# Would the GTR be faster if it was lighter?



## DocT (Dec 17, 2014)

I personally don't think so as the design from the outset was around the ethos of tire contact patch and weight helping with the traction.

Just wondering whether any GTR owners have significantly reduced the weight of theirs and found it faster on track? And are you getting better laptimes but having to put in a lot more effort into keeping it straight i.e reduced traction in slow to mid speed corners? Did you have to increase downforce?

I was speaking to a few M car owners who are throwing the "the weight helping is just a marketing ploy" and "lighter is better anytime anywhere" which is just too simplistic in my view.


----------



## nick the tubman (Jun 28, 2006)

Subjective - 
But, if you watch the original designers video, he was on about how the weight helps with grip etc. something about how it matches a formula 1 cars equivalent downforce being generated, but cant remember the figures


----------



## TAZZMAXX (Mar 9, 2010)

The weight only really helps for road speeds in my view but if you want to increase track speeds by reducing weight you have to add a corresponding amount of aero. It's got to come down to physics at the end of the day.


----------



## DocT (Dec 17, 2014)

True but aero works at high speeds. Weight works at low speeds. If you can manage the inertia but centering around points of moment (i.e the axles like putting a transaxle and packaging the engine small) then a higher weight should have less significance. 

Also adding aero increases drag affects top speed. They've made the GTR very slippery to counteract the increased weight to an extent.


----------



## terry lloyd (Feb 12, 2014)

nick the tubman said:


> Subjective -
> But, if you watch the original designers video, he was on about how the weight helps with grip etc. something about how it matches a formula 1 cars equivalent downforce being generated, but cant remember the figures


Thats what he said - what he meant is its turned out to be a heavy old bus deal with it


----------



## JoGoGTR (Sep 1, 2015)

Ultimate speed is derived from the power to weight ratio so the lighter the car the quicker it will be - if you go a lot lighter you'll need to look at Spring and damper rates and may be roll bar stiffness but lighter is always better - just look at the lotus philosophy ...


----------



## goRt (May 17, 2011)

JoGoGTR said:


> Ultimate speed is derived from the power to weight ratio so the lighter the car the quicker it will be - if you go a lot lighter you'll need to look at Spring and damper rates and may be roll bar stiffness but lighter is always better - just look at the lotus philosophy ...


You mean acceleration - a=f/m, speed relates to aerodynamics - the ability to cut through the air

Sent from my E6653 using Tapatalk


----------



## harryturbo (Jan 24, 2004)

*eerrrrm*

its wieght that kills these cars after 120 ish you need a certain amount but these cars are way to heavy,with the right Ads you can make a car much faster,dont tell me it was made heavy for cornering and mech grip or every car manifacturer would do it,and get rid of lightwieght carbon bits and make out of steel,thats my two pence worth


----------



## TREG (May 20, 2004)

I think I recall the designers of the 35 making a bold statement that power to weight was not important to the 35 and the extra weight helped the car sit firmly on the road. 

I'm sure someone can find the video on this?


----------



## goRt (May 17, 2011)

TREG said:


> I think I recall the designers of the 35 making a bold statement that power to weight was not important to the 35 and the extra weight helped the car sit firmly on the road.
> 
> I'm sure someone can find the video on this?


Yes, but it doesn't mean it's correct ;-)

Sent from my E6653 using Tapatalk


----------



## TREG (May 20, 2004)

goRt said:


> TREG said:
> 
> 
> > I think I recall the designers of the 35 making a bold statement that power to weight was not important to the 35 and the extra weight helped the car sit firmly on the road.
> ...


Yes I agree David the 35 is a crap car and clearly the designer and Nissan no nothing about performance cars!!


----------



## terry lloyd (Feb 12, 2014)

The R35 has a lot of light weight parts alloy suspension/panels/forged wheels/carbon props - so my guess is they were going for light weight then someone f"ucked up with the running gear


----------



## DocT (Dec 17, 2014)

Didn't Mizuno decide on the weight he wanted on each wheel and therefore the contact patch then decide on the whole weight of the car?

Most performance cars (I'm not meaning M, RS even Porsche but single model bespoke performance cars like Ferrari, Lamborghini etc) the weight is decided from the outset and then drivetrain etc to fit the packaging.

I've driven many lighter and more powerful cars that are nowhere near as stable and definitely doesn't grip as well. He must have done something right!


----------



## Spawn (Mar 18, 2015)

TREG said:


> I think I recall the designers of the 35 making a bold statement that power to weight was not important to the 35 and the extra weight helped the car sit firmly on the road.
> 
> I'm sure someone can find the video on this?


This was said by the Chief engineer Kazutoshi Mizuno in GTR documentary as i remember


----------



## Spawn (Mar 18, 2015)

He is talking about the weight of the car in this video. Different video then i saw but same sentences.

http://youtu.be/8nGiZKQmODA






Also a TG interview with him...; http://www.topgear.com/car-news/top-gear-magazine/top-gear-chats-mizuno-san-mr-gt-r


----------



## terry lloyd (Feb 12, 2014)

Why did they make the Nismo lighter if heavier was better (hmmmm)


----------



## TREG (May 20, 2004)

Spawn said:


> He is talking about the weight of the car in this video. Different video then i saw but same sentences.
> 
> http://youtu.be/8nGiZKQmODA
> 
> ...





As you say different video but same sort of comments made 


Again not the one I have seen before but well worth a look.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1izuj3ku8k


----------



## DocT (Dec 17, 2014)

terry lloyd said:


> Why did they make the Nismo lighter if heavier was better (hmmmm)


It's about 20kg lighter isn't it?


----------



## terry lloyd (Feb 12, 2014)

DocT said:


> It's about 20kg lighter isn't it?


Dont know for sure but has a Ti exhaust carbon seats lighter wheels carbon bits all over so would guess more than 20kg


----------



## Spawn (Mar 18, 2015)

terry lloyd said:


> Dont know for sure but has a Ti exhaust carbon seats lighter wheels carbon bits all over so would guess more than 20kg


if you watch the video, you can clearly understand that there was an idea behind that weight. 

Why nismo lighter? More track and experienced driver oriented and a lot bigger spoiler on back ...


----------



## grahamc (Oct 1, 2006)

The weight of the GTR is truely shown on track, especially when you start looking at braking..... I have been next to a Macca at 165-170mph and where I have to brake for the corner VS the Macca was silly.

The true briliance of the GTR is not the engine, its the active AWD system and how it controls getting the power to the ground. 

Faster, probably, but it would be with diminishing returns..... then you would need to consider aero


----------



## HUGHS1E (Jan 20, 2015)

Of course it would be faster, it would stop, start, turn faster and have less wear on everything.


----------



## DocT (Dec 17, 2014)

HUGHS1E said:


> Of course it would be faster, it would stop, start, turn faster and have less wear on everything.


Would the performance be as accessible by the majority that buys the car? I've driven a ZR1 Corvette, driving it anywhere near it's limits is pretty reckless because the margins of error are so small. It's physically and mentally far more demanding than a GTR and all the times seem to say a GTR is actually faster. 

Completely agree with the wear aspect, the weight has it's penalty on the durability of consumables.

Mizuno design ethos for this car is definitely far from conventional but I've yet to drive a road car under 200k that has the ability to put the power to the ground like a GTR. That's a pretty impressive achievement considering how much performance is on tap.


----------



## nismoman (Jul 13, 2004)

it would be a lot faster ,look at the GT3 R35 ,same engine size limited to 500 and something bhp ,only two wheel drive ,yes more aero ,but a lot lot lighter , if weight wasn't a killer race teams/manufactures wouldn't spend millions on developing light weight parts , four wheel drive can be a advantage on the road but its very very heavy


----------



## DocT (Dec 17, 2014)

I should have rephrased my original question to say for regular drivers. Not race drivers.

Those GT3 cars would be pretty slow around the roads of North Wales in damp conditions! The downforce only comes into play at high speeds, driver skill and to some extent tyres temps at the lower speeds to keep it on the tarmac.


----------



## Spawn (Mar 18, 2015)

There is more than single aspect in this topic. 

First of all, what i remind myself all the time R35 is a GT( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_tourer )car. So leather+heated seats, subwoofers on back seat, MFD, a boot! etc. All these are coming with the car because Its a GT car. 

If we leave our enthusiastic thoughts to one side, all cars are made for a purpose and there are financial expectations from the car. 

However, nissan include mid-old age mans, womans in their target market. For that reason car includes several luxury options, and drivibility for target market. And we all know R35 is a marketing success. Mostly because of the reasons i wrote above. As Mizuno-san explained in video posted above, they wanted to GTR be driveable and not-scary in daily circumstances for the average users. So they managed to achieve low speed traction and forgiving handling with extra weight, which is i think absolutely fine. When you consider how a 1740kg car can outperform 911 turbo in its home circuit... 

Also one of the main reason of savage off the line acceleration of the GTR is it's weight( surely also launch control) 

Definitely it will be faster if its made lighter, it is obvious, but what we should allways remember, global car manufacturers are not designing or selling the cars only for enthusiasts unfortunately. 

Please read this article : 2014 Nissan GT-R Targets Women, Older Buyers, Says Automaker


Even in a company like porsche, there is a hardcore version of a hardcore version of a hardcore car  (carrera-gt3-gt3rs) it's all about target market...


----------



## DocT (Dec 17, 2014)

^^ Refreshingly sensible and logical input. Completely agree with you.

The launch is helped hugely by the weight over the rear wheels. Official line of 98% rear drive when launching to take advantage of the great load on the rear tyres.


----------



## borat52 (Jan 29, 2006)

TAZZMAXX said:


> Tif you want to increase track speeds by reducing weight you have to add a corresponding amount of aero. It's got to come down to physics at the end of the day.


It does come down to physics but the first part of that is wrong.

If you reduce weight, you reduce momentum (mom = mass x vel) and also by deduction energy (KE = 1/2 x mass x vel²).

So you when you accelerate, you need to put in less energy to achieve the same speed (car accelerates faster) and when you brake and turn you also need less energy to reduce speed and change direction.

The method for transferring this energy into the earth is the tyre and the drip of the tyre will depend on the mass of the car, but again its proportional as friction = co-fric x reaction (mass in laymans terms).

So although we reduced the energy needed to change the cars speed and direction we also reduced the outright friction by the same amount which means if we were on the limit of adhesion with regards to braking and power delivery then we didn't really gain much.

What we did gain is an overall reduction in energy transfer, which means less heat and wear in the brakes and tyres = better ability to keep the car faster for longer. 
Anyone who has had a heavy car past the limit of adhesion will also appreciate how much more difficult it is to regain control compared to a lighter car as once your past the limit of adhesion you've reduced your grip very significantly hence your ability to take energy out of the car is tiny, and if you're carrying a relatively high energy (proportional to mass) then that's much harder to reduce compared to a lighter (carrying less energy proportional to mass) car. Think of that last point like this, much easier to push a shopping trolley in the snow than a broken down porsche  (not strictly because the porsche is heavier, but your wellies easily breach the limit of adhesion which is probably sufficient to push the shopping trolley but not a car). Driving past the limit is like driving on snow, until you get back within the limit.

All other things being equal (ie same power, same 4dw, same gearbox ect) you' want a lighter one and not a heavier one by choice.

The fact is they wanted 4wd, 500bhp and every day comforts so without spending silly money 1800kg was the weight that was necessary.


The reason the power is so usable for most is the 4wd, so they achieved the design brief pretty well I'd say.


----------



## TAZZMAXX (Mar 9, 2010)

Aero recreates mass by downforce so I'll stand by what I wrote and it's a response to the OP. If you just removed weight on the standard car then it probably wouldn't be as fast for the reasons you've stated but I'm not here to argue the point too far.


----------



## Spawn (Mar 18, 2015)

Weight of the car wasn't a suprise actually. Nissan announced long before GTRs debut that new GTR is going to be based on FM platform. 

So if we add up weights; 

350Z + twin turbo + 4wd + dual clutch auto = GTR ( Renamed as PM Platform- GTR is the only member at the moment )


----------



## borat52 (Jan 29, 2006)

TAZZMAXX said:


> Aero recreates mass by downforce so I'll stand by what I wrote and it's a response to the OP. If you just removed weight on the standard car then it probably wouldn't be as fast for the reasons you've stated but I'm not here to argue the point too far.


It's not the correct understanding of whats happening.

If you remove mass then yes you remove some friction (as friction = co-ef x mass) but you also remove energy and momentum meaning you need less friction. 

If you simply reduce weight in a balanced way (ie across all 4 wheels proportionally) then you actually reduce the amount of friction needed at the tyres because you're carrying less energy.

If you lightened the car AND added aero (in a balanced and useful way) you'd end up with more grip than the standard car.

Simply taking weight out absolutely does not require any aero to maintain the same levels of grip as before becuase of the equations friction = co-ef x Reaction and KE = 1/2xMxV² (or mom = M x V is just as useful here).

Less weight = less requirement for energy transfer from tyre to earth, and as weight is directly proportional to both Kenetic Energy AND Friction you have (in a theoretical world at least) reduced both by the same amount resulting in no net increase or decrease in grip.

My limited experience tells me always to choose the lighter car all other things being equal (power weight/ 4wd / fancy power distributing electonic gizmo's etc)


----------



## nick the tubman (Jun 28, 2006)

Nismo version is lighter yes, but that is replaced by a lot more aero...

lets remember, this ia a GT car, that does it all, built to a price, that`s fairly easy to drive quickly.. so its appeal is broader..

lighter maybe be quicker, but not necessarily better in the GTR`s case...


----------



## zed1 (Aug 13, 2013)

I don't know about the pros and cons of a lighter or heavier car but it strikes me that when people spend thousands on carbon to reduce a few kgs, they might look in the mirror first.

Unless they see a very svelte figure looking back at them, perhaps the kgs coming off the middle would be a cheaper and in the long run healthier option. opcorn:


----------



## borat52 (Jan 29, 2006)

nick the tubman said:


> Nismo version is lighter yes, but that is replaced by a lot more aero...
> 
> lets remember, this ia a GT car, that does it all, built to a price, that`s fairly easy to drive quickly.. so its appeal is broader..
> 
> lighter maybe be quicker, but not necessarily better in the GTR`s case...


You're spot on there with respect to the price, and target market.
I still think that simply taking weight out all other things being equal would not make it harder to drive.
You do not need weight in a car, it's a side effect of making a spec to a price.

Let's create some clarity here, aero does not replace weight - it might seem to do the same thing but you need to consider the Kinetic Energy the car is carrying.

A 1000kg car at 100mph with 1000kg (thats a lot) of downforce has the same friction as a 2000kg car at 100mph with no downforce, however...

The 2000kg car has exactly twice as much kinetic energy/momentum, so when you step on the brakes or turn the wheel you have to transfer twice as much energy through the tyres in the 2000kg car (think braking with a trailer)

Increasing downforce with aero results in no increase in the KE of the car, it's why it's such a special tool for race cars, you get the benefits of friction without weight.

. Aero will create more friction for no increase in weight.


----------



## Lukes R35 GT-R (Mar 1, 2015)

It wouldn't make any difference to 90% of the forum and the car still manages to skin anything with the same power and a ton lighter anyway lol


----------



## tonigmr2 (Sep 12, 2002)

So to summarize: Lighter might mean 0-60 faster, but not necessarily around a track faster. SEOT.


----------



## DocT (Dec 17, 2014)

tonigmr2 said:


> So to summarize: Lighter might mean 0-60 faster, but not necessarily around a track faster. SEOT.


I think actually lighter might mean 0-60 slower compared to a lesser power/weight (heavier) car especially with more weight over the rear tyres but lighter is probably faster around a track with a suitably skilled driver in both cars. Especially over a number of laps where cumulative effort on brakes/tyres will take their toll.

Once moving as long as it has the power to overcome aerodynamic drag a lighter car will accelerate faster and as long it has adequate contact to the ground it will brake better.


----------



## terry lloyd (Feb 12, 2014)

Lukes R35 GT-R said:


> It wouldn't make any difference to 90% of the forum and the car still manages to skin anything with the same power and a ton lighter anyway lol


A standard R35 is not that great anymore - spend £5k on it then its where it should be out the factory


----------



## Chronos (Dec 2, 2013)

terry lloyd said:


> A standard R35 is not that great anymore - spend £5k on it then its where it should be out the factory


yeah I suppose a standard 550bhp and 0-60 in 2.8 isn't great anymore, and 193 top end is a bit lame as well..













:chuckle:


----------



## Lukes R35 GT-R (Mar 1, 2015)

Chronos said:


> yeah I suppose a standard 550bhp and 0-60 in 2.8 isn't great anymore, and 193 top end is a bit lame as well..
> 
> 
> 
> ...




:chuckle: true only takes a 130+k car out the factory to compare


----------



## Lukes R35 GT-R (Mar 1, 2015)

terry lloyd said:


> A standard R35 is not that great anymore - spend £5k on it then its where it should be out the factory


Which cars make the gtr not that great anymore?


----------



## terry lloyd (Feb 12, 2014)

There are a few cars that will live with a STD gtr - 0-60 its good over 3rd gear it slows down - M6 / M5 / audi r8 v10 / 911 /guessing even a amg with give it a run over 100mph -


----------



## Lukes R35 GT-R (Mar 1, 2015)

terry lloyd said:


> There are a few cars that will live with a STD gtr - 0-60 its good over 3rd gear it slows down - M6 / M5 / audi r8 v10 / 911 /guessing even a amg with give it a run over 100mph -


They have a strong top end but the gtr is better in every other way performance wise. it's not a autobahn car, in the real world it starts in 1st and 2nd gear and the race is all over by the time they get going 

They certainly don't make the gtr not so great anymore


----------



## nick the tubman (Jun 28, 2006)

can I just say, if you are thinking of taking a load of weight out - seriously consider the downsides first..

I did this with the Skyline... 
as stock shell, full interior etc with 550hp it was just awesome and could be driven everywhere - shops, Nurburgring, road trips, trackdays etc..

soon as I got silly and started to lighten it, i.e removing sound proofing, rear seats etc etc and then installing polybushes and other mods - just to try and make it "a little bit quicker" - I totally ruined it. 
It was now neither a race/track car or a GT car... but stuck somewhere in the middle 

This was a hard lesson learnt...


so beware - it will be awful if you go to far, unless you like that kinda thing...


----------



## terry lloyd (Feb 12, 2014)

Lukes R35 GT-R said:


> They have a strong top end but the gtr is better in every other way performance wise. it's not a autobahn car, in the real world it starts in 1st and 2nd gear and the race is all over by the time they get going
> 
> They certainly don't make the gtr not so great anymore


Did you watch top gear ? bently / m6 / gtr - what was quickest ? i get you are a fan of the gtr as i am but i am realistic once it gets going you can tell its a fat pig - i have a 1liter car that would make it look stupid on a track because its light opcorn:


----------



## TREG (May 20, 2004)

Chronos said:


> yeah I suppose a standard 550bhp and 0-60 in 2.8 isn't great anymore, and 193 top end is a bit lame as well..
> 
> 
> :chuckle:




Quicker to take the bus Terry said:chuckle:


----------



## terry lloyd (Feb 12, 2014)

TREG said:


> Quicker to take the bus Terry said:chuckle:


The bus is probably lighter


----------



## TAZZMAXX (Mar 9, 2010)

terry lloyd said:


> The bus is probably lighter


And has a better interior:chuckle:


----------



## Ricci (Jan 30, 2016)

It will be faster if it be lighter no doubt.
the ATTESA system might be heavy!


----------



## TREG (May 20, 2004)

terry lloyd said:


> The bus is probably lighter




But stinks of piss:chuckle:


----------



## Lukes R35 GT-R (Mar 1, 2015)

terry lloyd said:


> Did you watch top gear ? bently / m6 / gtr - what was quickest ? i get you are a fan of the gtr as i am but i am realistic once it gets going you can tell its a fat pig - i have a 1liter car that would make it look stupid on a track because its light opcorn:


Yes I did as already discussed above 120 there quicker what good is that unless driving up and down the autobahn all day?


----------



## terry lloyd (Feb 12, 2014)

Lukes R35 GT-R said:


> Yes I did as already discussed above 120 there quicker what good is that unless driving up and down the autobahn all day?


Watch it again i see 90kph on the m6 speedo as it was just about to pass the nissan




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXTIUdQbU0w


----------



## TREG (May 20, 2004)

Was that Topgear video for real though as rumour has it that footage was fixed as Clarkson was sick of the 35 beating everything it had raced against? He dosen't like the 35 at all.


----------



## Lukes R35 GT-R (Mar 1, 2015)

terry lloyd said:


> Watch it again i see 90kph on the m6 speedo as it was just about to pass the nissan
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Ill pass I don't take top gear to seriously there racing around a dirt track for a start I can guarantee you no stock m5/ m6 will come past even a stage 1 09 gtr in the real world or a stock 550 lol


----------



## terry lloyd (Feb 12, 2014)

What i am trying to get at was alot more cars will give the gtr a good run nowdays things have moved on since the gtr was king and they are not £100k dearer to buy think the m5/m6 is in fact cheaper than a new gtr - surely everyone must notice they die off in the mid range std - even at stage 4 you feel them slowing in the higher gears - unless mine is f*cked


----------



## Lukes R35 GT-R (Mar 1, 2015)

I'm not sure why your really trying to compare these cars it's a pimped up saloon for businessman which comes in a diesel model vs a bespoke sports car 

There geared for accelleration and will be gone by the time 99% of cars your going to come across manage to somehow catch up especially at stage 4 lol unless yes yours is ****ed lol


----------



## nick the tubman (Jun 28, 2006)

terry lloyd said:


> What i am trying to get at was alot more cars will give the gtr a good run nowdays things have moved on since the gtr was king and they are not £100k dearer to buy think the m5/m6 is in fact cheaper than a new gtr - surely everyone must notice they die off in the mid range std - even at stage 4 you feel them slowing in the higher gears - unless mine is f*cked



M6 cheaper than a GTR ? you sure about that ? :runaway:

a friend of mine bought one, and it drove out of the showroom leaving him £103K lighter ! 

A brand new MY16 can be bought for £74k

in reality, you are still looking at car north of £130k to compare


I know where my money is going next... 

(but I really do like the McLaren 570s, bit of a bargain and its lighter :chuckle


----------



## terry lloyd (Feb 12, 2014)

Ok my bad the R35 is the best thing since slice bread


----------



## nick the tubman (Jun 28, 2006)

^ at last ! 
don't worry folks.. the conversion (assimilation) is now complete, lol :chuckle:


----------



## AlexJ (Apr 3, 2003)

this is the subject of an all time classic thread

http://www.gtr.co.uk/forum/13045-mass-car-cornering-braking-part-2-a.html

a critical factor in understanding this is abandoning the "school physics" concept of static friction coefficient * normal force when modelling tyre performance.


----------



## JoGoGTR (Sep 1, 2015)

goRt said:


> You mean acceleration - a=f/m, speed relates to aerodynamics - the ability to cut through the air
> 
> Sent from my E6653 using Tapatalk



Yes sorry I wasn't clear - acceleration and also potential deceleration...


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## mindlessoath (Nov 30, 2007)

without a doubt if the gtr was lighter it would be faster. but it wouldn't be an everyday supercar. it would struggle for novice to handle it.

regardless if it were lighter it would be faster, faster to stop and be less stress on the components like brakes, tires etc. would be less drivetran losses etc.

the design however allows them to provide low speed downforce and traction and stability at high speeds.

without a doubt making your gtr much lighter will make it faster. 3200 lbs r35 would be idea, too bad those are strictly race cars.

Nissan needs a carbon chassis for r36.
think about the r35 drive train in the istream chassis ... that would be slick!
Gordon Murray, TVR, Yamaha 'Sports Ride Concept, Carbon fiber - Other Vehicles - Nissan GT-R Heritage


----------



## Richf (Feb 8, 2007)

Could it be that Nissan struggle to build a lightweight car? We corner weighted a 350z HR the other day , it was 1620kgs (MIRO) it also has a carbon propshaft, uses a lot of alloy parts on the suspension, plastic and alloy body panels here and there and yet weighs an awful lot for a 2 seater car

Compared to the 350 i'm surprised the GTR is as light as it is


----------



## TREG (May 20, 2004)

Richf said:


> Could it be that Nissan struggle to build a lightweight car?


For the price they are charging for it probably yes. 
I'm sure if they fitted more carbon and looked other weight saving methods they could do it easily but forget about the £75k price tag new


----------



## borat52 (Jan 29, 2006)

AlexJ said:


> this is the subject of an all time classic thread
> 
> http://www.gtr.co.uk/forum/13045-mass-car-cornering-braking-part-2-a.html
> 
> a critical factor in understanding this is abandoning the "school physics" concept of static friction coefficient * normal force when modelling tyre performance.


In some very petty arguing there's actually a really good bunch of knowledge there. Many thanks for digging out!


----------



## Miguel - Newera (Sep 18, 2003)

Simple physics. A: Yes.


----------



## mindlessoath (Nov 30, 2007)

Richf said:


> Could it be that Nissan struggle to build a lightweight car? We corner weighted a 350z HR the other day , it was 1620kgs (MIRO) it also has a carbon propshaft, uses a lot of alloy parts on the suspension, plastic and alloy body panels here and there and yet weighs an awful lot for a 2 seater car
> 
> Compared to the 350 i'm surprised the GTR is as light as it is


the r35 chassis is a modified g35 chassis. they used it to save cash by sharing a chassis. it is much different but shares a lot of similarities. combine the weight of that chassis because its heavy with the r35 engine and trans and that's where all the weight is. people have replaced almost every body panel with dry carbon and its improved a lot performance wise but its only a fraction of weight savings. most need to remove more weight from the chassis to bring it down even more. /because race car.


----------



## nick the tubman (Jun 28, 2006)

until its gets a carbon fibre tub like the McLaren, I doubt you will get a significant amount of weight out of it, without ruining it as a road car...
for a car that cost just £75k new, its not likely...


----------



## barry P. (May 9, 2010)

The biggest issue with the weight of the R35 is when it needs to transfer direction quickly. Off the line and constant radius corners the R35 is surprisingly good considering how much it weighs however as soon as the car needs to transfer the load it struggles due to the mass. This is compounded on track due to the high speed, corners such as the Becketts complex at Silverstone, Craner Curves at Donington or Surtees at Brands you can really feel the weight working against you compared to a lighter, more nimble car. I have no doubt a lighter R35 would be quicker compared to a full weight car but as several others have said many of the creature comforts would need to be sacrificed.


----------



## mindlessoath (Nov 30, 2007)

barry P. said:


> The biggest issue with the weight of the R35 is when it needs to transfer direction quickly. Off the line and constant radius corners the R35 is surprisingly good considering how much it weighs however as soon as the car needs to transfer the load it struggles due to the mass. This is compounded on track due to the high speed, corners such as the Becketts complex at Silverstone, Craner Curves at Donington or Surtees at Brands you can really feel the weight working against you compared to a lighter, more nimble car. I have no doubt a lighter R35 would be quicker compared to a full weight car but as several others have said many of the creature comforts would need to be sacrificed.


some of the turning issues are due to suspension architecture. the nismo helps but its well known to those who track with race modified r35's. something related to the rear suspension.


----------



## Trev (Nov 1, 2003)

Just watched the "making a supercar - GT-R" programme on Sky Neo HD.

The GT-R designer clearly said, the car is weighted to give even bias, "show me a man who says lightweight and better power to weight is better and I'll say he is an amateur".

There you go then.....


----------



## TREG (May 20, 2004)

Yes that was the clip I recall watching Trev. Just watched it myself


----------



## Trev (Nov 1, 2003)

TREG said:


> Yes that was the clip I recall watching Trev. Just watched it myself


Either he's a dinlow or he knows his s**t.

I'm guessing the latter given how well the GT-R moves!


----------



## TAZZMAXX (Mar 9, 2010)

Trev said:


> Just watched the "making a supercar - GT-R" programme on Sky Neo HD.
> 
> The GT-R designer clearly said, the car is weighted to give even bias, "show me a man who says lightweight and better power to weight is better and I'll say he is an amateur".
> 
> There you go then.....


So, he's basically saying that Colin Chapman was wrong?


----------



## borat52 (Jan 29, 2006)

TAZZMAXX said:


> So, he's basically saying that Colin Chapman was wrong?


It's better than that, if one wants to interpret it in a rather mundane manner, it means all F1 teams don't know what they are doing and they should put some sand in the car. proportionally distributed sand mind you.

What I think he meant was that given we've gone front engine and 4wd, we've balanced the car nicely so that it handles the weight as well as possible.

It's certainly true that lighter,more poorly balanced cars are slower. Lighter, balanced cars - I'm not so sure on him being right there.


----------



## TAZZMAXX (Mar 9, 2010)

Check out the weight and horsepower of the car that's held the unbeaten 'ring record for the past 30 years and it doesn't weigh anywhere near 1600kg! Sorry, the weight argument is a cop out as all the fastest, best handling cars are nearer 1000kg than 2000kg.


----------



## Trev (Nov 1, 2003)

He makes a 1,700KG+ weight Nissan go quicker than 90% of "supercars".

He does know his s**t.


----------



## TAZZMAXX (Mar 9, 2010)

Trev said:


> He makes a 1,700KG+ weight Nissan go quicker than 90% of "supercars".
> 
> He does know his s**t.


For road cars, yes.


----------



## TREG (May 20, 2004)

I think hes proved well how a heavy car with even weight distribution can move. Sure the car could be stripped out but who would really want a car to use on the road with little comfort? Can you imagine using a Lotus 7 as a daily drive!!


----------



## Simonh (May 24, 2002)

it is all about the use case.

This car was not designed to be the fastest car around the ring or race track, it was designed to be driven on the road, most of the time by people who are only averagely competent drivers.

this is where the weight is the advantage.

Yes lighter with above average drivers would be faster, but that wasn't the design brief.


----------

