Avoidable Contact #17: Cheating Nissan, Bitter Porsche.

Click for Larger Image
Story by Jack Baruth Okay, class, put away your books. Time for a pop quiz. It’s just one question, and it’s multiple-choice: Which car holds the official Nurburgring lap time record for production automobiles?

a) Nissan GT-R
b) Chevrolet Corvette ZR-1
c) Porsche Carrera GT
d) Radical SR8

So, what did you pick? It doesn’t matter. Whatever you picked, you’re wrong. It was a trick question. There is no “production car record” at the Nurburgring. Period. It doesn’t exist. You may find that shocking. After all, don’t the British car rags continually natter on about the “production car record”? Didn’t Edmunds.com recently devote several terabytes of hype to the idea of the GT-R setting a “production car record”? Isn’t there, like, a totally official list on Wikipedia somewhere? There has to be a record! Everybody talks about it all the time!

Sorry. There’s no “Nurburgring lap time record” for a simple reason: Real lap time records are set by real race cars, using real timing and scoring equipment, during actual competition or sanctioned practice sessions. They aren’t “self-reported” for the same reason the World’s Strongest Man Contest isn’t held by having everyone mail in their “results”: because people can, and do, lie and cheat.

Despite the obviousness of this concept, it is not yet universally understood that one cannot simply claim a lap time on the Internet and have it be “official”. Case in point: I happen to be a member of a small Web forum for Midwestern racers and open-lapping drivers. A few years ago, we had a bit of a tempest in a teapot when a fellow claimed that his $5000 project car had lapped Mid-Ohio in a certain time. He’d obtained this time by taping a stopwatch to the dashboard and timing himself during a NASA HPDE session. While this fellow was a competent driver, we were rather skeptical about his reported time, not least because it would have put him on the pole of the American Iron race which had also occurred that weekend, and his old sedan was pretty far away from being an optimized AI car. Furthermore, those of us who have to race under the cold glare of an accurate-to-one-ten-thousandth-of-a-second transponder system rather objected to the idea of just banging a stopwatch somewhere around the start/finish line every lap. It’s pretty easy to gain or lose a few seconds by sloppy stopwatching, you see. After much discussion, the driver in question agreed that the time probably shouldn’t be considered “official” in any sense, and everybody calmed down. It wasn’t that we didn’t trust him; it was simply that recording one’s own lap time is not, and will never be, the equivalent of setting an honest, independently timed lap under controlled conditions. It’s just plain common sense.

Or is it? After all, didn’t Nissan recently manipulate the all-too-willing media into “witnessing” and then reporting “official Nurburgring lap times” for their all-conquering R35 GT-R? First, there was the pretty-hard-to-believe 7:38 time which the fine journalists at Edmunds advertised, excuse me, reported, followed by the no-really-you-have-to-be-kidding 7:34 time, and finally the don’t-insult-our-collective-intelligence 7:29 shared with the world in a breathless press release a few months later. The Nissan media blitz was so successful that when Horst von Saurma obtained a 7:50 time from a real production GT-R, it went virtually unreported by the major automotive rags. Where’d those twenty-one seconds between von Saurma’s drive and Nissan’s “test” come from? The Internet had many answers, none of them credible, and none of them particularly persuasive to anyone who has ever driven the Nurburgring in anger.

And now, Porsche - the company which has had perhaps the most storied relationship with the ‘Ring, the company which has been testing production cars in the Black Forest since the Fifties, the company which has historically set the benchmark for excellence around the North Course – has called Nissan out on their self-reported times. Without quite saying as much, Porsche has implied that Nissan cheated at the ‘Ring. Did they? If so, how?

The answer is simple: Nissan did not cheat, because it’s impossible to cheat when there are no rules. There’s no official lap time record, remember? What they did do was knowingly manipulate a credulous, ignorant media and general public into misunderstanding the GT-R’s capabilities. It’s not the first time they’ve done it, and they aren’t the only guilty parties.

Here’s how it was done.

Automakers have been testing at the “Green Hell” for a long time. According to Karl Ludwigsen in his must-read Excellence Was Expected, Porsche was timing its production cars at the ‘Ring as early as the Fifties. Back then, ten minutes was considered to be outrageously quick for a street car, and it took a fairly hot Porsche, such as a 550 Spyder, to make it around in that time. Rest assured that a ten-minute lap isn’t exactly screwing around; I ran an automatic-transmission SLK200 at a slightly sub-ten-minute pace (approx. 9:15 “bridge to gantry”, which is the shorter distance) two years ago and was either at full throttle, ABS activation, or serious slip angle for the whole time, and the SLK200 had modern tires and 167 horsepower compared to a 550 Spyder’s 110 ponies.

For the next forty years, Porsche used the ‘Ring as a development arena for its street cars. It’s important to note that Porsche rarely, if ever, publicized its lap times; from Stuttgart’s perspective, that would be no more interesting to a customer than the frequency resonance data from a particular Autobahn. Why would their owners be concerned with lap times for a street car? Don’t forget, this was before the World Wide Web made keyboard racers of us all. Back then, there were two kinds of Porsche owners: people who drove street Porsches on the street, and people who drove racing Porsches on the track, and they were not necessarily the same people, and the former group didn’t pretend to be the latter. Porsche wasn’t shooting for “bragging rights” with their lap times; the intent was simply that each new car be faster than its predecessor.

It took an inspired act of marketing to make ‘Ring times worthy of public consideration. Somebody at Nissan noticed that no street car had been “officially” timed at under eight minutes, so in 1996 they hired one Dirk Schoysman to accomplish the feat in the R33 Skyline GT-R. After some amount of fettling, fussing, and lapping, Dirk dutifully turned a 7:59, and the “Nurburgring record” was born. The fact that a little bit of the “German mystique” rubbed off on Nissan as a result was, of course, entirely not coincidental. At around the same time, journalist and erstwhile racer Horst von Saurma began posting his own “Supertest” results for single laps on the ‘Ring, starting a race for Nurburgring supremacy that has persisted to this day. For no particular reason that I can understand, the self-reported ‘Ring time has become the gold standard by which performance cars are judged.

Let’s take a moment to talk about lap times. Consider the following: Last year, I set the fastest Spec Focus lap at the NASA National Championships at 1:45.620. At this year’s Champs, the best lap was 1:48.170, despite the fact that the Spec Focus rules now allow wider tires and lower suspension. Do you really think I’m two and a half seconds better than the best guy was this year, particularly considering that he was driving a better-equipped car? Of course not. Mid-Ohio was slow this year because it rained the day before and washed the rubber off the track, taking a couple of seconds off everybody’s lap. Consider, if you will, that on a track the length of the ‘Ring the equivalent rain-washing time gap would be nine and a half seconds. Lap times set on different days, under different conditions, simply aren’t comparable. It’s that simple. Some days are hot, some days are cool, some days there’s rubber on the track, some days there’s oil. The same competent driver, in the same car, might have a fifteen-second variation from one ‘Ring session to the next. Think about that.

Now consider the fact that the published Porsche times and the von Saurma “supertests” are usually the product of a single day’s session. They take a completely production car out on the track and run it. Simple as that. And since we already know that the same driver can produce vastly different lap times, it’s obvious that these ‘Ring laps are only useful as a very general guideline.

Nissan’s stroke of marketing genius in 1996 was to realize that they could attack those “official times” using a completely different methodology. By taking the track for as long as they needed, with a full support crew, an endless supply of tires and tuning equipment, and a motivated racing driver, they were able to simply obliterate those existing “records”. It’s commonly understood that a weekend of development and effort can knock five or six seconds a lap off the times of a Showroom Stock racer on a two-minute track. That equates to twenty seconds or more at the ‘Ring, and that’s a big gap.

Porsche’s response to this was to, well, pretty much ignore it. It took Porsche a long time to concede that the Japanese might even be capable of building a decent car, much less one that would hustle on a racetrack, so they put the 7:59 GT-R lap down to a publicity stunt and continued to set their times by sending Herr Walter Rohrl out on the track for an afternoon. Meanwhile, von Saurma continued to build a database of lap times by “Supertesting” production cars.

At about the same time, the British motoring enthusiast public, enraged by speed cameras, limited track time on their island, and the general “F-the-motorist” stance of their own Government, began to make regular, organized pilgrimages to the ‘Ring, and consequently the British motor rags started obsessing over ‘Ring times in a big way. The “trackday special” companies – Radical, Ultima, Westfield, et al – started attacking the “production car record” with cars that redefined what “barely legal” meant. (Oh, come on! Not that kind of “barely legal”! Shame on you!) To no one’s particular surprise, it turned out that 1500-pound sports prototypes with full downforce and motorcycle engines are considerably faster than real street cars, which is why various companies are claiming “production car” ‘ring records all the way down to an “estimated” 6:55, courtesy of the Ultima GTR720. It’s absolutely possible to buy a street-legal car in the UK that will turn a 7:20 ‘Ring lap; you have several choices that will turn that time or better, actually. You had just better hope there are no speedbumps on the roads between your home and Germany, because two-inch ground clearance and massive carbon-fiber splitters tend to be incompatible with “sleeping policemen”.

Nissan knew that ‘Ring times would be a critical component of their marketing push for the R35 GT-R. Their potential buyers, weaned on Gran Turismo games and generally rather enamored of meaningless driving statistics, would accept no less. Never mind that the average GT-R owner would find himself being lapped by Showroom Stock Chevy Cobalts during a trackday; they’re a numbers crowd, they’re addicted to numbers, they repeat the numbers endlessly on the Internet, they love the numbers. The GT-R would have to develop the numbers.

What happened next was almost surreal. The impressionable people at Edmunds were invited to witness “production car testing” at the ‘Ring, where touring-car hotshoe/F1 washout Toshio Suzuki proceeded to set some very interesting lap times with a “production” car. These times were duly reported as a “new official record” and picked up by the world in general. Never mind that the lap times of a turbocharged car in factory hands require an entire shaker of salt to be taken seriously; never mind that the car could have been in any state of tune from the dampers up without Edmunds’ being any the wiser; never mind the fact that the car’s performance was very far away from what one might reasonably expect given the stated power and weight. Edmunds reported it anyway, and the “new production car record” flew around the Internet. Mission accomplished. Numbers delivered. Thanks, Edmunds!

A little journalistic integrity would have gone a long way here; it also would have helped to have someone on the staff who had, oh, I don’t know, raced something at some point in the past. It hardly mattered for long, as Nissan then cheerfully reset its own record to 7:29 in private testing. Again, this was accepted as gospel by the motoring press. A car with approximately the power-to-weight ratio of a Porsche 993 Turbo runs thirty-four seconds faster around the ‘Ring than said Turbo? Sure, why not? Must be the magic electronics and, er, downforce.

Journalistic stupidity is like blood in the water; it draws sharks who are eager to profit as a result. The next Mako to strike was General Motors, which proceeded to set a couple of “production car” times in caged cars! Here’s a hint, friends: Rollcages make cars faster. Simply replacing the Autopower cage in our ’94 Neon ACR with a stiffer custom cage took 1.5 seconds off our lap time around Mid-O – equivalent to seven seconds on the ‘Ring. Why? The car twisted less and planted its tires better. Caged cars go faster. It’s as simple as that. But GM claimed it was for “safety”, and the Press As A Whole swallowed the explanation without comment. The final blow was the Viper ACR’s outrageous 7:22 laptime, which is, ironically, probably the most “legitimate” time of the bunch despite being the lowest. The problem is that the Viper ACR is only nominally a street car; it’s America’s answer to a street-legal Radical SR8.

It’s now possible, therefore, for pimply seventeen-year-olds whose driving experience is limited to piloting Mom’s Camry around the local Fashion Bug’s parking lot to authoritatively draw a “comparison” between, say, the 8:28 laptime set eight years ago by von Saurma in a naturally aspirated 993 and the 7:24 of a Corvette ZR-1 - but it’s a house built on sand. The conditions are simply too dissimilar to really understand anything about the way the cars actually perform. For that, you’d need to have your own test drivers, your own private time at the ‘Ring, and standardized conditions under which to test.

Porsche happens to have all of the above, so it’s not really a surprise that they have, at long last, decided to enter the Nurburgring publicity game with a bang. Their new test times for the 997 Turbo and GT2 are more aggressive than what they have previously reported, and their GT-R test time appears to line up pretty well with von Saurma’s independent test of a production car. They’ve taken a relatively bold step in publicizing their times; it’s really the first time that one manufacturer has offered a direct public commentary on another car’s Nordschleife capabilities. Apparently, the gloves are off, which is probably bad news for competitors who rely on ‘Ring times to give their cars a little bit of that much-desired Green Hell mystique. At this point, even the most unrepentant PS2-player has to admit that Nissan’s “test” was more of a “stunt”. Keep in mind, there’s nothing unethical about that; there are no official rules of “testing” at the ‘Ring. It’s manipulative, it’s scheming, it’s too clever by half, but it isn’t “cheating”.

The amusing thing about all of this planning, posturing, and boost-twiddling is that, in the end, it amounts to nothing. A better ‘Ring time doesn’t make for a better car, particularly for Americans who rarely find themselves doing triple-digit speeds along one-way, Armco-lined rural roads. It doesn’t even necessarily make for a better track car; any car which has been optimized for the bumpy, transition-heavy Nordschleife will feel like a rolling boat on a flat Alan Wilson course. The best thing that could happen to Nurburgring testing would be for all the stopwatches to disappear, because at that point the manufacturers could get back to Porsche’s original rationale for testing there: simply improving the vehicle beyond its predecessor. No trickery, no stupidity.

It won’t happen, at least not until one of these fresh-faced “engineers” is decapitated by a barrier in the course of setting some hilariously deceptive sub-seven-minute lap. At that point, somebody at Nissan, Porsche, Chevrolet, or Chrysler might realize the fundamental ridiculousness of fighting for imaginary bragging rights. In the meantime, the rest of us can enjoy the show, while understanding that it means absolutely nothing. Go have a good time in your car – but if you want me to believe in your good time, you’d better put a transponder behind the bumper, okay?

About author View all posts

Jack Baruth

54 CommentsLeave a comment

  • That was a beautiful read and 100% spot on. No one on the internet knew what the Ring was 3 years ago. Today its become a farce, a joke, the new “0-60″. Everyone now is arguing about times like they could lap under 10 minutes in these same cars.

  • Your issue isn’t really with ‘Ring times, it’s with numbers-based bragging rights in general.

    Obviously, lap times on a long course are going to have some serious potential variability, but so would 0-60 or 1/4 mile times. Not to mention the fact that 90% of drivers couldn’t duplicate the published numbers (particularly if they want their vehicle to last past 40k miles).

    All of that said, I still like the idea of some kind of track time as a data point, if only to demonstrate that the engineering priorities of a given car go beyond 0-60 times.

    If it’s not obvious, I’m talking about this in the context of most domestic cars. GM’s got some claims going on the ‘Ring times for the newest Camaro. I’m willing to bet on-track performance wasn’t a priority on previous generations.

  • I just hope that in pursuit of a Nurburgring time, a car is made better to drive on my favorite back road.

    0-60 times sets the gearing for some cars. The spare tire is taken out to make the trunk look bigger. 17″ wheels are put on to make a car look cool. If testing at Nurburgring makes my car better to drive, great. If Nurburgring testing is just for advertising, then cut it out of the budget.

  • Nothing new in this piece. Ring laptimes vary; manufacturers attempt to make themselves look good. Ho hum.

    The key point that was omitted in your piece is the reason the ring is so attractive to manufacturers in the first place. It offers possibly the widest variety of corners, terrain and conditions of any testing venue on earth. A car developed here gets a big, big headstart on working well on the roads elsewhere in the world.

    That manufacturers communicate lap times is down to the curiosity of the public at large. Get hung on “record” semantics, or not. Doesn’t matter. In your heart of hearts, you darned well know–even with all the variables–that a car its manufacturer says will run, say, an 8:50 lap is a very different beast than one from a different manufacturer that is reported to turn a 7:30…. even without knowing a single additional piece of information about either car.

  • This was written by a true dumbass who obviously has nothing better to do than to waste his time.

    If this dumbass bothered to do research before spewing **** from his mouth he’d know that the Sport Auto test for the GT-R was a shake down lap rather than a supertest, done in the wet, and it still beat the Dry SuperTest time of the 911 Turbo by 4 seconds from the same driver by the same magazine.

    That if anything is easy proof the GT-R is easily faster than the 911 Turbo, by the only independent ring test of both cars.

    That is the truth this dumbass porsche fanboi doesn’t want you to know.

  • Nice website. Anyway…. If I had to choose between a Nissan GT-R Spec 5, Porsche 911 GTR3, or the Corvette ZR-1….well, tough decision. The ZR1 is sweet badass but the GT-R has neck snapping handling. I’d have to get the Porsche…hands down. It’s the original widowmaker.

  • So, if he’s a dumbass who had nothing better to do than write the article, can we assume that you’re a dumbass who had nothing better to do than read it, and then comment on it? And since you can’t afford either car, does it matter?

  • I think everyone's missing the big picture. IMHO, track times, be it a second more or second less is just half the issue. The real issue is how can a car manufacturer build a Porsche Turbo class car with similar figures for fractions less. This is what's getting Porsche all bothered. There are plenty of cars that are faster than Porsche eg. Veyron, Ferrari, and Lambo but because they're all priced higher, Porsche doesn't care. But if the Veyron was priced lower than the Turbo or GT2, you can bet Porsche would be making a big fuss as well. At the end of the day, it's all about $$$/Performance. Not just performance.

  • Wantone, you're right… but at the end of that continuum we have a 700hp AIX-prepped Fox Mustang that whips 'em all but can't be driven over a speedbump. So you can make an argument that if a 997 Turbo runs as quickly as a GT-R but is more pleasant to drive to work… that's where the money went.

    I should mention that my concern, and my focus in the article, is less about the Nissan's actual capabilities and more about the differing approaches and methodologies used. The article's been called "contradictory" by some blogs, but the truth is that I'm interested in understanding the reality behind this stuff and sharing it with readers. Not everything we know about the 'Ring and timing there is perfectly non-contradictory.

  • Jack Baruth, it seems to me from the tone of your article that you have something against Nissan. You do realize that you contradict yourself in some of the passages? First you say that it's possible under the same car and driver to get a 20 sec difference at the Nurb depending on the conditions and yet you dismiss Nissan's claim of 7:29 and even 7:38 when you are well aware that Nissan has been testing the R35 GTR for years at the Nurb racking up thousands of laps? Surely with that amount of laps, a 7:29 is plausible under your logic? Those times were done on ideal conditions.
    I doubt you have driven the new GTR, because if you have you would've realized like the rest of the world that the GTR is 1) just as comfortable as the turbo in daily driving and 2) It is faster than the 911 turbo around ANY track, and yet you seem to accept Porsche's claim of 7:42 or 7:38 for their 911 turbo when they compared it with their 7:54 for the GTR. Also, the GTR's 7:50 run by HVS is a test run NOT the supertest.
    Finally, i disagree your stance on Nurburgring testing just for bragging rights because even though the average joe may never drive his GTR or 911 on the 'ring' – there needs to be competition amongst manufactures to build the best car they can and test it using a common benchmark such as 'the ring'.
    European manufactures such as Porsche and Ferrari have been milking the public long enough. Nissan has finally stepped up and showed the world this with their GTR and this has upset Porsche and some Porsche fans such as yourself.

  • You're approaching this the wrong way. What do companies like Porsche and Nissan want? Profit. To do that you have to sell, and you better damn well market your cars like they've been test driven by Jesus. These Nurburgring records are not for imaginary bragging rights, they're for marketing. As long as doing this will get them more attention they will continue using the Nurburgring as their standard. Nissan, Porsche, Chevrolet, and Chrysler are not the one to blame for this Nurburgring rivalry and they are not ridiculous or stupid. Nissan is genius for having used the Nurburgring to their own advantage. The one who is being ridiculous is the general public that just doesn't know any better. Frankly, they will never know because explaining such a thing is just so time consuming and pedantic that they'll have gone off and started Youtubing another lap time before you can finish.

  • I agree with the marketing angle. We don't really have to argue about the racing aspect, which in itself depends on many factors – primarily driver ability and factory/tuner support. That's why there are official race events to award teams for their efforts in beating everyone else to the finish line.
    Car makers are, after all, just big businesses. And like any business, the end goal is profit. I'm in marketing myself and in my opinion, 'Ring lap times are nothing but marketing tools to sell their cars – period.

  • Reply Part 1 of 4

    KyHurst has said exactly what was on my mind as I finished reading this article.
    I need not say too much more, so I will try my best to not repeat anything KyHurst said unless necessary. But I feel like putting my two cents in, since stomaching things isn't healthy. (So I'm glad Jack let it off his chest, and I'm sure he was prepared for the criticism that will follow)

    In the end, Jack Baruth is an upset Porsche fan.

    I think common sense would tell anyone that the longer a track is, the more that variables vary the lap times. Even between different cars, such as weight distribution, power plant and drivetrain.
    But given the variable buffer of Nordschleife.. (of my guess of about 30 seconds to 1 minute depending on the car and conditions) any car to do anything near 8 minutes or even 7 is just an all around awesome car. So if track conditions are mediocre, and the driver isn't at his/her best, and an 8 minute laptime is achieved… you can safely say that worse conditions can give you an 8:30 or better conditions can give you a 7:30. (roughly speaking)

  • Reply Part 2 of 4

    I believe that these testers/tuners/racers are fully aware of this, and try their best to race on a day that will give them close to the best track conditions, along with the best driver they can find, as well as trickery. (which I'd bet goes on everywhere in the racing world weather we like it or not)

    Nordschleife lap times should never be taken personally down to the second. As many have said, there are just too many variables. If one car produces a better lap time by one second… In my eyes, they can produce damn near the same time. Only a long endurance test will really show the better vehicle at that point.

    So with that said, if a car repeatedly reports a lap time quicker than another’s by a margin of 10-30 seconds, obviously that test of time in endurance will be a huge gap.

    Now I'm sure the market doesn't buy cars with the mentality of "If I buy this car, it will save me this many seconds every trip to the grocery store, and driving my kids to soccor practice" in mind to save time in their life.

  • Reply Part 3 of 4

    Truth be told, it is used as 2 things in my eyes: Bragging rights (yes this is true and obvious) and then a general idea of what the car is capable of (which is what I look at, and 'hopefully' most).
    I honestly don't think the 911T or GTR is better than one another, in fact, out of sheer principal, I'd rather buy the GTR because of all of the boiling blood that Porsche and Porsche fans have. Too much pride will kill you, even on the track. I have no bias towards either of the cars, never have. I am a car enthusiast, and any enthusiast has no bias. If you are a Porsche enthusiast, then stick to your Porsches and stop talking about anything else. Because once you do, you become a Brand enthusiast.

    As for the marketing comments, again, I couldn't agree more. It just bothers me that once a company jumps in and starts testing their cars on a track that others test on, and use their numbers for different reasons, all of the sudden Porsche gets hot and bothered because the other company is matching performance but beating the price. To some people, that’s all they need to hear, they don't care about driving comfort.

  • Reply Part 4 of 4

    All of you criticizers have to realize that your view isn't the only one out there on the market and some people just don’t care about certain things when buying a car. If their world of owning a car is just based off of numbers, then hey, that's their world, that's what they know, and they are content with that. While others may use their cars on a track day event, others will not. Have an open mind, and try to understand why manufacturers say what they do, and do what they do. And don't be pissed when someone else does it first.

    Shame on your overly biased and hypocritical contradicting article. Especially speaking of having to come to a death on a track to realize something. That's disgusting, and you should know better than to speak like that. I pray that never happens.

    This article was a waste of my time, and I was unfortunate to have read it because my car enthusiast friend posted it on a social network.
    And in turn, I hope I have wasted your time in reading my comment because I'm sure you'd disagree with most of it.

    Happy and safe motoring to all!

  • why are porsche owners so bothered ,ifs its bollocks then laugh it off.For the money it seems a great car,saw them at fighting torque,and doing very well they were too,against porsche turbos.

  • Your article is a total waste of time. Who cares if Nissan tweaked the car or not Porsche could do the same and the fact is that it took Porsche until now to tweak the car to produce the GT-R times. The fact is Nissan was still able to produce the times and Porcshe wasn't end of story. Your point of different days doesn't stick either since Porsche uses the Nurb as it's playground and still wasn't able to produce the same time or better.

  • I recently decided to make a blog for myself and i am  making use of one of the free blog web services that are in my country, but i would very like to make my own hosted blog using my personal website name I like the post very much. Thanks a lot for sharing such a nice post. Good job!!!

    sales letter

  • In 1928, Yoshisuke Aikawa founded the holding company Nippon Sangyo (Japan Industries or Nippon Industries). "The name 'Nissan' originated during the 1930s as an abbreviation"[4] used on the Tokyo stock market for Nippon Sangyo. This company was the famous Nissan "Zaibatsu" (combine) which included Tobata Casting and Hitachi. At this time Nissan controlled foundries and auto parts businesses, but Aikawa did not enter automobile manufacturing until 1933.[5]

  • Have you ever believed about adding a small bit much more than just your thoughts? I mean, what you say is important and everything. But its got no punch, no pop! Maybe if you added a pic or two, a video? You could have such a much more powerful weblog should you let individuals SEE what youre talking about instead of just reading it.
    David Jeff
    000-087 Exams

  • actually liked what that you wrote . it just is not that simple to discover great text toactually read (you know.. READ and not simply going through it like a zombie before going to yet another post to just ignore), so cheers mate for not wasting my time! :)

  • This was a really  great contest and hopefully I can attend the next one.I am looking forward to another great article from you.This was a really great  contest and hopefully I can attend the next one.I am looking forward to another great article from you.

  • Not to mention that (if I recall correctly) Nissan has 'fabricated' lap times by combining the fastest times of different sectors and cobbling them together as a single lap. This may be legitimate for your own data aquisition in testing. Publishing these times as a lap record, however, reeks of scamming.

    That being said, the number jockeys crowd consists mostly of people who have never been near a racing car. Blessed are the poor in spirit for their kingdom is the internet!

Leave a Reply