That's good stuff... Definitely explained better.

But yes, taking a step back from the theory, the GT-r is a pig. Could it be lighter? Sure... I guess that's why the y have the V-spec coming out... But did they market it that way so they could sell more units and give a sense of exclusivity, or because they actually realized they built a pig of a car after spending millions in development? I think it's the former, not the latter.

Bottom line for most carmakers (especially mass ones like Nissan) is not building race/track cars... they build them to sell for a certain volume where they can make money. And how they do that is to give the impression to buyers that they are buying a genuine race-car so that fanboys will pony up with the bucks for the car.

So they build them with certain design constraints with $X of development costs. In this case, the CE chose to start with "The GT-R has the same 'static weight' as an F1 car with aero-load at full speed". I think that is what is slightly ridiculous about the starting point of the design.

But they designed it well around that starting point...

I don't think the $$ part comes into play at all for the GTR....it's supposed to be no bars held when that French guy was CEO he just wanted the halo car back.

The problem is that a GTR is not in the same market as a Pagani Zonda or Ferrari Enzo.... they serve different purposes, and therefore must be packaged differently.

If all that you want to do is beat a 911 GT2 around the ring, you can get away with a simple chassis and that GTR engine and call it a day. But GTR has to carry the torch all the R32 R33 and R34 has passed down: Be fast, and be fast in any situation. In the 21st century where the average driver could buy a GTR and run it up Vancity, a car that works in the hands of a ham-fisted driver is required for it to market well, especially when Nissan wanted to mass produce it without a limited production number, sold worldwide.

Like he said, and I know, a lighter car is hell of fun but a heavier car is safer and easier to handle for amateur driver.

It's both a fortunate and unfortunate trend to sports cars, fortunate is that sports cars are now engineered to be less intimidating, unfortunate is that feather weight sports car will be a thing of the past. I don't expect the FT-86 to be feather weight either. If you make the old AE86 using that 25 year old blueprints, majority of the potential buyers are going to deem it unsafe and "flimsy" and twitchy. Just look at how the Mazda Miata has "grown fat" over the decade.

Wow nice find and good read through this thread...
Posted via RS Mobile

I CAN NOT BELIEVE HOW FUCKING DUMB MR.MIZUNO IS!!!!

Seriously, let's use his example.

The F1 car weighs 600kg, making 1000kg downforce.
GT-R weighs 1600kg(I know it actually weighs more, but whatever) and making 0 downforce.

ok so let's say both cars are cornering at 0.8g...

the downforce will only act downward...
you can't fight the gravity, but in this case

F1 car is weighing...
1600kg downward (car's weight+downforce)
480kg sideways (from cornering)

GT-R is weighing
1600kg downward (from car's weight)
1280kg sideways (from cornering)

so which one is more unstable?

I'm not a physics specialist so I know I might be wrong, but it's not that hard to understand this concept :rolleyes:

so idealy, the car should weigh as less as it can, and create as much downforce as it can.
you don't need any weight that is pulling you sideways.

ya it is weird


comparing GTR with F1
F1 has huge downforce to make up for the light weight thru cornering speed?

while GTR has less downforce so it uses heavy ass weight to give weight down the tires??


i dont think that really works, perhaps more of a bs theory to make up for his own design. If weight is so important than he wouldnt design SPEC V any lighter would he?


Look at lotus elise? its light as hell
Ferrari F360/F430 vs the CS version, both lighter by about 100kg to 120kg

Lambo gall. superleg edition is lighter as well...

so all in all? i call bullshit, no excuse for a 1750kg car

Someone misses the point altogether here....

Let's say a Elise cup car with all its aerodynamics is faster than a GTR around Mission Raceway. 2 extremes here.

Then the GTR will work fine when it snows in January around the same track, in the snow, in the rain, and then go around to tow the Elise that's stuck in a snow bank.

That's the whole point of it. You don't drive a Elise cup car in the snow and you store it in the garage when it gets a bit damp. That's not acceptable for the GTR because it's marketing position is to make it work everywhere and at any speeds. Downforce cannot be made at street legal speeds. It's simple as that.

That's not true. There is a trade off between low speed downforce and high speed drag or high speed downforce and next to zero low speed down force in terms of wings. Other things like splitters, and undercar areo are some of the newer advances that wind tunnel testing has helped prove effective. Of course, NASCAR is still years behind as they only recently started to use front end splitters.

^ NASCAR is still years behind because they use Carburated engines. :lol

seriously who the FUCK watches NASTY car racing?


fucking go around in circles a million times circling like a fucking donut shop, where the hell is the fun in that?


lets see...how fast we can make a 30 degree left turn a million times and see who is the best woot woot and stay in 6th gear for 2 hrs

:rolleyes::rolleyes:


did i mention the car looks like ass?

$$$ ALWAYS come into play.... when they don't, you get something like the bugatti veyron. 50 units/year at $1.25 million/car with no anticipated payback until 6 yrs into the production run. Even with the veyron, it was an marketing exercise to resurrect the bugatti name so that they can sell other cars in the future for profit...

Few companies would produce a car with a blank cheque without a defined boundary. the GT-R is a car designed to compete with a 911 at 10's of thousands of dollars less at a production run of 12,000 globally @ $80,000 USD.

How they got there by choosing to go start with a heavy car and tune it well is what people are questioning now... but they did it and it works for the purposes they designed it for. That's pretty good engineering.

As Jeremy Clarkson put it:” They haven’t built a new car, they’ve built a new yard stick”.

The pits are pretty interesting to watch.

I'm sure these guys that work on cars for the entireity of their life know what they're talking about
Posted via RS Mobile

Actually, I felt the same way too, till someone pointed out that going 200+ mph in a circle is not an easy feat. One slight mistake, and you will lose speed and the guy behind you will whiz right by.

TV does slow down the action quite a bit.

^

every racing has its risks and death factor.

hence why its called RACING


compare to mountain togue, circuit racing, and ralley...that is seriously...nth

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7diiO...eature=related


thats racing

Yup, The inclines at Daytona are STEEP! The sport may look boring but when you actually drive one of the cars on the track you'll shit bricks. There are a few tracks in the NASCAR series that have left and right turns etc etc. I think one of them is the Gilles Villeneuve Track in Montreal.

Shit bricks because the bricks get pulled down in your guts by the G forces at the bank. :haha:

The low price tag is the only reason they're getting sold.

Spending big bucks on aerodynamics was probably going to be a bad return on investment, and it's a GT car anyway. It's meant to be as much of a comfortable daily driver that you can use year-round as it is for carving corners.

who cares. ugly.

http://cache.gawker.com/assets/image...10/NSX_GTR.jpg

^ yeah and they certainly have a new market not tapped into before with this thing...

Here's what I think he's trying to say:

It's all on the basis of optimizing the contact patch of the tire for driving in dry/wet/snow for maximum stability.

Say for example there are 2 cars, they both have the same parameters, same engine, same tires and pressure, same weight distrubution, zero downforce. The only difference is the curb weight. Car A is the lighter car. Car B is the GT-R.

Car A will have less weight supported by the tires. What this creates is less of a contact patch for the tires on Car A. Contact patch = grip.

In a cornering situation, car A would have less overall grip and therefore be less stable. The benefits of lighter weight may be found in turn-in reaction, acceleration, braking, economy, etc...but it compromises overall grip (stability) in a steady-state situation.

For a professional driver which can react quickly, and knows what they're doing, the benefits of lightness outweigh stability in a corner since they can position and optimize weight distribution correctly to maximize grip from a given contact patch of the tire.

That contact patch for the GT-R was determined from the requirements of maximizing stability and control in all weather conditions. That is where the 1700kg and 485 hp comes from.

The Spec V is lighter because it in optimized for dry/wet conditions and not the snow.

Hope that makes sense...lol

If the GTR were lighter, there'd be a lot more accidents given the number of them owned by rich spoiled mainlanders/hongers.

The GT-R looks quite nice in person.

i guess that does explains better

:thumbsup:

I get to work really fast everyday cause Canada Line is heavy.