Originally Posted by Prostrho (Post 6643966)

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

Originally Posted by hk20000 (Post 6643970)

It's extra heavy when loaded up with fat chicks.

Originally Posted by impactX (Post 6644512)

And fat chicks have bigger contact patches thus creating more grip.

Originally Posted by Timpo (Post 6643334)

The GT-R looks quite nice in person.

Originally Posted by carmaniac (Post 6643180)

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

Originally Posted by impactX (Post 6644512)

And fat chicks have bigger contact patches thus creating more grip.

Originally Posted by dutch (Post 6641502)

lighter is always better. the reason is when you go through a corner you have lateral load.

if you have a 2000 lb car vs a 3000 lb car with the same tire contact patch, the lighter car will corner faster because there is less weight in the lateral load.

his argument is that more weight is better in all conditions (dry, rain, snow), and of course he's trying to make it look good (its his baby).

I'm afraid all the gtr fan bois are going to think heavy cars are better.

the weight of the gtr is a side effect of the awd system. Anybody who preps are gtr for racing will strip it out to "add lightness".

Originally Posted by ctsport (Post 6645391)

It seems to me that the CE is just making excuses for the overweight GTR. We know this because every other manufacturer (except the Americans I guess lol) aim to do the complete opposite - to make the lightest sports cars possible. Lighter = better acceleration, braking, cornering and it doesn't have to compromise on daily driving either.

The GTR is a sports car, not a family sedan built for Alaska. The CE's excuse that GTR needs to be able to handle varied terrain applies to all the other cars in its class (Porche 911, Aston Martin Vantage, etc.) These cars are also mainly DDs and people who can afford these cars will most definitely have a Range Rover (or similar) if they live in areas with harsh winters. The GTR is a pig, albeit a nice one. So the real question is, what is the REAL REASON for all the extra weight? My guess is to keep costs down by using cheaper, heavier materials over lighter, more expensive materials.

Originally Posted by ronald55555 (Post 6644604)

That isn't necessarily true. Contact patch should not be parameter to optimize, but rather a variable to optimize centripetal force. Increasing the normal force on the tire will increase grip, however, increasing the normal force by increasing the mass is a backwards way to solve the problem. Grip does NOT increase linearly with increasing normal force(even with a larger contact area), that is the key concept to understand.
http://www.autozine.org/technical_sc...g/friction.jpg
The inertia however, WILL increase at a faster rate than grip with increasing mass.

The snow/wet handling argument is bs too. His whole argument is based on increasing contact area. Larger area = hydroplane. What he means is increasing contact pressure. There is a much better way than making the car heavier to increase contact pressure in snow. You can easily put smaller tires on a light car to increase the contact pressure. Here is a good example. Rally cars use very skinny tires in snow rallys. You dont see them using fat tires and making the car heavier.

http://www.autonewscast.com/wp-conte...ennorway09.jpg

Originally Posted by ctsport (Post 6645391)

It seems to me that the CE is just making excuses for the overweight GTR. We know this because every other manufacturer (except the Americans I guess lol) aim to do the complete opposite - to make the lightest sports cars possible. Lighter = better acceleration, braking, cornering and it doesn't have to compromise on daily driving either.

The GTR is a sports car, not a family sedan built for Alaska. The CE's excuse that GTR needs to be able to handle varied terrain applies to all the other cars in its class (Porche 911, Aston Martin Vantage, etc.) These cars are also mainly DDs and people who can afford these cars will most definitely have a Range Rover (or similar) if they live in areas with harsh winters. The GTR is a pig, albeit a nice one. So the real question is, what is the REAL REASON for all the extra weight? My guess is to keep costs down by using cheaper, heavier materials over lighter, more expensive materials.

Originally Posted by impactX (Post 6651242)

Yes, deriving the GTR-R35 from Formula 1 is accurate as F1 has neither 480hp and 50-50 weight distribution nor does it intend to be driving on any snowy surface with 20" rims with summer tires.

What does it have to do with 20" anyway? The width and height of the tire have more to do with the size of the contact patch than the diameter of the rim.