*Jumps from 12 seconds in the original post to 20*
Still waiting for that quote to verify this.
you would've known that LMP1 cars are getting capped considerably for 2016, so we will never see such low times again.
Stop. Seriously. Your posts are getting more ludicrous by the minute.
Nissan is an LMP1 car. How do the as yet unknown 2016 regs have less influence on Nissan than everyone else? Is that a ludicrous question to ask?
Your original posts laced with more blind guesses, twisted words and inconsistencies? Gotcha.
Such as .......? Can you expand on this? I would very much like to know of any inconsistencies in my original posts.
Entertaining for us, but for some reason I don't think you'll pay much attention to what he has to say...
I'll address that, again, in a moment.
This "reputation" needs shedding some light on then, because you clearly know something about his deceitful nature everyone else doesn't, a bit like how you know more than the engineers, designers and team personnel. It's pretty clear you're simply out to get the car, the team, the project no matter what, and you'll post whatever you can to try and satisfy that.
This translates to "You can say whatever you like about the car, no matter how truthful it is, no matter who says it, but my opinion will always be the same and I have no intentions of changing it." It's quite clear now you aren't here to discuss or listen, just keep posting the same flawed theories.
How dare he speak the truth! Posting reasoned, factually correct information is too much for you?
Here's an analysis from Autsport+
Porsche's speed on the straights is key to its single-lap supremacy. The fastest 919 Hybrid in qualifying in sector two, which runs from the start to the finish of the Mulsanne straight, was 1.939s faster than the best non-Porsche, the Audi R18 e-tron quattro, in the 75-second sector.
Sector 2 - Mulsanne straight
1 Porsche, 1m15.485s
2 Audi, +1.939s
3 Toyota, +2.133s
4 Rebellion, +4,154s
5 Nissan, +6.202s
6 CLM, +7.798s
But this section of track is also a fine example of why top speed doesn't tell the whole story, for while the Porsche was dominant on the Mulsanne it wasn't the fastest in the speed traps.
In fact, not only was the Audi fastest, but the privateer Rebellion R-One was also quicker than the 919.
Speed trap
1 Audi, 212.1mph
2 Rebellion, 210.7mph
3 Porsche, 210.1mph
4 Nissan, 209.4mph
5 Toyota, 208.8mph
6 CLM, 199.460mph
It's not difficult to square these two factors. By definition, top speed is not representative of a car's pace throughout the whole straight and the siting of the speed trap in what has become a lift-and-coast zone in the new era of LMP1 yields inconclusive results.
What is more important is how quickly you are going at any given point on the straights.
I consider this factual information. Here's what Cox has publicly said.
"What did they qualify at last year, a 3m37s? We will be way ahead of that," he told AUTOSPORT.
What was Nissan's qualifying time?
"We will not be going out for a laptime in qualifying because we haven't got the tyres and we haven't got the time," he explained.
Cox revealed that Nissan had not developed a qualifying tyre together with supplier Michelin as a result of the delays in the GT-R LM programme.
"We think we have got a good first-year set of tyres that are matched to our car," he said.
"We don't have a set of tyres that will last two laps and are worth two seconds; we have a four-stint set."
Qualifying tire? This is what I referring to when I said he has a reputation for bending the truth. No other manufacturer has a special set of tires just for qualifying. So why is Cox suggesting Nissan's one lap pace is being hindered because they didn't develop a qualifying tire. Perhaps I need more clarification on what he meant.
Cox asked for judgement to be passed on the Nissan a few hours into the blue-riband round of the World Endurance Championship on June 13/14.
"Judge us on the end of the first driver stint," he said.
And that's what I'll do
.
Here is Autosport's analysis of Nissan. Not mine, a motorsports news website.
The Nissan GT-R LM NISMO isn't much faster than an LMP2 car, at least for the moment. The significance of that is the promise made by Nissan global motorsport boss Darren Cox.
He was vocal in his dismissal of the suggestion that the radical front-engined LMP1 wouldn't outperform the secondary prototypes when the GT-R LM project appeared to be going off the rails in the spring.
He promised the car would be "significantly faster", and reiterated that vow when the car fell short of the best of P2s at the Le Mans test earlier this month.
Harry Tincknell's best for Nissan - a 3m36.995s - was only a second or so clear of the pole-winning KCMG ORECA 05. Yet Nissan was still trying to take the positives from practice and qualifying, Cox pointing out that the car was "improving every time out".
That improvement, reckons Cox, will allow the Nissan to fulfill his promise. Only he says it's now going to happen some time in the race.
That is when he asked us to pass judgement on the car before. So let's wait until Sunday.
Also another forum on f1technical.net posted speed figures for the cars in the Porsche curves on the test day, if my memory is correct. I won't post those numbers as of yet because I want to see if I can find that data for qualifying because it's probably more representative of the car's actual pace.
That'll be next Le Mans right, when they said they'd be going for the win, and they'll actually have a hybrid LMP1 car, not essentially a handicapped P1-L car?
...Of course not! What will Sunday prove? Nobody's ever said that their first Le Mans was anything other than a test session. I think you're fully aware by now that the Nissan is nothing like it will be next year, so all I can presume is you're trolling.
So pass judgement after the first driver stint, or next year? Cox said wait until the first driver stint and you're saying next year. Why can't we pass judgement at both times?
Lastly...
Because it's hard to see people blindly hate on something of yours with no reasoning or basis, right? He understands there are skeptics, but at least listen to all the facts you're presented with, and don't be selective about the information you use. If you only see what you want to see, you may as well not be quoting anything at all.
Unless you actually acknowledge and address what has been said, and take it into account, then I'm done too. There's only so much that can be said before you've deliberately ignored everything - if you have no intention of changing your mind, it's a lot easier to just say it.
Welcome to the business world. People have opinions and they express them. I've acknowledged what everyone has said, but I won't believe it until those promises are delivered on. Proof is much, much more valuable than excuses. I agree it's hard to witness when you are invested heavily in something. It's obviously not been a productive effort to try to change anyone's mind so far. Try figuring out the last time you have been able to change someone's mind by just "telling them how it is." Just go DO whatever you need to prove me wrong. Actions speak louder than words.
Why are you trying so hard to change my mind? I've already said I'll change my opinion when I see factual evidence proving the car can be competitive. What would you think of anyone who can so easily influenced?
).
).
