Porsche accuses Nissan of cheating on the 'Ring

[the Interceptor]

Originally Posted by BerserkerCatSplat

analyzing a car's drive system, power and weight

This is the very error. Only relying on the figures of the GT-Rs drive system, power and weight, the car is quicker than one would expect given you believe Nissan. The reason: the electronic systems optimising grip and cornering habits. If you ignore the latter, it is perfectly natural to conclude that Nissans 7:29 is faulty.

The thing is that we don't know whether the Porsche crew set up the systems to race mode (R). Maybe they said "stock is stock", didn't change anything and therefore burned loads of seconds in the corners. It's the electronic systems that take the GT-R beyond what the numbers tell, and if I can understand that, I expect a bunch of engineers to understand that as well.

They however stated that the 7:54 they archieved was exactly what they would expect from a car with said stats, solely ignoring that the abilities of the car are improved by electronics. So what they should actually find out is why, given that the electronics improve the GT-Rs track times, they were only as fast as the simple figures dictate. Or they simply didn't set the car up alright.

[smib]

OR! They did also take into account that sophisticated electronics systems can improve any car's times (perhaps because they use the same sorts of magic in their cars), yet didn't get into that in the conversation. I don't actually have any side in this argument, I wouldn't have either car, nor do I care how fast they can lap the 'Ring, but you seem to be coming off a bit fan-boyish to me.

[the Interceptor]

Originally Posted by smib

you seem to be coming off a bit fan-boyish to me.

I'm sorry, it's just that even if I usually prefer a neutral standpoint, I have taken the side of the GT-R in this case. The reason is that - just like with the Veyron - there is a gigantic anti-movement against the car, continuously stating and spreading rumours and smattering as fact. That is not to be understood as a personal attack against any of you or your opinions. I'm just trying to get the facts straight here.

Given the currently discussed case, I would be fine if Porsche said that the GT-R did a 7:54 without any help of electronics. That's what I'd expect the car to do as a laptime without e-aids. As these aids are vital for the performance of the car however, I am baffeled that Porsche doesn't mention them at all, which leads me to believe that they either don't know (where they should) or turned them off completely (which they should at least tell).

[BerserkerCatSplat]

Originally Posted by the Interceptor

This is the very error. Only relying on the figures of the GT-Rs drive system, power and weight, the car is quicker than one would expect given you believe Nissan. The reason: the electronic systems optimising grip and cornering habits. If you ignore the latter, it is perfectly natural to conclude that Nissans 7:29 is faulty.

The thing is that we don't know whether the Porsche crew set up the systems to race mode (R). Maybe they said "stock is stock", didn't change anything and therefore burned loads of seconds in the corners. It's the electronic systems that take the GT-R beyond what the numbers tell, and if I can understand that, I expect a bunch of engineers to understand that as well.

They however stated that the 7:54 they archieved was exactly what they would expect from a car with said stats, solely ignoring that the abilities of the car are improved by electronics. So what they should actually find out is why, given that the electronics improve the GT-Rs track times, they were only as fast as the simple figures dictate. Or they simply didn't set the car up alright.

Are you seriously, honestly, saying that you think Porsche engineers would not put it into Race mode and then publically announce to the world that the lap time was questionable? You think they didn't take the electronic parts of the drive system into account and are some kind of black magic foreign to automotive engineers? You must have a very dim opinion of Porsche engineers in general.

[the Interceptor]

Not in general, but in this case: yes, I would.

Given they took all the electronic systems into account and set the car up perfectly, then why would they say that the 7:54 was just what they expected of such a car solely looking at the naked figures?

[MacGuffin]

I wonder how many horsepowers the GT-R really has - and if there is a difference between customer cars and the press or track versions they used. I read that it kinda was a tradition with those Skylines that they had much more power in reality, than on paper...

I was frowning when Jeremy Clarkson stated in his Japan race that he didn't know how powerful the thing exactly was...

[Ford Prefect]

Originally Posted by BerserkerCatSplat

...they went as far as to purchase a GT-R and flog it around the ring to verify its speed. I would say that's actually the opposite of "not wanting to know" and "sitting in disbelief."

Well actually, that´s just common practice among Manufacturers, they ALL buy cars from the competition and analyse the hell out of them. You wouldn´t believe how many Benzes, Audis, etc. you see around Munich with BMW factory plates and lots of measuring equipment...

Originally Posted by BerserkerCatSplat

You think they didn't take the electronic parts of the drive system into account and are some kind of black magic foreign to automotive engineers? You must have a very dim opinion of Porsche engineers in general.

I totally agree. If anything, this is some sort of publicity stunt, even though I´m pretty sure a company like Porsche wouldnt risk a bold statement like that just for kicks.

Porsche has been praising their PSM system quite a lot lately, which is also basically just electronic driver assistance. I don´t get why everyone thinks that the only cars that have proper systems like this for actual performance driving could only possibly come from playstation-land.

Originally Posted by the Interceptor

They however stated that the 7:54 they archieved was exactly what they would expect from a car with said stats, solely ignoring that the abilities of the car are improved by electronics. So what they should actually find out is why, given that the electronics improve the GT-Rs track times, they were only as fast as the simple figures dictate. Or they simply didn't set the car up alright.

I get where you´re coming from, but what you´re basically saying is that they just estimated the time according to a fact sheet. They know better, I can guarantee you that. And again, even though this whole thing was triggered by something that doesn´t even look like an official statement to me, I doubt the guys at Porsche would just make stuff like that up.

And if they just bought the stock car there really wouldn´t be much to set up. I´m sure they played around with all the electronics, but short of installing a decent set of leaf springs (oh yeah!) there wasn´t much where they could go wrong.

Just to be clear here, I love Porsche. But more than anything I love fast cars. And regardless of what I may have said in other threads regarding the GTRs looks, I actually saw one at the ring. And that thing really has presence when you see it for real, and I think it´s a fascinating car.

which leads me to

Originally Posted by monaroCountry

So Nissan has to conduct an independently verified, tested (hopefully by Porsche) Nurburgring lap.

Nissan doesn´t have to do anything. And even if they did set up some sort of my-balls-are-bigger-than-urs competition, I doubt the outcome would affect the decisions of the majority of the people that actually buy these cars, and don´t just debate about them over the internet.

[klankymen]

Originally Posted by Ford Prefect

Nissan doesn´t have to do anything. And even if they did set up some sort of my-balls-are-bigger-than-urs competition, I doubt the outcome would affect the decisions of the majority of the people that actually buy these cars, and don´t just debate about them over the internet.

Exactly. So that's probably the last we'll hear of it, at least from their side.

And since this thread has turned into such an epic spamfest anyways.... what part of Munich are you from?

[Ford Prefect]

well, my parents live in the South, I´m only there on the odd weekend though because I live in Regensburg... how bout you?

[hansvonaxion]

Originally Posted by BerserkerCatSplat

What? You expect more from German engineers than analyzing a car's drive system, power and weight, finding that it should be slower than Nissan claims, and then doing a real-life test to back up their calculations?

Hypothesis: A showroom-stock GT-R is slower than Nissan's claim.

Procedure: Purchase GT-R from showroom, take to Ring, see how fast it goes around.

Results: GT-R significantly slower than claimed.

Conclusion: Assuming the engine in the Nissan-run GT-R was stock, tires are the only feasible reason for the large time discrepancy.


Seriously, I think the whole Nurburgring time this is a giant circle-jerk, but I can't really fault Porsche's methods.

I really feel sorry for the horse, but...

Power to weight is not the only factor here.

1. The gearbox gives the GT-R a minimum 8 sec advantage, by Porsche's own calculations

2. The GT-R has more downforce and less drag than the Turbo (as mentioned, the ACR is heavier, less powerful and faster than the ZR-1 - it also has a rear spoiler giving 1000lb of downforce)

3. The power to weight figures are incorrect, as the power is underrated

And the conclusion, there are a lot of possibilities for the time discrepancy;

1. Driver. Engineer vs Ex F-1 driver

2. Conditions. Porsche didn't say what the conditions were like

3. The number of laps. Nissan tested for months and did thousands of laps. There's no way Porsche did anything like that.

4. Tyres. Which ones did Porsche use? There are 2 different sets on offer. Or did they use something else?


MonaroCountry, independent testing carried out by Porsche?!

[JakeRadden]

I also have to question if Porsche tested the Turbo with the suspension electronics on or off, if they did the GT-R with the R settings off.

I think, no, the GT-R can't run a 7:29. Is it faster, with all of the electronics off, than an Turbo, with all of the electronics off? No. With all of the electronics on? Certainly.

[the Interceptor]

Originally Posted by MacGuffin

I wonder how many horsepowers the GT-R really has - and if there is a difference between customer cars and the press or track versions they used. I read that it kinda was a tradition with those Skylines that they had much more power in reality, than on paper...

They did, but that was a time when they followed the official 280 hp limit. I think that Nissan surely picked the more powerful cars for the reviews given the natural hp spread, but I don't think they provided chipped cars for the reviews. There's also been a lot of bollocks being talked about how much hp the car actually has. Dyno figures have been corrected where they shouldn't, so the results widely varied between Nissans spec sheets and other peoples claims.

Originally Posted by Ford Prefect

I get where you´re coming from, but what you´re basically saying is that they just estimated the time according to a fact sheet. They know better, I can guarantee you that. And again, even though this whole thing was triggered by something that doesn´t even look like an official statement to me, I doubt the guys at Porsche would just make stuff like that up.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying they made it up. Still, they said this:

Originally Posted by Porsche

Achleitner says the back-to-back comparison was run because Porsche was concerned by Nissan's claims for the GT-R, which is heavier than the 911 with similar power.

(...)

"It's a very consistent car. But this car is about 20 kilos heavier than the Turbo . . ."

In the end, Porsche believes its testing has achieved the right lap times for the Skyline GT-R and benchmarked it against its own 911 heroes in the right context.

"For us it has been clearly the result. This technical puzzle now fits together. With the other numbers we had problems to understand it," he says.

That sounds to me like they solely relied on the figures as to how quick the GT-R should be.

Originally Posted by Ford Prefect

And if they just bought the stock car there really wouldn´t be much to set up. I´m sure they played around with all the electronics, but short of installing a decent set of leaf springs (oh yeah!) there wasn´t much where they could go wrong.

With "setting up the car properly", I was referring to the settings of the VDC, the suspension and the gearbox, which should all be in "R"ace mode to get optimal performance. I would expect them to do that, but given the above quotet statement from Achleitner, I am led to believe that they didn't.

[Nocturnal]

My, there's certainly a lot of hostility in this thread, and a lot of mis-information, too.

Dale Lomas, BTG?

Hah, thats the chap. I'd say he's up there with the ballsiest (non-professional) drivers you see at the 'Ring. Aside from a local in an M3 CSL, he was the only person I saw going sideways on every corner in his Alfa 75 in the wet, just for fun.

As seen already some GTR's have a very very very healthy power output while some are just so so.

Your testing ''figures'' come from US dynos and US drag-strips. While I'm not one to belittle National pride usually, the US isn't exactly the source of truth, given that a lot of US dynos are notoriously ''optimistic'', and a large number of US drag-strips are visibly downhill. Certainly I've had two first-hand cases of this optimism, one with a Supra (tuned by Ryan Woon, no less) which was 'proven' 650bhp in the US, and dyno'd here at less than 500bhp. Previous to that, an old boss of mine imported a '70 Roadrunner 440, which had pictures of its 11 second pass in the US. I can only assume the pictures were of the 1/8th mile, because at York, out of 6 of us driving it, the closest anyone (...well, me specficially) got to that time was a 16.1 @ 83mph.

Essentially what I'm saying is, unless you have facts, then don't kick up such a fuss. A figure stating that one GTR dyno'd at 30bhp, and the other at 500'000bhp isn't a fact, frankly, unless theres a video and a dyno chart to prove it happened.

Porsche might not have the best time but they do have the majority of the top place getters around the ring............its basically their back yard testing facility.

Actually, its BMWs back-yard testing facility. Though Porsche do have a complex next to the track, so do Nissan, Aston Martin...As for their drivers, they have Walter Rohrl, and Marc Basseng...yet they chose an engineer to drive the GTR? Hmm.

Vettes do tend to do well in this track with its high torque, top end with its limiter is where the vette falls

Absolutely not true in the slightest. The Northloop is essentially a large go-kart track. Outright speed has very little to do with anything, its all about grip levels and keeping the pace. Certainly in road cars, I can only think of 2, maybe 3 sections where you can even get out of 4th gear, and even then not for long. A supercar isn't going to be anywhere near hitting the limiter in top gear at any point on the track, with the exception of the ''straight'' past the TF entrance. However, as I said earlier, thats not actually straight, and I dare say that even the most hardened drivers wouldn't take the left-hand bend at over 200mph.

So Nissan has to conduct an independently verified, tested (hopefully by Porsche) Nurburgring lap.

Yeah, great idea. Give the 911 Turbos biggest rival a lap, by the people who make the 911 turbo. Why do you think they're kicking up such a fuss in the first place? They tested a GTR on the Northloop, but didn't give the car to the ex-WRC legend, or the Porsche cup works driver, they gave it to an engineer. My best friends dad is an engineer. He can't drive as fast as Basseng or Rohrl, either.

Power figures have been all over the place and several publications have commented on this. Even the trap speeds have been extreemly varied, from 111mph to 124mph. Trap speeds is a great indicator of power.

See my previous point about US technological optimism. Furthermore, the jigs with which the last company I worked for, which were to make fairly simple furniture, were accurate to within 0.00000000001mm of each others, and were calibrated monthly. That was a backwater furniture company. To get the inaccuracies that publications claim, the engines would have to be entirely hand-made. Im not talking hand-finished, like they are, Im talking carving the engine components from blocks of steel and guessing.

Are you seriously, honestly, saying that you think Porsche engineers would not put it into Race mode and then publically announce to the world that the lap time was questionable?

Why not? They've publicly slated the Corvette C4 in the past for ''cheating'', the R33 GTR, the R34 GTR...want me to go on? Face it, Porsche don't like it when 'small-time' players like Nissan come up with something that trumps their exotica for half the price.

Besides, as someone earlier stated, it was hardly 'publically announced' by Porsche. This is just another thing that has been blown entirely out of proportion by fanboys across the globe. It has had exactly the desired effect. Porsches marketing team is clearly more talented than its engineers/drivers.

Nissan doesn´t have to do anything. And even if they did set up some sort of my-balls-are-bigger-than-urs competition, I doubt the outcome would affect the decisions of the majority of the people that actually buy these cars, and don´t just debate about them over the internet.

Quoted for truth.

[NooDle]

Originally Posted by Nocturnal

Essentially what I'm saying is, unless you have facts, then don't kick up such a fuss. A figure stating that one GTR dyno'd at 30bhp, and the other at 500'000bhp isn't a fact, frankly, unless theres a video and a dyno chart to prove it happened.

regarding the dyno figures, from ALL of the reviews I've read (yeah I know these arent facts but bear with me), all of the reviewers are amazed at the power of the GTR, and most of them say it "feels" like it has atleast 500 hp.

I wouldn't be surprised if Nissan deliberately sent out a lower figure to make their cars seem even more magical. The 480 "official" figure is sort of like the minimum, like the Bugatti has "atleast" 1001 hp, when some have been dynoed at 1100.

Also, the one figure that keeps coming back in most dyno tests is 520-530hp. So it's not unreasonable that a regular GTR makes a lot more than the 480 they are claiming.

[Disciple]

Dynos are NOT a tool that should be used to measure power and quoted as truth. They are simply a tuning device.

I've seen an EVO dyno'd at 243kwatw (326HP at the wheels) then on the same dyno a month later with no changes to the car at all, record a figure of 217kwatw (291HP at the wheels)

Not to mention how easy it is to fudge dyno figures simply by changing the inlet temp.

[Nocturnal]

Exactly, and its easy to increase power by simply adjusting the AFR, too. Hell, my car ''feels'' like it has 300bhp, because its low to the floor, stiff, and loud. I know that it doesnt even have half of that power, though. Lets face it, most automotive journalists dont know their arse from their elbow, and drive VW Passats on a daily basis. I wouldnt expect them to know realistically what 500bhp feels like.

[the Interceptor]

Quoted from another forum:

C&D has tested two of five cars to make 420 whp on the Mustang. Others have tested 400 flat on the Mustang... others have tested 415-420. Some even claim 500 whp from the Mustang with a GT-R. The only way to "prove" anything is to put a stock GT-R on the same dyno as a stock Porsche GT2 and show that it makes as much power at the wheels... or up against another Turbo and show more power, this time.

Of course, I've discussed dynos in-depth... and this quote from another forum is another suport for my argument on the futility of bench racing:

http://www.nagtroc.org/forums/index....5&#entry347825

And yet every GT-R dyno I've seen from other sources, so far, applies SAE correction.

I don't believe in SAE corrections. At all. I've seen gains of 10% or higher from SAE. I'll say it again... SAE corrections are pointless on a turbocharged engine.

The interesting argument at the moment is what the actual drivetrain loss is. Nissan claims a low drivetrain loss. In fact... 10%.

Given the raw numbers in the test... 430 whp... correct by 10%... what do you get? 470 bhp. We should actually be carping about how Nissan is over-rating the engine...

I don't know how people don't get how automotive technology moves over time... Let me reiterate: drivetrain losses are an estimate. It's not a law. That's why Honda Civics and Toyota Corollas regularly dyno higher than other cars with the same absolute horsepower... low losses. Many new cars, even with automatics, which traditionally have a 25% drivetrain loss compared to about 15-20% for manuals, actually dyno in the same region as manuals... lower drivetrain losses due to friction. It's my bane... automatics with the same bhp as my manual car dyno at the same whp because my drivetrain is an oily, rotating piece of prehistory.

Drivetrain losses are not a sliding scale, either... the extra weight of 20" wheels and extra driveshafts will not affect a Mustang Dyno. A load dyno will only be affected by drivetrain friction and wheel traction... too little traction will cause high readings as the tires slip creates more torque against the brake... which is why a Dynapack is a great measure of absolute no-BS power... except Dynapacks are calibrated very high compared to Mustangs, so the "traditional" 15-20% calculations don't apply there, either.

But the problem with load-dynos like the Mustang is inaccuracy (Again... 500 whp?) due to the aforementioned tire slip. Dynojets seemingly give the most consistent numbers... but you can't apply the 15-20% loss calculations there, either... because they read high, too... and there's a big question amongst tuners as to the accuracy (repeatability =/= accuracy) of the Dynojet... since changing tires or even changing a flywheel will affect your horsepower reading on the Jet.

Changing a flywheel doesn't make horsepower. It makes for less inertia, which is why a lightweight flywheel allows for faster 0-60 times, but it won't increase your top speed, which is reliant on absolute power.

In the end, C&D's tests show that there's some differences between GT-Rs in terms of track times (but given their reliance on weather-correction for track performance may throw these numbers off)... and that there are performance differences between ECU builds... but nothing more.

[Twerp128]

Give me a MkII GTi and Sabine Schmitz over a GTR any day.

[Ford Prefect]

Originally Posted by the Interceptor

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying they made it up. Still, they said this:

That sounds to me like they solely relied on the figures as to how quick the GT-R should be.

To me that just sounds like quoting some specs, which is perfectly alright. You can do a lot with electronics and control engineering nowadays (hell, Porsche has been doing it a lot lately, they just don´t like to make a big deal of it), but you still can´t turn physics off with a switch.

Originally Posted by the Interceptor

With "setting up the car properly", I was referring to the settings of the VDC, the suspension and the gearbox, which should all be in "R"ace mode to get optimal performance. I would expect them to do that, but given the above quotet statement from Achleitner, I am led to believe that they didn't.

That´s also what I was referring to. If they go and buy a car to analyse it, you can be absolutely sure they´ll fiddle with every button it has to see what it does...

Originally Posted by Nocturnal

Actually, its BMWs back-yard testing facility. Though Porsche do have a complex next to the track, so do Nissan, Aston Martin...

Loads of companies test their cars there, and the majority of them has test centers that you wouldn´t even notice. There is actually a "Farm" like 20-30km south of the ring, that has an unusual number of unmarked Trucks loading cloth covered car-like shapes. And the video surveillance around there just doesn´t make sense if it´s just watching the five or so cows they keep around there.

Originally Posted by Nocturnal

hey tested a GTR on the Northloop, but didn't give the car to the ex-WRC legend, or the Porsche cup works driver, they gave it to an engineer. My best friends dad is an engineer. He can't drive as fast as Basseng or Rohrl, either.

Well there´s engineers, and then there´s engineers. I know an engineer who works in suspension development at Audi, and this guy can definitely hold up quite well against the likes of Röhrl and Basseng....

[Disciple]

Originally Posted by the Interceptor

Quoted from another forum:

In the end, C&D's tests show that there's some differences between GT-Rs in terms of track times (but given their reliance on weather-correction for track performance may throw these numbers off)... and that there are performance differences between ECU builds... but nothing more.

So what they've told us there is what we already know. GTR engines will differ from car to car due to each engine being hand built and each transmission being specially built for a specific car (if we're to believe Mr. Clarkson for the last fact)

Look, at the end of the day dyno numbers don't mean a thing. I don't care what anyone says and how they spin it, they don't mean shit. A dyno is a duning device, period.

What we should look at for GTR performance, is the quarter mile runs. I've watched A LOT of them on youtube and the like, and 99% of them range from 11.4-11.6 @ 116-120mph. You go look at the difference in times of a ZO6 for example, without starting another war, it's just an example. I would say overall the GTRs are fairly consistant, and considering the GTR claims the same horsepower and torque (roughly) as the 911 Turbo, and they run VERY similar times down the quarter, that about says it all for me. Yes, I know the GTR is heavier so it should be slower down the quarter, BUT, it launches harder and I'll bet it's 60ft times are better than a 911 turbo.