Porsche accuses Nissan of cheating on the 'Ring

[pepitko]

great read that article. I am no Porsche fan, I'd never buy one. But I see their point.

If you think about it, there are easy tweaks a car manufacturer can do in their "test" to make the car faster.. different ECU mapping can add 5-15% extra HP, yes it destroys the fuel consumption, which is why they wouldn't do it in a regular "showroom" car. But in a one-off event? Why not. And fitting different tires? Sure, they do might not have put slick or semi-slick, but just a grippier set of rubber would shave off significant amount of time on a track as long as the ring.

Anyway, this is the greatest conspiracy in motoring at the moment. Get your tin-foiled hats everyone

[NooDle]

I love this thread even more now, with the hugeass article.

I'm thinking that Nissan changed other things aswell, I think different gearing can help a LOT if you have a powerful car.

The 'Ring has lots of 3/4th gear corners and only 1 really long straight, so if they changed the gearing a bit, made shorter 1-2-3-4 gears and longer 5-6th, they can optimize it for the ring at the sacrifice of topspeed (which is irrellevant really, you wont reach it at the ring)

maybe my reasoning is stupid but there's something fishy about this time. Porsche won't make this sort of claim if they're just bitter because they got pwned on the ring...

[ahpadt]

http://drivers-republic.com/first_lo...b770ddf45f0b2d

Hold on to your handbags –Porsche has announced that it now understands how the Nissan GT-R, with less power than a GT2 and 200kg tubbier, manages to lap the Nordschleife quicker than the fastest Porsche currently in production.

According to an interview on carsguide.com.au, August Achleitner, the boss of the regular 997 programme, the advantage was down to, er, rubber.

Now this is the age-old problem with Nurburgring lap-times. There is no parity, and until Euro NCAP comes-up with a standardised Nurburgring-test, there is unlikely to be a level playing field. The speed of the circuit itself seems to change on an hourly basis, so when manufacturers begin to extract lap times that will form the basis of a global media campaign, it’s not surprising that the list of ‘variables’ becomes extremely long -as they attempt to perfect their message.

Earlier this year, Nissan claimed a standard GT-R lapped the old circuit in 7min 29sec, and then posted a rather excellent video of Toshio Suzuki driving at some lick. Around this time, Porsche announced that Walter Rohrl had achieved 7min 32sec in a GT2 –but on the revised 997 launch earlier this summer, I struggled to get anyone from the company to talk on-the-record about the fact that a heavy Nissan was faster around Porsche’s home test track than its own scud-missile. This was before a Corvette ZR1 popped-in a 7min 22sec effort, but I don’t think anyone doubts the potential of a 600bhp plus, plastic bodied 2 seater. The GT-R’s time, however, has industry chins wagging.

Well, now Herr Achleitner has piped up with some new evidence. Apparently Porsche recently took a GT-R, a Turbo and a GT2 to the ‘Ring and whereas it managed to get very close to the claimed times for its own cars (7min38 and 7min34 respectively) the best its test driver could achieve in a showroom spec GT-R was a 7min 54sec. That’s 25sec slower than the claimed time.

Now before we consider what this might tell us about the state of Nissan’s definition of ‘standard’ or for that matter Porsche’s paranoia, we should probably ask a more pertinent, general question. Namely, does anyone really give a shit? I mean once you learn a bit about the place, and what a very, very fast lap requires, you quickly begin to understand that these are among the most random markers of absolute performance to have been perpetuated since the advent of the 0-60mph time. Yes, they give you a very good indication of the car’s complete performance potential, but the scope for naughty ‘infringements’ and the variability of drivers means they must be taken with a pinch of salt.

The Nissan deserves some manner of defence though. It is not possible to make any kind of accurate estimation of its actual performance by looking at its bare numbers, as our Silverstone lap on DR TV proves. Numbers mean nothing, it’s the net available and useable performance that counts and, plucking some completely arbitrary figures out of the ether by way of example, if a GT2 can deploy 75 percent of its potential over a given lap, the figure for the GT-R must be in the 90s. Furthermore, the ‘Ring isn’t especially hard on brakes, and that’s the one area in which –over multiple laps- the GT-R eventually comes unstuck.

[Spectre]

Originally Posted by NooDle

maybe my reasoning is stupid but there's something fishy about this time. Porsche won't make this sort of claim if they're just bitter because they got pwned on the ring...

The problem is that the relative times between the Turbo and the GT-R don't make sense from what others (and we're talking about customer cars here) have recorded on other tracks, at all. In about every test, both for magazines and individuals running their cars, the GT-R is faster around any given track or road course.

Also, this isn't the first time Porsche has done something like this. They did something similar when the first Corvette ZR1 came out in the 80s; before that it was the 914 controversy.

Remember, Porsche has committed to making "eco-friendly" supercars that produce low CO2. This means that they have artificially restricted themselves, and that means that they *can't* produce a faster car - not without breaking their own restrictions.

[ed1911n]

In every test I've seen where the GTr is pitted against the turbo, the gtr has won. I really doubt it would be slower than the turbo on the ring. On the top gear test track it beat the freakin Carrera GT.

[MacGuffin]

Porsche does not compete with Nissan. Porsche competes with Ferrari.

The GT-R (brilliant as it may be) will always be a Nissan. Like a Lexus will always be a Toyota. You cannot create a legend with brute force.

Maybe it works in the USA because it is a low price market for cars in general, I dunno.

Having said that, I don't know which is faster. And I don't care.

All I know is that I have been dreaming about Porsches since I was able to speak the name. Nissan still has a long way to go.

And what about that "Playstation Generation", that is supposed to identify and dream of the car? They do not have the money to buy either of them, because they barely have their driver's license - if at all - and will only get one if daddy buys one.

They will grow up and grow out of it very soon.

[the Interceptor]

Honestly ... if I had the money for both cars right now, I'd buy the GT-R. The 911 is so common here, I'd rather have the underdog, thank you.

[MacGuffin]

And I'd like to see you putting your money where your mouth is

I simply cannot see the GT-R as a car for grown-up men... Well, for non-Japanese grown-up men, that is

[the Interceptor]

Well, give me the money and I'll show you.

But I am dead serious. I do love Porsches, and owning a 911 would be a dream. Still, the GT-R appeals to me so much more that the decision wouldn't really be a tough one. I could imagine getting a second hand GT-R in a few years time. Thing is I don't think it won't be very cheap second hand, and the running costs aren't too nice either.

[Spectre]

Originally Posted by MacGuffin

Porsche does not compete with Nissan. Porsche competes with Ferrari.

The GT-R (brilliant as it may be) will always be a Nissan. Like a Lexus will always be a Toyota. You cannot create a legend with brute force.

Why not? Porsche did. I mean, after all, Porsches are just jumped-up VWs, remember? (Clarkson agrees.)

Also, perhaps you weren't paying attention, but Nissan has a long racing heritage as well.

And that Playstation generation? Yeah, that's me. At the moment, I have all the cars I need... but could I come up with the money for a GT-R? Yup. So can most of my peers of the same age. You're thinking Playstation 2 or 3... but Clarkson and the rest of us are talking about the kids that started out with the original Playstation that came out 14 years ago.

Most of us are about 30-35 now.

[Dr.Kamiya]

The bosses at Porsche ought to fire whichever one of their employees made those statements.

Far from doing themselves any good, this is exactly the sort of publicity that Nissan wants. It gives the impression that Porsche is threatened, and if they're threatened enough to send out "the PR man", it casts even more doubt on their product. Whatever happened to letting the 911 do the talking on-track?

[Spectre]

Originally Posted by Dr.Kamiya

Whatever happened to letting the 911 do the talking on-track?

You have the right of it, that idiot should be fired... but they have that whole "we build supercars that are enviro-friendly problem." The other problem is that the 911 is doing the talking on the track - mostly moaning about coming in second despite costing twice what the GT-R does.

[MadCat360]

Originally Posted by luvcars

I am a bit skeptical about all these ring times now...

I've ALWAYS avoided caring about Nurburgring times.

1. The track is too long and too bumpy. The driver will never get a perfect lap out of the car.

2. It's not that prestigious. Silverstone would be a better place. It's only famous because it's long. Not that many major races are held there, and none on the 12-mile track except clubsport.

3. The track favors cars with a lot of power and soft suspension... which is why the Corvettes do so well there. A tightly-tuned and torquey supercar like an Enzo or a Zonda would get trounced by a Vette at the 'Ring, which is just wrong.

4. Normal people can drive on it almost whenever they wish. That's a lot of crap rubber being laid down. And that has a HUGE impact on tire grip levels. A racetrack is somewhere a Toyota Camry CANNOT go, yet they trundle around the Nurburgring like it's a shopping run.

I think it's a great place to tune a car or to show off your driving skills. But if you want laptimes you should look somewhere else.

[wooflepoof]

yea....still would have the Turbo.

[Spectre]

Originally Posted by MadCat360

3. The track favors cars with a lot of power and soft suspension... which is why the Corvettes do so well there. A tightly-tuned and torquey supercar like an Enzo or a Zonda would get trounced by a Vette at the 'Ring, which is just wrong.

4. Normal people can drive on it almost whenever they wish. That's a lot of crap rubber being laid down. And that has a HUGE impact on tire grip levels. A racetrack is somewhere a Toyota Camry CANNOT go, yet they trundle around the Nurburgring like it's a shopping run.

1. The Z06 is NOT softly sprung. And from what I've heard, the ZR1 is even stiffer.

2. Got news for you - almost all tracks have track/club days, and anyone can drive around them at that point. Including pluggers in Camries.

[ahpadt]

Originally Posted by wooflepoof

yea....still would have the Turbo.

I'd have a GT3 RS and pocket the rest of the money.

[Ford Prefect]

Alright, I can´t be bothered to read all the stuff that has been posted here at the moment. Even though it´s an interesting discussion I don´t have time right now to sort through all the fanboiism in between, which was bound to erupt in a thread with a title like this one. But I feel the need to respond to this one...

Originally Posted by MadCat360

3. The track favors cars with a lot of power and soft suspension... which is why the Corvettes do so well there. A tightly-tuned and torquey supercar like an Enzo or a Zonda would get trounced by a Vette at the 'Ring, which is just wrong.

No. First and foremost the track favors able drivers, period. Now, if we´re arguing about the cars themselves, specifically cars with road tires, then it favors cars with suspension setups that work on normal roads (read: "soft"). Lots of power alone won´t really get you anywhere on the ring, some of the fastest people in the tourist sessions are running cars that are well within the boundaries of what you might call "normal" hp figures.

Originally Posted by MadCat360

2. It's not that prestigious. Silverstone would be a better place. It's only famous because it's long. Not that many major races are held there, and none on the 12-mile track except clubsport.

Are you kidding me? As far as prestige and pedigree goes, there are very few tracks in the world that can even remotely keep up with the ring. And there are quite a few german racing series that compete on the Nordschleife, not to mention the VLN, which as far as I´m concerned is easily one of the best touring car series anywhere in the world.

It was conceived as a test track, not a racetrack. Manufacturers test their cars on racetracks all over the world. But every single respectable sportscar manufacturer tests their cars on the ring, there is a reason for this. The very vast majority of sportscars will never see a racetrack in it´s career, they are driven on normal roads, and the ring is about the only racetrack I can think of that compares to a normal B-road.

Originally Posted by MadCat360

1. The track is too long and too bumpy. The driver will never get a perfect lap out of the car.

Precisely, which is why it´s very stupid to argue over a few seconds. But the ring favors the sort of car that can be driven fast and safe even though you don´t know every single corner by heart, which is exactly what you want when you´re driving nowhere in particular, and by chance happen to find yourself on a wonderful empty road with lots of corners.

Comparing ring times is always an issue. Any car that has done a quick lap in 2008 (especially since early spring and the 24h race) has had the huge advantage of the new tarmac, which has ridiculous grip levels, even in the wet. The track is also different every day, depending on the weather, and anyone who has ever been to the Eifel knows that this means it´s about as predictable as a PMSing supermodel who hasn´t been getting her fix of coke lately.

Originally Posted by MadCat360

4. Normal people can drive on it almost whenever they wish. That's a lot of crap rubber being laid down. And that has a HUGE impact on tire grip levels. A racetrack is somewhere a Toyota Camry CANNOT go, yet they trundle around the Nurburgring like it's a shopping run.

I don´t really see a problem here. a Toyota Camry isn´t exactly designed as a track car, it´s designed for the road. And when a car like that can hold it´s own in the presence of bunch of expensive supercars, then this track is really the best indicator for a car´s capabilities on a real-world road.

In the end you should always consider ringtimes with a very (very very) large pinch of salt, because they aren´t really ever 100% comparable. There are like a million different ways of timing laps on the ring, and I can´t say this enough: Don´t trust the megaawesome "Supertest" either, because it´s just as arbitrary as any other system. There isn´t even any proof that it´s always the same driver....

[prizrak]

There isn´t even any proof that it´s always the same driver....

To add to that. Even if it is the same driver different cars require different driving styles/skills. Someone fast in a rear engined Porsche with RWD might not be fast in a front engined AWD like say a GT-R So even that wouldn't be a very good test. Personally I would spend my money on an R34 with some upgrades before I would on an R35

[MadCat360]

Originally Posted by Spectre

1. The Z06 is NOT softly sprung. And from what I've heard, the ZR1 is even stiffer.

2. Got news for you - almost all tracks have track/club days, and anyone can drive around them at that point. Including pluggers in Camries.

1. Yes it is. It's very soft. Watch the weight shift. It's all over the place. Any dolt can see that.

2. Normal tracks refresh every day because there isn't a lot of activity. Lots of people drive the 'Ring every day and most of them are using crap tires. A Camry has crap tires. So when that gets put into the road over a long period of time the track goes away. I've driven on crap rubber. It's crap. And even non-crap rubber can be crap. I went around once after a drifting Mustang which had Michelins. And here I come on my Yokohamas and I can't grip anything. Certain rubbers aren't compatible and I'm sure if you (not me, you) drove on incompatible rubber you'd think something was wrong, like ice or something. Crap rubber is about as bad as standing water.

Originally Posted by Ford Prefect

No. First and foremost the track favors able drivers, period. Now, if we´re arguing about the cars themselves, specifically cars with road tires, then it favors cars with suspension setups that work on normal roads (read: "soft"). Lots of power alone won´t really get you anywhere on the ring, some of the fastest people in the tourist sessions are running cars that are well within the boundaries of what you might call "normal" hp figures.


Are you kidding me? As far as prestige and pedigree goes, there are very few tracks in the world that can even remotely keep up with the ring. And there are quite a few german racing series that compete on the Nordschleife, not to mention the VLN, which as far as I´m concerned is easily one of the best touring car series anywhere in the world.

It was conceived as a test track, not a racetrack. Manufacturers test their cars on racetracks all over the world. But every single respectable sportscar manufacturer tests their cars on the ring, there is a reason for this. The very vast majority of sportscars will never see a racetrack in it´s career, they are driven on normal roads, and the ring is about the only racetrack I can think of that compares to a normal B-road.


Precisely, which is why it´s very stupid to argue over a few seconds. But the ring favors the sort of car that can be driven fast and safe even though you don´t know every single corner by heart, which is exactly what you want when you´re driving nowhere in particular, and by chance happen to find yourself on a wonderful empty road with lots of corners. That's why I'm saying why run for time somewhere crap rubber (from Camrys) gets laid down all the time?

Comparing ring times is always an issue. Any car that has done a quick lap in 2008 (especially since early spring and the 24h race) has had the huge advantage of the new tarmac, which has ridiculous grip levels, even in the wet. The track is also different every day, depending on the weather, and anyone who has ever been to the Eifel knows that this means it´s about as predictable as a PMSing supermodel who hasn´t been getting her fix of coke lately.



I don´t really see a problem here. a Toyota Camry isn´t exactly designed as a track car, it´s designed for the road. And when a car like that can hold it´s own in the presence of bunch of expensive supercars, then this track is really the best indicator for a car´s capabilities on a real-world road.

Okay, essay-man.

All tracks favor good drivers. If you suck at driving you'll be slow. I know how weather affects a track, I've spun at 15 MPH with new slicks and a cold track. If you know how to drive it's not a problem. Yeah, it will slow you down if the weather's bad. A lot. That's why I have a problem with the 'Ring. It's too inconsistent everywhere.

So YOU think a German racing series is cool. That's fine. But that doesn't make it major. Nurburgring isn't prestigious like St. Andrews. History, yes. Prestige, no. Prestige is reserved for things that still continue to be vitally pertinent. Take Monza. Hugely famous track, lots of history, like the 'Ring, but still pertinent, unlike the 'Ring. The greatest use for the Nurburgring these days is for testing cars, which I fully endorse. It's also a great drive. That's great. Never once did I say that I thought the Nurburgring was some kind of useless lump of Ye Olde Racetrack with weeds growing in it. So I don't know what you're all defensive about.

[Dr.Kamiya]

Originally Posted by MadCat360

I've ALWAYS avoided caring about Nurburgring times.

3. The track favors cars with a lot of power and soft suspension... which is why the Corvettes do so well there. A tightly-tuned and torquey supercar like an Enzo or a Zonda would get trounced by a Vette at the 'Ring, which is just wrong.

4. Normal people can drive on it almost whenever they wish. That's a lot of crap rubber being laid down. And that has a HUGE impact on tire grip levels. A racetrack is somewhere a Toyota Camry CANNOT go, yet they trundle around the Nurburgring like it's a shopping run.

Contrary to what you think I (and I'd like to think others here too) believe those two points are actually the main reasons why the ring is such an important proving ground. Unlike ordinary racetracks that are well surfaced and smooth, the ring is rough, bumpy and at times grimy and dirty. Far from being downsides, these faults mimic real-world driving conditions far more than the smooth tarmac of the typical GP circuit.

For a car to be fast on the ring, it has to manage across smooth and rough surfaces, it has to be able to soak up bumps and drops, and it has to deal with leaves, dust, rubber marbles all sorts of debris on track. If a car is fast on the ring, it will be fast anywhere. Fast to the shops, fast to the pub, fast along your favorite B-roads, not just the friendly neighborhood racetrack.