Crown

Thanks!

I know that the F1 part is not included, but I'm trying to see what the "overall"  track time would be if we add the GTR's F1 track time to it's "supposed" 7:26 for the NS part.

We can then get a sense of how credible the 7:26 is when compared to the times set at the recent Nurburg 24H (of which I know)

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

 

 

As I said before Senna managed to be 1.7 seconds faster than Prost on 2 occassions and he was ragularly more than a second faster than him and they were driving the same car.

And my comparison is still flawed for the simple reason that Senna and Prost had about the same experience driving the McLaren while Suzuki has hundreds of laps more experience in the GT-R than von Saurma. How fast was the R8 or GT3 on their 3rd lap compared to the pole time set by the Ford GT? How much slower do you think would the R8 and GT3 be with drivers that had never driven the cars before?

I see there a lot of german guys on this forum. Next time you visit Grüne Hölle and see HvS. Go and talk to him. Ask him if he gets 100% out of the car. You will get the same answer - No! He doesn't test the car to 100%. He just set a (quick) time. So, as pointed out so many times Suzuki will be faster than HvS. And 12 sec sounds really plausibel and reasonable.

So...HHR?  1.10? 1.11?

Orabidoo:

I see there a lot of german guys on this forum. Next time you visit Grüne Hölle and see HvS. Go and talk to him. Ask him if he gets 100% out of the car. You will get the same answer - No! He doesn't test the car to 100%. He just set a (quick) time. So, as pointed out so many times Suzuki will be faster than HvS. And 12 sec sounds really plausibel and reasonable.

Do you actually know the layout of the track  Then please tell me more specifically where you think Suzuki-san can save the 12 seconds against HvS

I certainly like the Senna / Prost proxy but no matter how much credit you give Suzuki he is no Senna.

Also last year Walter lapped Schumi - both driving the same Fcar. A story well known among Ringers...so much for the old guy slowing down...

Also to an earlier question add 90 sec for GP section to get approx. proxy to 24h times

Walter:

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

 

 

As I said before Senna managed to be 1.7 seconds faster than Prost on 2 occassions and he was ragularly more than a second faster than him and they were driving the same car.

And my comparison is still flawed for the simple reason that Senna and Prost had about the same experience driving the McLaren while Suzuki has hundreds of laps more experience in the GT-R than von Saurma. How fast was the R8 or GT3 on their 3rd lap compared to the pole time set by the Ford GT? How much slower do you think would the R8 and GT3 be with drivers that had never driven the cars before?

 A 1.7 second gap nowadays between two proffesional drivers with the same car is almost unheard of on most tracks. Even the differense between Alonso and Piquet (maybe the most mismatched team mates in F1) was less than 1 second at Monaco, about 0.5 seconds in Sepang, less than 1 second in Australia, less than a second in Bahrain and so on.

On the ring, it's track knowledge that makes the big difference, not just car knowledge.

TEE:

Do you actually know the layout of the track  Then please tell me more specifically where you think Suzuki-san can save the 12 seconds against HvS

 

I certainly like the Senna / Prost proxy but no matter how much credit you give Suzuki he is no Senna.

Also last year Walter lapped Schumi - both driving the same Fcar. A story well known among Ringers...so much for the old guy slowing down...

 

Well, it's not like von Saurma is as good as Prost.

Schumacher also got beat by Massa, Kanaan, Kovalainen and Edwards in the Race of Champions.  Do  you really think he's slower than these drivers when it really counts? Don't get me wrong, I know Röhrl is fantastic driver and what he has done and he's one of my alltime favourites. It's just that, when we're comparing his lap times vs. the ones that von Saurma gets, it seems like we're comparing the Röhrl from the past vs. von Saurma.

Spyderidol:

 A 1.7 second gap nowadays between two proffesional drivers with the same car is almost unheard of on most tracks. Even the differense between Alonso and Piquet (maybe the most mismatched team mates in F1) was less than 1 second at Monaco, about 0.5 seconds in Sepang, less than 1 second in Australia, less than a second in Bahrain and so on.

On the ring, it's track knowledge that makes the big difference, not just car knowledge.

That's because the cars are easier to drive. Do you think there's the same difference between them when it rains?

So just you realize what kind of driver Prost was: he won 4 titles and he won them while having world champions as team mates (Lauda, Rosberg, Senna, HIll).

If we add the 90 seconds to the 7:26 claimed time we get a ~8:56 time!

That means that a stock GTR is as quick around NBR as the SP9 Muller Motorsport 997GT3 Cup S which was  22 in qualy (out of about 180 cars)

Question: Do you believe it?

Walter:

Spyderidol:

 A 1.7 second gap nowadays between two proffesional drivers with the same car is almost unheard of on most tracks. Even the differense between Alonso and Piquet (maybe the most mismatched team mates in F1) was less than 1 second at Monaco, about 0.5 seconds in Sepang, less than 1 second in Australia, less than a second in Bahrain and so on.

On the ring, it's track knowledge that makes the big difference, not just car knowledge.

That's because the cars are easier to drive. Do you think there's the same difference between them when it rains?

So just you realize what kind of driver Prost was: he won 4 titles and he won them while having world champions as team mates (Lauda, Rosberg, Senna, HIll).

I know very well who Prost was. I preffered the "professor" to Senna.

Watched them avidly when they were both powered by Porsche in the Mclaren TAG days.

Walter:

TEE:

Do you actually know the layout of the track  Then please tell me more specifically where you think Suzuki-san can save the 12 seconds against HvS

 

I certainly like the Senna / Prost proxy but no matter how much credit you give Suzuki he is no Senna.

Also last year Walter lapped Schumi - both driving the same Fcar. A story well known among Ringers...so much for the old guy slowing down...

 

Well, it's not like von Saurma is as good as Prost.

Schumacher also got beat by Massa, Kanaan, Kovalainen and Edwards in the Race of Champions.  Do  you really think he's slower than these drivers when it really counts? Don't get me wrong, I know Röhrl is fantastic driver and what he has done and he's one of my alltime favourites. It's just that, when we're comparing his lap times vs. the ones that von Saurma gets, it seems like we're comparing the Röhrl from the past vs. von Saurma.

Senna did not win every race either...so what

Look we can go on and make all types of theoretical examples using historical examples, etc.

I believe that you dont really know the Ring besides watching TV,  youtube, etc. Your knowledge of driver skills is from hearsay at best.

Conclusion for me: You are of course right.

come on guys that nissan pr-campaign around the gt-r's performance is clever but a hoax in every respect.

I think this car is overall a good piece of engeneering but not the track-tool as it is advertised.

It's simply too heavy. Maybe it's capable of doing a few fast laps with a special suspension-setup and tweaks to the engine and other modifications that comes close to the times nissan claimes.

But believing that the Gt-r performs just as Nissan is telling you that it will perform is just childish.

Just look at the Best-Motoring Bullshit whrere the Gt-r easily overtakes a gt2 on a straight lane that'S supposed of going full throttle - tha's japanese fairytale-land as its best.

Till this day no independent test could get near the nissan claimed ring-times (i think they are all around 7:50) and if you believe that there is some uber-driver like suzuki who is the only one of doing rounds in a car that are 10-20 sec faster than of other professional drivers then you have no idea what your're talking about- plain a& simple.

Enzo II:

So...HHR?  1.10? 1.11?

My bet: 1.11 

TEE:

 

I certainly like the Senna / Prost proxy but no matter how much credit you give Suzuki he is no Senna.

 

He is also not Prost. Suzuki was an underperformer from start to finish in the F1 

Walter:

TEE:

Do you actually know the layout of the track  Then please tell me more specifically where you think Suzuki-san can save the 12 seconds against HvS

 

I certainly like the Senna / Prost proxy but no matter how much credit you give Suzuki he is no Senna.

Also last year Walter lapped Schumi - both driving the same Fcar. A story well known among Ringers...so much for the old guy slowing down...

 

Well, it's not like von Saurma is as good as Prost.

Schumacher also got beat by Massa, Kanaan, Kovalainen and Edwards in the Race of Champions.  Do  you really think he's slower than these drivers when it really counts? Don't get me wrong, I know Röhrl is fantastic driver and what he has done and he's one of my alltime favourites. It's just that, when we're comparing his lap times vs. the ones that von Saurma gets, it seems like we're comparing the Röhrl from the past vs. von Saurma.

What are we discussing here? What cars do you drive? How much track experience have you got? How often did you drive on the NBR-NS? Is is of no use to stick to believes that are not backed by a bit of judgment 

Do you actually know the layout of the track  

I don't understand what this has to do with the topic. But. Yes I know the Ring. Pretty much as well. I've driven many laps in a varity of cars. Slow cars and extremely fast cars.

But as I said - talk to HvS next time you see him @ Grüne Hölle, or Devil's Diner as it's called today ;-)

MKSGR:

TEE:

 

I certainly like the Senna / Prost proxy but no matter how much credit you give Suzuki he is no Senna.

 

He is also not Prost. Suzuki was an underperformer from start to finish in the F1 

The Nakajima of the 80's? 

MKSGR:

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 

Now that I have had my morning Starbucks I can respond.

My assumption has been your posting of the 7.38 Ring time was accurate. If so, it has indeed destroyed the TT (7.50) and Gt3 (7.48) and RS (7.47). Now I understand the 2010 GT3 will do the Ring at 7.40 but I believe it is unverified since Porsche drivers were doing the test.

Regarding the GT2, if Susuki time is accepted, the GTR has spanked the the GT2.

Finally, I make no judgment regarding reliability. To my knowledge all car magazines determine performance by timed laps. Never have I read that they added seconds to the laps because they felt that the car would not perform as well in the 10th or 20th lap.

BTW, I believe 12 seconds is a wide margin. However, on a circuit that is almost 15 miles long the 12 seconds really is not that significant especially given CAR KNOWLEDGE AND TRACK DRIVING ABILITY.

--

nberry:

 

Now that I have had my morning Starbucks I can respond.

 

nberry:

 Now I understand the 2010 GT3 will do the Ring at 7.40 but I believe it is unverified since Porsche drivers were doing the test.

--

 

The Supertest of the new GT3 has been publsihed already. They indeed confirmed 7.40 on the NBR-NS 

7:38?... Nurburgring record my ARSE! Nissan just got owned, were are all those press releases with the GT-R beating every production car on the ring??

Don't get me wrong, 7:38 is a great time but its not even close to what Nissan was claiming and far away from the lap times of other production sportcars. Finally some sense is made and some mouths are closed.

So basically let me get this straight:

Pro: GT-R can post a fast lap around a track.
Con: After that due to its weight, the tires start going, the brakes cooking and the transmision starts to bake. Better come into boxes while the other sportcars are still on the track playing lap after lap.

Pro: The GT-R is cheaper to adquire initially compared to other similar sportcars
Con: After that good luck getting part of your money back when you sell it second hand because you will take a much bigger hit that those other similar sportcars given its brand and reliability image. Then there is its high maintenance and if your tarnny happens to blow then you are out $20k because the internal GPS will have looged that you entered a track and you warranty is gone.

Pro: Very effective AWD system Nissan has developed
Con: The car in turn is huge and weighs like a 5-series diesel and to achieve the efficiency at the track as those other similar sportcars with involving RWD, the driver takes the passanger seat in terms of managing that traction, the AWD and ESP wiil do that for you, while you are forced to drive the "sportcar" at the track with ESP on all the time too... touch that VSC button and yes, believe or not your warranty is gone.

Pro: Fast automatic transmission
Con: Its basically a disposable tranny, touch the ESP and do a few launces and its gone. 20k. Try to follow the pace lap after lap as other sportcars and it heats up. 20k. And no match in performance, usage, launching, reliability ect as other auto's like the PDK for example. Also, no manual option, yes no manual option on a sportcar, WTF?

Pro: Looks. Sorry I just could not come up with anything positive here, and I tried.
Con: Looks like it was designed by comic reading adolescents, not to mention the playstation interior. No class.

7:38 on paper? yahoo.... but given the above... what for??

Did I forget anything Markus?

--

Carlos from Spain:

Don't get me wrong, 7:38 is a great time but its not even close to what Nissan was claiming and far away from the lap times of other production sportcars.

Ya man, the list is so long it wouldn't fit in this thread.

And about your little pro/con thing: it's really nice that you toke some of your precious time to  really demonstrate how little you know about the car. Thanks.

No thank you, the lack of argumentaion and underlining frustration in your response only helps support my point So thank you

Carlos from Spain:

No thank you, the lack of argumentaion and underlining frustration in your response only helps support my point So thank you

LOL!

edit: But seriously, let's make a list of the cars that were faster than 7:38

GT2

Zonda F

CCR

Carrera GT

RUF RT12

The cheapest car on that list costs 100'00 euros more than the GT-R. And none of those car have a boot. or runflat tires or 4 seats. Come on man...

Walter and Carlos. Do really think that HvS takes 100% out of the car? Have you talked to him? Do you know the procedure when he tests the "Supertest" cars on the Ring? How many laps do you think he drives before he sets the "Sport Auto lap time"?

Walter:

Carlos from Spain:

No thank you, the lack of argumentaion and underlining frustration in your response only helps support my point So thank you

LOL!

 

edit: But seriously, let's make a list of the cars that were faster than 7:38

GT2

Zonda F

CCR

Carrera GT

RUF RT12

The cheapest car on that list costs 100'00 euros more than the GT-R. And none of those car have a boot. or runflat tires or 4 seats. Come on man...

But they are, and thats not what Nissain claimed all over the world press a year ago, now was it?

As to the Nissan being cheaper than a similarly performing GT3 for example, so what if you save 20% on the stiker price if can't use it at the track becuse your tranny will heat up, your warranty will void, you can't even disconnect the ESP, the AWD will drive for you, devaluation is steep, maintenance high, etc... while the other can lap all day long, bomb proof, handles like a real sportcar with its RWD, agility, manual tranny and sportive character... isn't that what these track times are all about? its like if I stop next to a Zonda F in my 997 and tell its driver "hey, did you know that my 997 is faster than your Zonda F on a dirt track?"

Bottom line, when Datsun makes a GT3 that can lap 7:38 for €90k then let me know, until then this 7:38 is how shall I put it ...quite uneventful.

--

Carlos from Spain:

But they are, and thats not what Nissain claimed all over the world press a year ago, now was it?

It's not like Porsche's claims were accurate either. So in your opinion who lied the most Porsche with their lap time of 7:54 (and according to them that makes the GT-R some 20 seconds slower than the GT2) or Nissan with their 7:29? Or could it be that both didn't lie?

AMS tested the GT-R, right? The sometimes they do simulations of the cost of ownership. Did they do it for the GT-R and if yes how does it compare to the GT3?

Carlos,

I agree with your reliability/maintenance point: the price difference to a GT3 (Euro 30k incl. VAT in Germany) is not that big if reliability considerations are taken into account. From what was written by GTR owners on the net so far maintenance cost might be quite substantial in case of the GTR (gear-box, tranny, tires, warranty issues). Also, the question is whether a used GTR will have a proper market as maintenance becomes more and more an issue over years of use.

In the end the price gap is not that huge... 

Walter, please explalin where Carlos got his list wrong. The looks are subjective but the transmission problems and the voiding of the warranty are documented. The tires on the Nissan take an incredible beating because the weight of the car too, which limits the amount of continuous laps it can do. What is it that's missing here?

I have first hand experience with the GTR and other exotics such as CGT, Gallardo SL, 599GTB, etc, and have hundreds if not thousands of miles of each driven on back road and track, and back to back at times.