R36 GT-R due by 2013

[doublejceballos]

there may be a few reasons or advantages to a higher weight, but the argument for lower weight trumps all..

You are correct but not on regards to this matter at all.
I think your still slightly missing the point.
Ultra light weight, (aka completely carbon zonda) + phatty wing other aggressive aero packages only trump weight in good dry, SMOOTH track like conditions

They therefore didnt want any of that because it didnt meet their goals.
My point is, I dont think they sit back and wish they could have made it lighter, because then the tires wouldnt have the coverage area, aka they wouldnt have the proper amount of grip they were looking for to make this car good in good weather and good in all other types of conditions including bumpy, grated, uneven real road conditions that would toss a light weight super car around.

They knew people were going to be driving that weren't race car drivers (or ultra rich billionaires with more money than brains, because it wasnt priced as such)
It seemed backwards to me at first but then I got an appreciation for that guy's genius. It was all well thought out.

That being said I retort my statement about there being a small chance of them dropping weight, I could see possibly them doing it because of the great success of this one and seeing people want more that they develop a purposefully more aggressive dry weather condition vehicle for people who don't care about driving it to work or to the store.

[QuietChaos]

I don't think the GT-R's daily drivability is an issue, even if it's slightly stripped out. I think of it as a Z34 with a lot more tech and power. Size is almost comparable, although it probably weighs more than the Z. Both have rear seats and a usable trunk, FR layout.


I'm sure you know about the Spec V, doublej. They managed to trim the weight a bit, and added a few upgrades. Engine mods were very minimal. For some reason it ended up costing twice the MSRP of a regular GT-R..

[x_o_k_x]

I think I would have to agree with MR. GTR. He found a perfect balance..

BTW I posted this on another forum (article below), and this is what they say

So Mr. GTR wants us to believe that 1600kg of mass is the same as 600kg of mass + 1,000kg of downforce? I think one video was enough... I'll take a pass on "Physics According to Sony".

[doublejceballos]

I'm sure you know about the Spec V, doublej. They managed to trim the weight a bit, and added a few upgrades. Engine mods were very minimal. For some reason it ended up costing twice the MSRP of a regular GT-R..

True... Why did it cost so much more though?
I don't recall hearing that the spec v had twice as much performance gain.
I figure there is a balance point. You can drop some weight, but at some point too much may be lost to allow the car to perform like it was supposed to, then you have to slap aero accessories as aids to regain what was lost.
Perhaps that's why very little was changed for the spec v
That is all speculation on my part though, I dont know.

[doublejceballos]

"So Mr. GTR wants us to believe that 1600kg of mass is the same as 600kg of mass + 1,000kg of downforce? I think one video was enough... I'll take a pass on "Physics According to Sony"."

Hey I must say when watching the video I questioned the same thing at points
Kind of had an type face going on.
You wouldn't make 1000kg of down force unless you were haulin' pretty good.
I logic seemed weird for much, but it seems to work in practice, not just in theory, so we might not doubt him too much.

[x_o_k_x]

its very debateable topic I mean both sides have advantages, lighter car vs heavy car. I had same reaction, but this guy just from watching 1min of a video thinks mr. gtr an idiot, I guess he doesnt know what GTR is.. very sad

[xcye]

His point regarding to weight is that once you have choose a rim/tire package ,to get optimal grip, you need certain amount of weight on each tire.

It is true, if aero-downforce can be ignored, because:
1. Grip is not linearly related to weight;
2. Most of other factors (most important inertia) are;
So, there must be an optimal weight to maximize Grip/inertia ratio. In the case of the GTR, the optimal weight is 1700kg.

[QuietChaos]

True... Why did it cost so much more though?
I don't recall hearing that the spec v had twice as much performance gain.
I figure there is a balance point. You can drop some weight, but at some point too much may be lost to allow the car to perform like it was supposed to, then you have to slap aero accessories as aids to regain what was lost.
Perhaps that's why very little was changed for the spec v
That is all speculation on my part though, I dont know.

The performance gain is minor. I believe they added composite brakes, those don't come cheap, as well as some suspension bits IIRC. They took out the rear seats and filled it in with a CF shelf. Fancy paint, wheels. That stupid midrange boost thing.

You could do a lot better through the A/M. The thing is, if people are willing to pay the price for it, they will sell it at that price.

This whole weight/traction thing is all a bit sketchy to me. Almost sounds like it could be an excuse for the not-so-lofty mass of the car. Of course, there are cars out there that are not nearly as tech-rich that are faster cars, and provide more downforce. Viper ACR comes to mind. There's nothing sophisticated about that car-just a lot of power and downforce. Doesn't take a bunch of supercomputers to design it. Then again, you could argue that the daily drivability is compromised..

/sigh..

[supguyex]

i didn't completely understand the whole argument he made about HICAS sigh... wish i could speak japanese... lol. i loved his explanations though, he walks you through all the logic. i wish i could take classes with him lol

[skylineisthelimit]

any thoughts of wat the r36 might look like?

[LuckyGTR]

any thoughts of wat the r36 might look like?

lol like a R35 but more FLY

[ObsessedGtrKid]

hmm not really excited for it to come out since they ruined the gtr series style with the R35 which is pretty much a 350z and G35 infinity look alike :S so hopefully they bring back the real gtr look.

[QuietChaos]

Hopefully it looks a bit more graceful and less edgy. And shrink it down.

[M13]

The performance gain is minor. I believe they added composite brakes, those don't come cheap, as well as some suspension bits IIRC. They took out the rear seats and filled it in with a CF shelf. Fancy paint, wheels. That stupid midrange boost thing.

You could do a lot better through the A/M. The thing is, if people are willing to pay the price for it, they will sell it at that price.

This whole weight/traction thing is all a bit sketchy to me. Almost sounds like it could be an excuse for the not-so-lofty mass of the car. Of course, there are cars out there that are not nearly as tech-rich that are faster cars, and provide more downforce. Viper ACR comes to mind. There's nothing sophisticated about that car-just a lot of power and downforce. Doesn't take a bunch of supercomputers to design it. Then again, you could argue that the daily drivability is compromised..

/sigh..

also @ that price range market, price doesn't really matter. It's the NAME SPEC V that counts.

[Chow]

"So Mr. GTR wants us to believe that 1600kg of mass is the same as 600kg of mass + 1,000kg of downforce? I think one video was enough... I'll take a pass on "Physics According to Sony"."

Hey I must say when watching the video I questioned the same thing at points
Kind of had an type face going on.
You wouldn't make 1000kg of down force unless you were haulin' pretty good.
I logic seemed weird for much, but it seems to work in practice, not just in theory, so we might not doubt him too much.

What really bugged me was how he was using Kg, and not N, KG is just mass, you can't generate 1000kg of force, you can generate 9810N which is an equvilent weight of 1000kg on earth. If we understand about Gravity being a constant we can talk about it in KG

He was talking about f1 cars generating 1000kg of downforce, They haul pretty good.

He is completely right with the physics on the situation.

The basic argument is a car with a mass of 1600kg, will have the same friction (thus same centripetal force) on the entire system as a 600kg car whose aerodynamics generate and additional 1000kg to the car.

The more fricton you have the faster you can go through a corner. ( Fcentriptal= (Mass x v^2)/r^2 Fcentripital being the force of friction the car generates. (since its the only thing stopping the car from sliding away) Ff=Normal force x Coefficient of friction. (The normal force is the force that the ground is pushing on the car. Since the car isn't falling through the ground the normal force has to be equal to the weight of the car plus the down force aerodynamics.)
So if you strip the aerodynamics of the lighter car you will have less friction and cannot take the corner as fast.

To conclude lighter is better for turning if you have the aerodynamics, but due to regulations and such the car can't have a huge fin on the back or front and can't be so low to the ground. So for the power to weight ratio this weight is optimal for the speeds they were projecting.