Making fun of the Skyline at the World Challange

[GTRJack]

Hello everyone, let me introduce my self first. My name is Jack and I'm 28 years old. I used to owe a R32 Skyline GTR when I studied in Bangkok for 2 years. Now I'm back home to Norway with no Skyline I had to sell the car before I moved back. I've been looking for one in Norway as well but the car is still too expensive coz of our high taxation and insurance rate + aftermarket parts would be too hard to come by.

Anyway let me introduse you to my first topic. I've been following the Skyline a little bit at the World Challange. The Skyline seems to be running not so well with technical issue after another but I'm still excited and hope for the best. Now what I do not accept is wannabes making fun of the car without really know what's happening. I don't mean to bother much but if you guys here can sign up in the forum and tell those hillbillies what is really going on with the Skyline at the World Challange.

Here the LINK: http://www.racingflix.com/forum/foru...?TID=3657&PN=1

I got lots of videos of Skyline I will share with you guys later.


Laterz everyone, Jack

[HellBent]

Originally Posted by GTRJack

Now what I do not accept is wannabes making fun of the car without really know what's happening. I don't mean to bother much but if you guys here can sign up in the forum and tell those hillbillies what is really going on with the Skyline at the World Challange.

Laterz everyone, Jack

More info can be had from Tyndago or one of the other people from RBMotoring. But to make a long story short there is so much more that goes into racing than just having a cool car.

I'm not a Porsche fan, but the new GT3s are amazing machines. They are factory homoligated race cars, that are essentially sold as street cars so Porsche can legally race them. The suspensions are race ready and adjustable, and the powertrains are very well engineered with racing in mind.

On the other hand the Skyline GTR is derived from a 4 door family sedan sold in Japan called the Nissan Skyline. It shares body, suspension, and some driveline components with this high production volume family car. To be fair it also has some high tech hardware like ATTESA and HICAS. The GTR's RB26DETT engine is also the basis for most of the car's mystique and is a very powerful and legendary powerplant. Howerever, it has its drawbacks, like its cast iron construction, and high center of gravity.

This is not to bash the Skyline GTR, but when compared to 2006/2007 model year GT3s and Corvette ZO6s it is aging technology. I believe the Chevy Cobalts were even winning many of the races in which the AF GTR competed. But like I said racing is more than just cool cars, it also has a lot to do with funding, technology, factory support, sponsorship, and politics.

-AL

[tonygt]

The R33 (V-spec.) established a record for the production cars on the Nurburgring Nordschleife, then the GT3 was a little bit faster, later the R34 was faster, than the GT3 on the same course. The GT-Rs competed with the GT3s for two years in 2002 and 2003 in Super Taikyu and the GT-R won. At the 24-h Nurburgring the GT-R was faster than many GT3s.
The GT-R is faster in corners and out of corners, than Porsche, even with the better power-to-weight ratio. I don't mean much better ratio, but even in that case the GT-R will be safer and can have higher corner-exit speed: Porsches are tricky on the limit.
Yes, the Porsche's engine has lower center of gravity and more modern technology, but the GT-R's engine is "a pure turbo engine", which can be boosted up to the very high output and its cast iron block has certain advantages.
However, if we compare the 24-h Nurburgring/Super Taikyu Falken GT-R with the faster cars from the 24-h Nur event (it was around 10 of them usually), and the Super Taikyu/World Challenge GT-R with other cars from the World Challenge, we should notice that this particular spec. of the GT-R is not so strong and fast, in comparison with some racing Porsches, Vipers, and Corvettes, especially if these cars have factory support and professional drivers.
The GT-R would have chances to win the World Chalenge Cup, if had more powerful engine (still in the limits of the World Chalenge regulations) and more professional driver and crew.

[HellBent]

Originally Posted by tonygt

The R33 (V-spec.) established a record for the production cars on the Nurburgring Nordschleife, then the GT3 was a little bit faster, later the R34 was faster, than the GT3 on the same course. The GT-Rs competed with the GT3s for two years in 2002 and 2003 in Super Taikyu and the GT-R won. At the 24-h Nurburgring the GT-R was faster than many GT3s.
The GT-R is faster in corners and out of corners, than Porsche, even with the better power-to-weight ratio. I don't mean much better ratio, but even in that case the GT-R will be safer and can have higher corner-exit speed: Porsches are tricky on the limit.
Yes, the Porsche's engine has lower center of gravity and more modern technology, but the GT-R's engine is "a pure turbo engine", which can be boosted up to the very high output and its cast iron block has certain advantages.
However, if we compare the 24-h Nurburgring/Super Taikyu Falken GT-R with the faster cars from the 24-h Nur event (it was around 10 of them usually), and the Super Taikyu/World Challenge GT-R with other cars from the World Challenge, we should notice that this particular spec. of the GT-R is not so strong and fast, in comparison with some racing Porsches, Vipers, and Corvettes, especially if these cars have factory support and professional drivers.
The GT-R would have chances to win the World Chalenge Cup, if had more powerful engine (still in the limits of the World Chalenge regulations) and more professional driver and crew.

Valid points for the time periods you quoted, however my discussion was based on comparing the aging R34 to the newer contenders that have a technological if not horsepower advantage. The Skyline is an impressive car, with a fine racing pedigree, however I believe it is not evenly matched in the current races. Additionally, and as I mentioned earlier, racing involves so much more than just the cars. Money, factory support etc... have a huge part in who has the resources to put forth a winning effort.

-AL

[tonygt]

Originally Posted by HellBent

Valid points for the time periods you quoted, however my discussion was based on comparing the aging R34 to the newer contenders that have a technological if not horsepower advantage. The Skyline is an impressive car, with a fine racing pedigree, however I believe it is not evenly matched in the current races. Additionally, and as I mentioned earlier, racing involves so much more than just the cars. Money, factory support etc... have a huge part in who has the resources to put forth a winning effort.

-AL

The technological advantage of the R34 in comparison with all other sports/racing cars is the ATTESA E-TS system which gives it a capability to win races. This system makes the GT-R not just evenly matched to other mentioned cars, but makes it superior. I already wrote about the engine, and there is no technological disadvantage in chassis and body. It is just bad impression from the poor performance of this particular car in the World Challenge Cup. I agree about money, factory support and etc..

[HellBent]

Originally Posted by tonygt

The technological advantage of the R34 in comparison with all other sports/racing cars is the ATTESA E-TS system which gives it a capability to win races. This system makes the GT-R not just evenly matched to other mentioned cars, but makes it superior. I already wrote about the engine, and there is no technological disadvantage in chassis and body. It is just bad impression from the poor performance of this particular car in the World Challenge Cup. I agree about money, factory support and etc..

I don't think it would be accurate to say that the R34's ATTESA E-TS is a technological advantage. The system is aging compared to the newer ABS, traction, and stability control systems of other cars. I would also argue that the chasis, body, and suspension of the R34 is at a technological disadvantage compared to the other cars. The R34 gives up torsional rigidity and stiffness to the newer cars. I've also worked on the suspensions of all three cars and the R34 is the most dated. The stamped steel suspension components of the R34, cannot compare to the fully adjustable race suspension of a GT3 or the fully indipendent aluminum and composite one on a Corvette.

I love the GTR, but if I had to campaign a car my choice would be something a little easier to work on. I onced asked a team owner why he switched from campaigning BMW M3s to Porsches, "It's simple" he said, "I want to win."

-AL

[SkylineUSA]

Originally Posted by HellBent

I don't think it would be accurate to say that the R34's ATTESA E-TS is a technological advantage. The system is aging compared to the newer ABS, traction, and stability control systems of other cars. I would also argue that the chasis, body, and suspension of the R34 is at a technological disadvantage compared to the other cars. The R34 gives up torsional rigidity and stiffness to the newer cars. I've also worked on the suspensions of all three cars and the R34 is the most dated. The stamped steel suspension components of the R34, cannot compare to the fully adjustable race suspension of a GT3 or the fully indipendent aluminum and composite one on a Corvette.

I love the GTR, but if I had to campaign a car my choice would be something a little easier to work on. I onced asked a team owner why he switched from campaigning BMW M3s to Porsches, "It's simple" he said, "I want to win."

-AL

Toally agree.

I have heard the rigidity of the R34 is outstanding, but I do not know much more than that. I know my R32 is by far superior in rigidity to my old Fox body Mustang (wet noodle)that I use to own, and the same jump between those two would be in the ball park of jumping from and R32 to an R34. So, if the other cars mentioned are superior to the R34 in rigidity, it would be very hard to fathum, not say its untrue.


Cheers,
Tony

[HellBent]

Originally Posted by SkylineUSA

Toally agree.

I have heard the rigidity of the R34 is outstanding, but I do not know much more than that. I know my R32 is by far superior in rigidity to my old Fox body Mustang (wet noodle)that I use to own, and the same jump between those two would be in the ball park of jumping from and R32 to an R34. So, if the other cars mentioned are superior to the R34 in rigidity, it would be very hard to fathum, not say its untrue.


Cheers,
Tony

Yeah, funny memories! The R32 is absolutely superior in rigidity to the "Flexible Flyer" Fox body Mustangs. I remember cracks forming in my A-pillars, C-pillars, and firewall of my 1988 5.0 GT. The car was only pushing 320hp - 350hp and saw mild strip duty (motorsport clutch and 3.55 gears). I also enjoyed the nimbleness of the R32 over the larger feel of my C5 Corvette, although the Corvette was more stable at triple digits speeds than the R32.

Three years ago, I read a Japanese car magazine comparison between the R34 GTR and the new Skyline 350GT (Infiniti G35 coupe). They had some great frame by frame sequential photo strips of the cars in tight turns. In one tight turn the R34 GTR would exhibit a bit of body roll and lift it's front inner wheel, while the 350GT was stable and well planted. The stock 350GT also edged out the stock R34 in lap times by a narrow margin.

Keep in mind that the 350GT (G35 coupe) is based on the FM platform which is shared with Infiniti's and Nissan's small SUVs. The FM platform is heavy and not an ideal sports car platform. Therefore, I think that it would be fair to expect that it does not have the same rigidity as the chassis of a purpose built sports car such as Porsche or Corvette. The suspensions are not even in the same league.

The R34 is a great car, especially for it's time period, but technology continues to advance. Hopefully the 2008 Nissan GTR will make a good showing, but it appears that it may not be targeted at the pure sports car segment as is the GT3 or C6 ZO6. In the end, we live in amazing times that the piloting of such amazing cars is possible. I will keep living the dream one car at a time! (That doesn't mean I don't miss my Skyline! )

-AL

[tonygt]

Originally Posted by HellBent

I don't think it would be accurate to say that the R34's ATTESA E-TS is a technological advantage. The system is aging compared to the newer ABS, traction, and stability control systems of other cars. I would also argue that the chasis, body, and suspension of the R34 is at a technological disadvantage compared to the other cars. The R34 gives up torsional rigidity and stiffness to the newer cars. I've also worked on the suspensions of all three cars and the R34 is the most dated. The stamped steel suspension components of the R34, cannot compare to the fully adjustable race suspension of a GT3 or the fully indipendent aluminum and composite one on a Corvette.

I love the GTR, but if I had to campaign a car my choice would be something a little easier to work on. I onced asked a team owner why he switched from campaigning BMW M3s to Porsches, "It's simple" he said, "I want to win."

-AL

The GT-R does not have a stability control system. A real high performance sports car for a real high performance driver, who takes his car for racing, at least sometimes, does not need a stability control system. May be, just Porsches need, because they are dangerous on the limit or/and on a wet road. The ATTESA is a very special system. Its "philosophy" is different from the philosophy of the stability control systems and other sophisticated all-wheel drive systems, like in the Mitsubishi Lancer EVO or in the new Porsche Turbo. I'm sorry, I don't have time to explain it now, but the purpose of the ATTESA is NOT to provide a boring stable neutral handling of the car. I hope that the main technology, the spirit, and the "philosophy" of the ATTESA will remain in the new GT-R.
The racing ABS system of the GT-R is integrated with all-wheel drive computer control. It is vvvery good.
The rigidity of the R34 chassis is very high. The car has the braces, which are available just from the aftermarket for other cars.
If you consider the Porsche's front MacPherson suspension more sophisticated than the GT-R's front suspension, I have no comments. The R34's rear suspension provides much better handling that Porsche's rear suspension. This is true that the stock GT3's suspension is more adjustable than the stock GT-R's suspension. But almost all GT-R owners upgrade the suspension, exhaust, intake, and the engine.
Porsche's prestige and popularity is mostly a stereotype. Please, try to find May 2006 issue of the TOP GEAR magazine, see p.47: finally, at least one automotive writer found courage to write the truth.

[HellBent]

Originally Posted by tonygt

The GT-R does not have a stability control system. A real high performance sports car for a real high performance driver, who takes his car for racing, at least sometimes, does not need a stability control system. May be, just Porsches need, because they are dangerous on the limit or/and on a wet road. The ATTESA is a very special system. Its "philosophy" is different from the philosophy of the stability control systems and other sophisticated all-wheel drive systems, like in the Mitsubishi Lancer EVO or in the new Porsche Turbo. I'm sorry, I don't have time to explain it now, but the purpose of the ATTESA is NOT to provide a boring stable neutral handling of the car. I hope that the main technology, the spirit, and the "philosophy" of the ATTESA will remain in the new GT-R.
The racing ABS system of the GT-R is integrated with all-wheel drive computer control. It is vvvery good.
The rigidity of the R34 chassis is very high. The car has the braces, which are available just from the aftermarket for other cars.
If you consider the Porsche's front MacPherson suspension more sophisticated than the GT-R's front suspension, I have no comments. The R34's rear suspension provides much better handling that Porsche's rear suspension. This is true that the stock GT3's suspension is more adjustable than the stock GT-R's suspension. But almost all GT-R owners upgrade the suspension, exhaust, intake, and the engine.
Porsche's prestige and popularity is mostly a stereotype. Please, try to find May 2006 issue of the TOP GEAR magazine, see p.47: finally, at least one automotive writer found courage to write the truth.

TonyGT,

I am not trying to attack you or the GTR. The GTR is a great car, and I did own and have worked on a GTR. However, there is a significant difference between an R34 and newer sports cars such as a GT3 or Corvette C6 ZO6.

I understand the ATTESA system is not a stability control system "per se" as in the Corvette or Porsche. If you read my post I never claimed it was, I was merely comparing the levels of technology. The system used on the R34 was designed prior to 1998 and would of had it's last update in 2001 before production ceased. Conversely the GT3 and C6 ZO6 are "fresh sheet" new designs current as of 2006. Stability control system are found on early all factory supercars (almost all have an "off" switch for those who feel they are 'real high performance drivers'). Ferrari with their unquestionable racing heritage has it on every car, usually as a multi-position switch on the steering wheel. I've never heard of anyone complain a Ferrari was boring to drive.

When comparing suspensions it is important to note that the R34 also uses a modified McPhereson front strut design made of stamped steel (old technology). Whereas the GT3 and C6 ZO6 use SLA upper and lower control arm designs made of cast and billet aluminum (the GT3 having adjustable geometry). The R34 also uses stamped steel for the rear subframe and suspension components. Once again the GT3 and ZO6 use aluminum, magnesium, and composites. GTR owners may upgrade their suspensions (shocks, springs, roll bars, etc...) but the perponderance of the stamped steel control arms and linkages remain.

Finally, the ABS used in the R34 is anywhere from 4 - 8 years older technolgy than that of the GT3 or ZO6. ABS technology is extremely perishable in the competitive arena. Listening to a discussion between a leading aftermarket brake manufacturer and a Porsche team owner at Laguna Seca, there is still room for improvement. Drivers of the newest GT3s were still not happy about Porsches ABS, which is improved upon every year (these guys were also the pole sitters!). Every year we expect more from our technology, and every year we advance. The R34 GTR is not bad, its simply older.

-AL

[SkylineUSA]

Al,

I see your point, just wish the other Tony would as well

Cheers,
Tony

[tonygt]

Originally Posted by HellBent

TonyGT,

I am not trying to attack you or the GTR. The GTR is a great car, and I did own and have worked on a GTR. However, there is a significant difference between an R34 and newer sports cars such as a GT3 or Corvette C6 ZO6.

I understand the ATTESA system is not a stability control system "per se" as in the Corvette or Porsche. If you read my post I never claimed it was, I was merely comparing the levels of technology. The system used on the R34 was designed prior to 1998 and would of had it's last update in 2001 before production ceased. Conversely the GT3 and C6 ZO6 are "fresh sheet" new designs current as of 2006. Stability control system are found on early all factory supercars (almost all have an "off" switch for those who feel they are 'real high performance drivers'). Ferrari with their unquestionable racing heritage has it on every car, usually as a multi-position switch on the steering wheel. I've never heard of anyone complain a Ferrari was boring to drive.

When comparing suspensions it is important to note that the R34 also uses a modified McPhereson front strut design made of stamped steel (old technology). Whereas the GT3 and C6 ZO6 use SLA upper and lower control arm designs made of cast and billet aluminum (the GT3 having adjustable geometry). The R34 also uses stamped steel for the rear subframe and suspension components. Once again the GT3 and ZO6 use aluminum, magnesium, and composites. GTR owners may upgrade their suspensions (shocks, springs, roll bars, etc...) but the perponderance of the stamped steel control arms and linkages remain.

Finally, the ABS used in the R34 is anywhere from 4 - 8 years older technolgy than that of the GT3 or ZO6. ABS technology is extremely perishable in the competitive arena. Listening to a discussion between a leading aftermarket brake manufacturer and a Porsche team owner at Laguna Seca, there is still room for improvement. Drivers of the newest GT3s were still not happy about Porsches ABS, which is improved upon every year (these guys were also the pole sitters!). Every year we expect more from our technology, and every year we advance. The R34 GTR is not bad, its simply older.

-AL

Hi AL,

I also know the GT-Rs not just from the magazines. I'm sorry if you misunderstood me and thought that I blame you that you mix up the ATTESA and a stability control system. However, it is important to understand the unique philosophy of ATTESA and why it is different from other high-performance all-wheel drive systems. If you understand the purpose and the philosophy of this system you can not say that it is an old technology(may be some parts of the system could be based on the old technology, like the computer speed). It doesn't matter that it was developed 17 years ago and improved in 90s. And, if the drivers were still not happy about the ABS in the newest GT3s, the drivers of the GT-Rs are happy about the ABS, if they keep it. Not to mention again the unique integration of the ABS with the AWD
in the ATTESA.
About the comparison of the 350GT and the R34 I can just note, that, unfortunately, it is typical for Japanese magazines and videos to simulate an advantage of the cars which they present. I have seen the Japanese videos where the G35/350GT was far behind of the R34 and the R33 on the race track.
And finally about the suspension. First of all, the MacPherson suspension does not have the upper control arm by definition. Then, the R34's multi-link front suspension is more a modified double wishbone suspension, than a modified MacPherson suspension. Also the lower control arm of the R34 is made from aluminium. It saves 2.5 kg of the unsprung weight. Then, the control arms for the GT-Rs suspension are available on the aftermarket.
But the weight is the GT-R's problem. I hope, the new GT-R will weigh less. By the way, the weight of the Porsche Turbo is about the same as the GT-R's. This is a penalty for the all-wheel drive and turbo systems.
Thank you very much for the discussion. This weekend I don't have time for that.
I sign off.

[HellBent]

Tony GT,

I think we can agree that we are basically saying the same thing.

The GTR is a fine automobile and I look forward to the next itteration. As for the weight, I believe Carlos Gohsn has already mentioned the new GTR will be around 3500lbs. Well we will find out in about a year!

-AL