. And let's keep in mind that he did 25 (!) Supertests with different Porsche models.

I've been following these GTR vs GT2 argument since the beginning but didn't want to comment on since I haven't driven either of the cars.

However, after the 7:38 sec time from HvS, I believe what Nissan claims as a record time is DOABLE.

There can be made many suspansion alterations on a Stock car that makes it faster on a track leaving everything in STOCK form.

When I change the alighment of my cars to my liking, it even counts, too.

I'm not telling that GTR is faster than GT2. All I'm saying that Nissan wasn't cheating its customers/potential buyers.  I'm also not comparing GTR Suzuki San time with HvS GT2 time.

Actually most of board members who are thinking that Nissan was cheating the public expecting GTR to be slower than 7:45 time in the Super Test but Nissan, I think, pass the test with HvS 7:38 time. 

Breaking the 7:40 time barrier is a succes all alone

ONUR

09 Audi TTS Ibis

07 997 Carrera S / 05 M3 Coupe / 03 M3 Coupe / 96 M3 Coupe EVO (ALL BUT HISTORY)

nberry:

 I find these argument hilarious. When the GTR first was announced with the goal that it would compete with the Porsche TT most on the board laughed and smirked with indignation. No way in hell will a $75,000 even come close to a Porsche let only a TT.

Shortly there after, magazines began to sing the praise of the GTR and times in Japan were unbelievable. So what do members of this board say? The car is a ringer and you can't believe what the car can do until SportAuto tests it on the Ring.

NOw that SportAuto has verified it is indeed a faster car than all Porsche's except the GT2 (that still may be in doubt) now I witness an argument that Nissan lied about the car time at the Ring. Let's forget that it destroyed the TT, GT3 times. Rather complain about S time.

Is there no shame?

 

I agree with this, too. Your point of view exactly reflects mine.
 

I do believe that Nissan beats Porsche on its own game regardless of GT2 time. First of all, GTR is not in the same league as GT2 both price wise and power to weight ratio wise.

It directly compares against 997 TT and it is faster. The Goal is achieved. The rest is bonus for Nissan, IMO.

ONUR

09 Audi TTS Ibis

07 997 Carrera S / 05 M3 Coupe / 03 M3 Coupe / 96 M3 Coupe EVO (ALL BUT HISTORY)

MKSGR:

You have a very exotic view on certain things... What kind of cars do you own/drive privately, if I may ask? How often do you drive high-performance cars on the track? Not that it is necessary to own and drive lots of high-end cars. It is just wise to know one's limits when discussing with people who know their subject based on experience...

edit: Deleted my post because it was just your usual cheap provocations and like an idiot I responded to them. Will not happen again.

edit2: But let's get back to what we were discussing about

http://www.rennteam.com/forum/thread/385186/Walter_Rhrl_about_his_fast_lap_in_the_GT2/index.html

"Some interesting statements from WR (made during an interview published in the recent copy of 911 & Porsche World).

Enjoy

About his fast lap with the GT2 on the Ring:
It's hazardous enough running development cars at maximum speed, and Walter recently had a close shave. "The next new car is the GT2. Recently, I was at the Nürburgring during Industry Week to make the final tests. It is always important to have a good laptime to tell the people - because that's what they always want to know - how quick is it around Nordschleife. Then they know if it is fast enough. All the test drivers were there, all the buddies, from Mercedes, BMW, Audi. Everybody knows the score: these guys are so fast that you don't have problems. I did my fast lap at 7m29s, the fastest lap a standard car has ever done, and I passed 11 cars. There was an Audi A3, and he was not watching his mirrors, and I passed him at 310 kph on Tiergarten, and he went sideways. It was so close! After that I told Porsche: It's finished with these fast cars, you cannot do this any more. Either you have a closed road or forget it, it's too dangerous now."

Crash:

There is a 12-second delta between the two cars, which is currently being attributed to driver skill (regardless of the fact that the GT-R is hailed for being remarkably easy to drive at the limit). I suspect that the difference in times can at least in part be explained by a very 'healthy' engine in the test car.

I got this from another forum:

Other people who have driven the GT-R have noticed about its limits:
"A lot of people are misleading when they say about how easy it is to drive. And it is. It's very, very easy to drive. Up to about 80 or 90 percent. But if you really want to start pushing that car, it's going to start slipping and sliding and moving around. It's natural. Any car, be it a single seater or sedan, if you're really going quick, the car has to slide...you're moving the car around a lot. So [people] are secure in the GT-R, and you think you're going quick, but you can go a lot quicker."
--Steve Millen

"On the road course, the GT-R floundered at first. Bawling, irrepressible understeer was all the bulky Bridgestone run-flats could muster in slower turns. Along twisty byways, it was cited for being colder and less thrilling than the other mega-personalities in the test. 'It’s a 500-hp Prelude,' grumped one editor.
As the notebook pages flipped, however, the comments started thawing. On track, the GT-R comes alive when manhandled rally-style, like a two-ton STI. Lean heavily on the brakes, saw the wheel hard, then mash the throttle and let the all-wheel-drive system’s rear bias point the nose."
--Car & Driver

"Both the GT-R and the 911 are specialist cars. They don't drive like anything else on the market. You just can't get into a GT2 never having driven one before and expect to go 10/10ths fast. It's a beast of a car and one that requires special skills and Porsche experience.
Whereas there's a seemingly universal belief that the GT-R is the opposite of that...it's apparently a PlayStation car, one that can go fast with any old muppet behind the wheel. Well, this is kind of true, all the way up to about 8/10ths of what he car can do. Drive over this, really push the car, and it all gets a bit difficult again. The Atessa system only punts power to the front wheels when it thinks you need it. To make the computer think you need it, you must deliberately throw the car with commitment and a little violence over the edges of its envelope. Only as the back wheels light up, or the front pushes desperately wide, will the car start to work its magic."
--Dale Lomas, chief instructor with Nurburgring driving school RSRNurburg

I will restrict my comments to the "12 second " gap:

As an ardent sportscar racing fan, I would just like to say that a 12 second gap is ENORMOUS!...on any track!

For your appreciation:

The difference in qualifying times during the last 24H Nurburgring between the pole sitter (the Ford GT40) and the second car (Porsche RSR) was 0.191 seconds!

Both these cars were GT2 cars so had similar levels of preparation.

The difference in times between the second and third placed car (the Porsche RSR  and the Audi R8) was 0.82 of a second.

Note: The Audi R8 was a GT3 car and therefore (in theory) a car with a lower level of performance and preparation.

In fact, one has to go all the way down to the 10th placed car to find a difference of 12 seconds between the pole sitter and that car.

For two different drivers to be 12 seconds apart in the same car is a colossal difference! ...on any track!

NB. this assuming that both drivers know the track equally well

nberry:

 I find these argument hilarious. When the GTR first was announced with the goal that it would compete with the Porsche TT most on the board laughed and smirked with indignation. No way in hell will a $75,000 even come close to a Porsche let only a TT.

Shortly there after, magazines began to sing the praise of the GTR and times in Japan were unbelievable. So what do members of this board say? The car is a ringer and you can't believe what the car can do until SportAuto tests it on the Ring.

NOw that SportAuto has verified it is indeed a faster car than all Porsche's except the GT2 (that still may be in doubt) now I witness an argument that Nissan lied about the car time at the Ring. Let's forget that it destroyed the TT, GT3 times. Rather complain about S time.

Is there no shame?

 

I think you misunderstand many things 

Firstly, the Supertest result is not yet published... Also the Supertest does not only consist of a NBR lap time but also of HHR lap time and many other data points which will be key to draw a final conclusion on the test and the car.

Secondly, it is now reconfirmed (not only by the Supertest) that the GTR is significantly (!) slower than the GT2.

Also, it is grossly wrong to write that the GTR "destroys" the GT3. These cars are on par as far as the NBR is concerned. The GT3 handles better on tighter tracks, has better brakes, a better steering - but 50hp less. Those 50hp are the major reason why the GTR can compete with the GT3 (see recent AutoZeitung test by Kurt Thiim on this).

Third, the fact that the GTR is on par with 997TT lap time performance is not new. It has been discussed here for months. At the same time the question is what happens to a GTR after 5, 10 or 15 laps... We know that the 997TT has no problems with heavy use. We fear (very much) that the GTR will fall to pieces of treated the same way... There are actually plenty of problem reports by GTR owners on the net which support this view.

And finally, most of us (I exclude Walter here ) still argue that the lap times claimed by Nissan were NOT driven with a regular car as the gap to independant lap times is much too large and as several highly reputed professionals who have driven the GTR on the NBR doubt the offical numbers.

Best greetings to our Starbucks friend 

Spyderidol:

I will restrict my comments to the "12 second " gap:

As an ardent sportscar racing fan, I would just like to say that a 12 second gap is ENORMOUS!...on any track!

For your appreciation:

The difference in qualifying times during the last 24H Nurburgring between the pole sitter (the Ford GT40) and the second car (Porsche RSR) was 0.191 seconds!

Both these cars were GT2 cars so had similar levels of preparation.

The difference in times between the second and third placed car (the Porsche RSR  and the Audi R8) was 0.82 of a second.

Note: The Audi R8 was a GT3 car and therefore (in theory) a car with a lower level of performance and preparation.

In fact, one has to go all the way down to the 10th placed car to find a difference of 12 seconds between the pole sitter and that car.

For two different drivers to be 12 seconds apart in the same car is a colossal difference! ...on any track!

NB. this assuming that both drivers know the track equally well

 

 

Just a small correction: The GT40 was in fact a GT3 car (SP9) and not a GT2(SP7) car as I mentioned in my post. This only re-enforces my point.

For all you doubters out there. I think it's time for you to watch Suzuki's 7:29 lap again. You'll find it here

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smxFKOlF_tk

Watch closely how Suzuki drives. He drives with full attack. He throws the car into the corners. He knows exactly how the car behaves and how it reacts.

HvS is an extremely talanted driver. But. He borrows a car from Nissan and he absolutly do not want to carsh it. Ask him yourselves! HvS says that he do not drive the cars he tests at the Ring at 100% of their limit. HvS simply say (1) I do not want to crash the car (2) I want to live tomorrow. Suzuki has no problems with that. If he crashes, just go an get a new car. 

Remember, for HvS the time setting at the Ring is not a race, it's just setting a  time. That's why he don't do 100 of laps in one car he tests and just a few in another. He always just go a few laps before he sets the time. Suzuki has probably done 1000s of laps in the GT-R.

So, the 12 sec time discrepancy between HvS and Suzuki is at least what I had already expected. Remeber, at the Ring, 12 sec i very little.

If you still doubt Suzuki's time in the GT-R, have a look at this video clip http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k4CdizEYwyw 

Do you think it's possible to do 8:08 in an "ancient" car with street tyres on a lot worse tarmac than today? No, of course not. But if you drive like a god, you can do it. What do you think about the time difference between the ancient 964 turbo and hyper modern 997 GT2 on semi slicks with better tarmac and track? "Only" 35 sec. Should be more, shouldn't it? No, not if you drive like a god and are 100% comitted. How many race drivers do you think could replicate the 8:08 time today? For goodness sake, HvS drove 8:03 with a 996 GT3. Only 5 sec faster. The differences should have been bigger. Just confirms that HvS is an extremely talented driver. But he just set a time. He could have gone faster, but that is not the thing with their tests. They just set a time that should be comparable with other times HvS has done.

Conclusion is that Suzuki's time is plausible, as is HvS time. No big issue. Just two different drivers with different commitment and prerequisites. 

Spyderidol:

I will restrict my comments to the "12 second " gap:

As an ardent sportscar racing fan, I would just like to say that a 12 second gap is ENORMOUS!...on any track!

For your appreciation:

The difference in qualifying times during the last 24H Nurburgring between the pole sitter (the Ford GT40) and the second car (Porsche RSR) was 0.191 seconds!

Both these cars were GT2 cars so had similar levels of preparation.

The difference in times between the second and third placed car (the Porsche RSR  and the Audi R8) was 0.82 of a second.

Note: The Audi R8 was a GT3 car and therefore (in theory) a car with a lower level of performance and preparation.

In fact, one has to go all the way down to the 10th placed car to find a difference of 12 seconds between the pole sitter and that car.

For two different drivers to be 12 seconds apart in the same car is a colossal difference! ...on any track!

NB. this assuming that both drivers know the track equally well

 

 

That is an excellent comparison of lap times 

We are talking about a former underperformer in F1, right? Suzuki never got it right there.

What lap time would do Michael then in a GTR on the NBR then? 6.00? Or below 6 minutes 

Maybe Suzuki should return to F1. He would clearly win several championships based on your theories...

MKSGR:

 

We are talking about a former underperformer in F1, right? Suzuki never got it right there.

What lap time would do Michael then in a GTR on the NBR then? 6.00? Or below 6 minutes 

Maybe Suzuki should return to F1. He would clearly win several championships based on your theories...

Yeah, what ever. You don't seem to read what I posted.

MKSGR:

 

We are talking about a former underperformer in F1, right? Suzuki never got it right there.

What lap time would do Michael then in a GTR on the NBR then? 6.00? Or below 6 minutes 

Maybe Suzuki should return to F1. He would clearly win several championships based on your theories...

aaah..now i understand who is Suzuki..

i hope it was a motorcycle and i don't undertsand what has to do a motorcycle Ring time in comparison with the GT2, etc ring times..

But this a part,the Datsun will remain ever a Datsun,and a Porsche is ever a Porsche,all this battle for Ring times count like zero if someone is really interested in buying a car,sure we can discuss also an year,but the juice is that thare are too much variable thing to can take out the final verdict of who is faster.

And maybe also if we can understand who is faster we can't be sure on which one is the most reliable(also if we know).

So,my next car easiest it will be again a Porsche,also if the Datsun cost less and maybe it can be faster..

The example I gave is at the Ring.

I think that you will find that circuit knowledge plays a very big part in the times set at the Ring.

I Know of two professional racing drivers (from a top team) that had a discrepancy of 30 Seconds in a lap using the same car. (on the "longer" version that includes the F1 track)

However, this was only due to the fact that one of the drivers was an "expert" at the Ring and the other had never driven on it.

On all other tracks (where they have similar knowledge) they have very similar times.

AUM:

 The argument is that it is very unlikely that Suzuki is 12s faster in the same car. 

 

Suzuki improved his own time by 12 seconds in the last 18 months. it took thousands of laps to improve from 7.38 to 7.26.

If HvS invested 18 months and completed thousands of laps there would certainly be an improvement in his time. 12 seconds is a 3% difference. We see bigger differences in A1GP with identical spec cars.  

 

 Sport Auto should have invited Suzuki to drive the same GTR soon after HvS set his time. This is the only way we would know the difference in their times conclusively and without variables. 

 

BTW your manners seem to have improved recently. What happened?

 

 

--

While I follow your "discussion" with interest, I suggest that we give up trying to prove whether Suzuki San's time in a GT-R on the ring is genuine or not.

What counts most - at least for me - is the direct comparison to other cars by ideally the same guy in the same conditions - and the Sport Auto Supertest comes close to this ideal.

It is save to assume that HvS knows the ring well enough to drive the cars to their best ability. But it is also fair to assume that he wouldn't risk his life to be able to post a "very special time" if the car doesn't give him confidence.

I honestly believe that it is possible that a semi-pro/pro driver who has helped to develop a car and hence knows it inside out is faster than Horst on the ring. If it is 12 seconds than this only tells me one thing. If thousands of laps in that car are needed to extract such a performance I couldn't, quite frankly, care less. If some Porsche hot shot after a thousand laps clocks a GT2 at 7.20 I also couldn't care less.

I am interested in what an "ordinary guy" can do with the car after only a few laps. There is an apparent margin between the GT2 and the GT-R and hopefully so considering the price difference as well as all other "talents" of these two cars. I find it also great that the GT-R is apparently faster than the 997TT - Porsche could have done a much better job with the set-up of the 997TT (incl. the 4WD) and only competition will improve these cars further. This is not only true in F1.

Amen!

BTW, initial announced time was 7:29 which Porsche had claimed that it is impossible and they could only done 7:50 with the GTR which leads to a new dialogue between Nissan and Porsche about training Porsche Test drivers.

7:26 time came from new model year car with the Spec V wheels/tires and a few more small changes on the new tarmac.

So what we are talking here, actually is 9 sec which I believe is possible.

Also as I said before Suzuki's GTR could have different alighment and suspension tweaks for the Ring. Even after these alterations, the car can be assumed as STOCK. 

ONUR

09 Audi TTS Ibis

07 997 Carrera S / 05 M3 Coupe / 03 M3 Coupe / 96 M3 Coupe EVO (ALL BUT HISTORY)

I am interested in what an "ordinary guy" can do with the car after only a few laps. 

That is exactly what I'm trying to say. So please - do not doubt Suzuki's time. It's for real. As well as HvS time. Problem is that Porsche (not HvS) accused Nissan for cheating. They were not cheating, just 100% comitted to set a fast time.

As I said - you cannot compare HvS in a GT-R and Suzuki in a GT-R.

What would be intresteing though, is to see somebody, as comitted as Nissan/Suzuki to set a "maximum-attack-time" in the 997 GT2.

Is there a time for the GTR around just the F1 part of the circuit?

Spyderidol:

Is there a time for the GTR around just the F1 part of the circuit?

SportAuto does not include the GP track in their NBR lap time (they just do the NS). To complement the NBR-NS time they do a second test on the Hockenheimring (no numbers available for that yet)