- 111
- Malaysia
- GTOS_RVoon
Freshseth83, what's your opinion on the Super GT side having to use the 2l turbo 4's while the DTM still using the 4l V8's?...
Super GT Thread ArchiveTouring Cars
- Thread starter Appie
- 1,268 comments
- 139,116 views
- Status
Freshseth83, what's your opinion on the Super GT side having to use the 2l turbo 4's while the DTM still using the 4l V8's?...
- 3,584
- Phoenix, AZ
- GTP_Snaeper
Please, do keep up. https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showthread.php?p=8102885#post8102885
We (as in you and I) have not had a conversation about Super GT NSX's before, so no, you didn't (as in tell me, like you said you did.)
Why do you think referencing a previous conversation I wasn't involved in gives you the right to get annoyed when you have to repeat something to me (someone who is hearing it for the first time and doesn't keep up to date with Super GT regulations)?
Please, do learn to read English comprehensively.
And besides, you still haven't explained how they're going to run an MR car using a common space frame that is largely intended for FR vehicles. A theorized weight penalty only makes sense on a theoretical MR car if it's possible for that MR Car to theoretically exist.
So the answer I'm going with right now is "We don't know if it will be MR, until they reveal the car in the flesh or until more information leaks out or is released." That answer would've saved us a lot more time.
Last edited:
freshseth83
(Banned)
- 8,246
- freshseth83
You chose not to read the Super GT thread, that's not my fault.
You should take your own advice.
You must have missed Honda's press conference. The new NSX is MR, not FR and it will be used in Super GT in 2014. You also neglected to read the Japanese autosport which states the very words I said. They will use vehicle specific BOP to ensure the new NSX is the same performance as the FR vehicles. All you have to do is read (or use 'English' comprehensively as you like to say) http://as-web.jp/news/?c_id=2
freshseth83
(Banned)
- 8,246
- freshseth83
Japanese autosport reports that DTM may agree to using the 2 liter turbo 4 engines. 
http://as-web.jp/news/info.php?c_id=2&no=46486
http://as-web.jp/news/info.php?c_id=2&no=46486
freshseth83
(Banned)
- 8,246
- freshseth83
Super GT spec Audi R8 LMS Ultra!
- 3,584
- Phoenix, AZ
- GTP_Snaeper
You chose to respond to me as if I had. That's how this whole thing got started.
EDIT: Also, no amount of reading the Super GT thread would have answered my question anyways, so pointing me there is moot.
You should be more concise, you're the only person I've had the misfortune of encountering on repeated occasions that makes points which I cannot discern the logic from.
I didn't, my previous post makes this fact quite clear. EDIT: Okay, maybe not so clear in the latter half, I was talking about the race car.
*laughs hysterically*
I got that the first time you said it, repeating it doesn't make it any more true nor does it answer my original question.
That link leads me to an article on an Audi R8 LMS Ultra GT300. I looked at a few of the links and didn't see anything explaining how the MR NSX is going to be adapted to a universal space-frame designed for FR Silhoutte cars.
I'll end this by rephrasing the second portion of my original question, which I now see to be misleading:
How is the MR NSX going to be adapted into the new DTM regulations, given that all the cars will be using a common space frame which (I assume) is meant for FR cars. The video in the OP makes no mention of the racing car retaining it's MR format.
I'll also clarify my previous post by saying that I'm talking about the NSX Super GT Racecar, which has not been revealed.
EDIT: Lastly, I would like to apologize, I realize now that I was provoked due to a misinterpretation of the intent in one of your posts.
Last edited:
- 40,750
I too am curious how the MR AWD NSX is going to be adapted to the spec racing series that Super GT and DTM will become when they merge next year. Because this:
Is irrelevant. When the NSX still ran, it did have a weight penalty. As of right now, though, when MR drivetrains are currently banned from GT500 (which is why Honda switched the the HSV in the first place) they don't have a weight penalty because they aren't allowed at all; and I too am having a hard time believing they will rescind that ban when they are in the process of diluting what little character is left of the old JGTC to turn it into a DTM clone.
You're the one that brought up a nonexistent conversation under the assumption that he had read it for no other reason than to act snotty about it, which certainly isn't his fault.
The ZZT231 Toyota Celica production car was FF only. It ran in GT300 as an FR car in its last years. The Lexus IS production car is FR, and it was run as an MR for a few years. A link to a page about a GT3-spec car running in GT300 class doesn't prove anything about what you are saying; especially when the GT500 cars are already have pretty much nothing to do with the stock cars anyway.
Is irrelevant. When the NSX still ran, it did have a weight penalty. As of right now, though, when MR drivetrains are currently banned from GT500 (which is why Honda switched the the HSV in the first place) they don't have a weight penalty because they aren't allowed at all; and I too am having a hard time believing they will rescind that ban when they are in the process of diluting what little character is left of the old JGTC to turn it into a DTM clone.
You're the one that brought up a nonexistent conversation under the assumption that he had read it for no other reason than to act snotty about it, which certainly isn't his fault.
The ZZT231 Toyota Celica production car was FF only. It ran in GT300 as an FR car in its last years. The Lexus IS production car is FR, and it was run as an MR for a few years. A link to a page about a GT3-spec car running in GT300 class doesn't prove anything about what you are saying; especially when the GT500 cars are already have pretty much nothing to do with the stock cars anyway.
Last edited:
- 3,584
- Phoenix, AZ
- GTP_Snaeper
Japanese autosport reports that DTM may agree to using the 2 liter turbo 4 engines.
Good to hear, I'm honestly shocked the Germans haven't come out and said they're for it. All three make 2 liter turbo four's, so it's not like they couldn't use the engines as a marketing advantage (even if the racing units have nothing in common with the street engines).
Then again, most mainstream automakers seem to have a turbo 2.0 in their range somewhere nowadays.
freshseth83
(Banned)
- 8,246
- freshseth83
Because it was YOU that asked.
That's too bad.
Like I said, read the Japanese autosport webpage. They report that the Japanese will construct their own chassis. Likeness with DTM will be shared.I didn't, my previous post makes this fact quite clear. EDIT: Okay, maybe not so clear in the latter half, I was talking about the race car.
*laughs hysterically*
I got that the first time you said it, repeating it doesn't make it any more true nor does it answer my original question.
That link leads me to an article on an Audi R8 LMS Ultra GT300. I looked at a few of the links and didn't see anything explaining how the MR NSX is going to be adapted to a universal space-frame designed for FR Silhoutte cars.
Like I said, read above in the Japanese autosport page. Or go to google. The NSX will retain it's MR layout. The chassis can be modified because the Japanese makes are going to construct their own.
I think I answered this already.
Current (banned) regulations are not 2014 regulations. 👍
This thread is about SuperGT as is the other one. He has posted in the other thread. It's not my fault if he didn't read the other thread and keep up to date with it. I don't think I'm wrong to assume someone is up to date on the Super GT thread if they've posted there. As for the "nonexistent conversation", that makes little sense because I explained the NSX will receive BOP in 2014 like it used to receive (50kg weight handicap) when it raced in SuperGT and JGTC. How is that snotty?
The ZZT231 Toyota Celica production car was FF only. It ran in GT300 as an FR car in its last years. The Lexus IS production car is FR, and it was run as an MR for a few years. A link to a page about a GT3-spec car running in GT300 class doesn't prove anything about what you are saying; especially when the GT500 cars are already have pretty much nothing to do with the stock cars anyway.[/QUOTE]
The hell are you talking about? I linked to autosport Japans webpage. Google translate is your friend.
- 40,750
No you didn't. Repeating something about regulations from before 2009 is not an explanation.
2014 regulations are a purposely-spec racing series. 2009 regulations were not. There is no reason to believe you when you say that they will allow an MR drivetrain when they are going so far as to specify the design of the driver's tubs so they could be shared across manufacturers when you refuse to provide any proof.
He posted in the other thread once in early 2012. It sure is hell is your fault to act like he was up to date of the happenings of another thread and say "we already discussed this" rather than just link to the post where it was brought up from the start.
Which without any proof on your part is about as relevant to this conversation as me claiming that DTM cars will be allowed to have AWD with the penalty like they did in 1994.
Let's see:How is that snotty?
Take your pick. To say nothing about how you've deemed it necessary to beat 2009-era regulations into our head but providing no information for why they are relevant beyond linking to a news hub in a different language and calling that proof.
You linked to a Japanese motorsports news hub and acted like that was a source in and of itself. You're going to have to do a bit better than that, because looking around I only found this on that site:
http://translate.google.com/transla...otf=1&u=http://as-web.jp/news/?c_id=2&act=url
Which is such a mangled mess that you can't make any judgment about what it is saying as proof of anything, switching from talking about how "it is assumed FR" to talking about "monocoque that does not change the mounting position of the engine from the car production will lead to promotional." Furthermore, the only english link I can find on Google that talks about how the 2014 SuperGT NSX will be MR is from you talking about it in this thread.
Perhaps try linking a specific article and providing an accurate translation for it.
- 111
- Malaysia
- GTOS_RVoon
After reading all the other post in this thread, I'll have to side with Toronado here, freshseth83. We all came to this forum to dicuss GENTLEMANLY and TO SHARE information, NOT to show that the person seems to know more than we do. Now, we call that person a SMART–ASS.
And one more thing, Honda haven't released any information pertaining on the layout of the New NSX in the Super GT...
Here's a quote from Racecar Engineering, the article that I linked it in this thread,
Honda may desire running a MR layout, but it will only CAN participate in domestic race and not international ones. Note the word "desire", certainly Honda wouldn't build 2 different layout, just to compete in the race. That would increase it's budget considering they want to lower down the cost and remember, the DTM chassis was designed to accept future hybrid system so coincidentally, Honda also have a hybrid system that they tested in TwinRing Motegi in October 2010. The video is posted at the SuperGT thread for viewing and reference. My best bet is that Honda will built the New NSX with a FR layout, running with a hybrid system since they are going with a 2l turbo 4's in 2014.
Last edited:
- 44,185
- Blackburn
- Furinkazen_54
This has gotten so off topic it's ridiculous. Not first time I've heard about Freshseth taking an attitude though.
freshseth83
(Banned)
- 8,246
- freshseth83
So you can tell attitude over an internet forum? that's funny. I shared information and you choose not to believe it. I'm 'making things up' now? I don't need to have discussions with people who act like argumentative teenagers and 'know it all's' (then proceed to label me as such). If you choose to be ignorant and uninformed, you do so. But don't harp on with the bs about me being 'snotty' or having 'attitude' on a forum . It's pretty sad. If you just take the opportunity to do a little reading on the SuperGT thread where the HSV discussion really belongs, you would understand everything I'm saying. I'm not going to waste my time to reply to story book long posts about what anyone feels about me or what they think I'm acting like. Save your own time and mine by quit talking to me if you don't like what information I have to say. All the things I've posted about the future of SuperGT is available information. Information I've linked to. If you don't understand Japanese, use a translation software. If you still can't find it, go to another forum where they discuss SuperGT racing and have people who understand Japanese. 'GTPlanet' isn't my main source for motorsport news. I just come here to share what I've learned. Good day!
that's funny. I shared information and you choose not to believe it. I'm 'making things up' now? I don't need to have discussions with people who act like argumentative teenagers and 'know it all's' (then proceed to label me as such). If you choose to be ignorant and uninformed, you do so. But don't harp on with the bs about me being 'snotty' or having 'attitude' on a forum . It's pretty sad. If you just take the opportunity to do a little reading on the SuperGT thread where the HSV discussion really belongs, you would understand everything I'm saying. I'm not going to waste my time to reply to story book long posts about what anyone feels about me or what they think I'm acting like. Save your own time and mine by quit talking to me if you don't like what information I have to say. All the things I've posted about the future of SuperGT is available information. Information I've linked to. If you don't understand Japanese, use a translation software. If you still can't find it, go to another forum where they discuss SuperGT racing and have people who understand Japanese. 'GTPlanet' isn't my main source for motorsport news. I just come here to share what I've learned. Good day!
freshseth83
(Banned)
- 8,246
- freshseth83
I gave the link earlier, it's the autosport japan site.
- 28,309
- Brooklyn, NY
- KR_Viper
- I Renown I
So you can tell attitude over an internet forum?
Two warnings, an infraction and yet you still find it necessary to cop an attitude (and, yes, "attitude" can be discerned from text just so you're aware) whenever someone asks you for proof?
Drop the attitude. If you can't discuss things calmly without relying on borderline insulting replies, don't discuss things at all.
freshseth83
(Banned)
- 8,246
- freshseth83
I gave proof. What about those warnings and infractions from a long while ago? If I had a warning or infraction that's unrelated to 'proof', its not right to call me a liar without doing the research when I provided the link to the information.
If you don't want to search through the Super GT thread, the link is here- http://as-web.jp/news/info.php?c_id=2&no=43229. This explains that they will allow the NSX to retain it's MR layout. There will be no hybrid powertrain (at least not in 2014). Vehicle specific BOP will be applied.
If you don't want to search through the Super GT thread, the link is here- http://as-web.jp/news/info.php?c_id=2&no=43229. This explains that they will allow the NSX to retain it's MR layout. There will be no hybrid powertrain (at least not in 2014). Vehicle specific BOP will be applied.
Last edited by a moderator:
- 3,584
- Phoenix, AZ
- GTP_Snaeper
Super long post time, sorry!
I don't know how to respond to this, it makes no sense.
The above is a perfect example, I was trying to inspire change within you. To make you a better person. I may have taken a more critical route to do that, so I'm sorry.
We'll get to that in a second.
There is no evidence to support the first half of this (the bold part). The second part has contradictory evidence to put it (the not bold part) into question. And since it puts the not bold part into question, it consequently puts the bold part as well. Here is that contradictory evidence:
This puts your speculation based assumption (about the NSX being MR) into question as there is also a possibility of the car being FR, just as much as there is it being MR. Unless you want to link me a page where it says the tub made by Dome Carbon Magic can be adapted to make the car MR.
There is a thing called the wrong answer. If you had answered correctly, you wouldn't have four people disputing it with you, or do you think we're all wrong?
So it's my fault, then? Right.
So I take you also don't think it's wrong for someone to be up to date on a business conversation since they contributed to it three hours ago and then left to get lunch? Do you expect them to know everything when they come back? That's a hypothetical situation used as an analogy, by the way.
Here's the nonexistant conversation Toronado and I are talking about.
I, in this case, means you. You, in this case, means me. Therefor I read that as "You told me". Which I (and any other person who understands comprehensive English) would understand as you having told me something. My response to this was...
Because I assumed that You had told Me, since you said you did. And since you did not, that means there was a nonexistent conversation.
This ignoring the fact that your response about "car specific BOP" did not answer my question. Maybe if I had asked "How are they going to make an MR car compete on equal grounds with FR cars?" then it would've been a good answer, but that's not what I was asking.
You did not share information. You gave us the link to a website's main page. Example: "Go read the new review over at motortrend on the new Porsche Boxster S!" Here's the link: http://www.motortrend.com/
Since no one said that you're making things up, your use of quotes is incorrect.
When you say things like this, that's why we say that. You are dismissing the situation and belittling us to try to get your way.
Do you know what irony is? On a separate note, you are at least using quotes correctly now.
We, or at least I, did...
... but we, or at least I, still do not.
As I stated (and gave an example of) above, you did not give proof. You linked to the main page of a website. That is not proof.
I'm not a moderator, so I don't know what you received warnings or an infraction for, but I believe he's talking about your behavior, which would mean that they're relevant to your behavior in this conversation, which is why he brought it up.
He also did not call you a liar, and the link you posted was (for the umpteenth time now) useless to prove anything. Useless.
So, just out of curiousity, if I did search through the Super GT thread... I would find this link? Because the very little discussion I read in that thread posted no links like the one you did above.
Finally, you provided a source in a correct way. Sadly, it does not prove that the NSX will be MR. It speculates that the NSX could be MR, and that if it did end up being MR, it would be performance adjusted in the BOP, but considering the dreadful job that google translate did of the page, you could really infer anything out of the article. So to call this single page your sole source of proof makes your insistence of the NSX being MR quite laughable, since your argument is so poorly supported.
No, it does not. I know it does not because I read it. Just like you did.
...if the vehicle does happen to end up being MR. Which we don't know whether or not it will at this time.
I don't know how to respond to this, it makes no sense.
The above is a perfect example, I was trying to inspire change within you. To make you a better person. I may have taken a more critical route to do that, so I'm sorry.
We'll get to that in a second.
There is no evidence to support the first half of this (the bold part). The second part has contradictory evidence to put it (the not bold part) into question. And since it puts the not bold part into question, it consequently puts the bold part as well. Here is that contradictory evidence:
Racecar Engineering
This puts your speculation based assumption (about the NSX being MR) into question as there is also a possibility of the car being FR, just as much as there is it being MR. Unless you want to link me a page where it says the tub made by Dome Carbon Magic can be adapted to make the car MR.
There is a thing called the wrong answer. If you had answered correctly, you wouldn't have four people disputing it with you, or do you think we're all wrong?
So it's my fault, then? Right.
So I take you also don't think it's wrong for someone to be up to date on a business conversation since they contributed to it three hours ago and then left to get lunch? Do you expect them to know everything when they come back? That's a hypothetical situation used as an analogy, by the way.
As for the "nonexistent conversation", that makes little sense because I explained the NSX will receive BOP in 2014 like it used to receive (50kg weight handicap) when it raced in SuperGT and JGTC. How is that snotty?
Here's the nonexistant conversation Toronado and I are talking about.
I, in this case, means you. You, in this case, means me. Therefor I read that as "You told me". Which I (and any other person who understands comprehensive English) would understand as you having told me something. My response to this was...
Because I assumed that You had told Me, since you said you did. And since you did not, that means there was a nonexistent conversation.
This ignoring the fact that your response about "car specific BOP" did not answer my question. Maybe if I had asked "How are they going to make an MR car compete on equal grounds with FR cars?" then it would've been a good answer, but that's not what I was asking.
You did not share information. You gave us the link to a website's main page. Example: "Go read the new review over at motortrend on the new Porsche Boxster S!" Here's the link: http://www.motortrend.com/
Since no one said that you're making things up, your use of quotes is incorrect.
When you say things like this, that's why we say that. You are dismissing the situation and belittling us to try to get your way.
If you choose to be ignorant and uninformed, you do so. But don't harp on with the bs about me being 'snotty' or having 'attitude' on a forum
Do you know what irony is? On a separate note, you are at least using quotes correctly now.
We, or at least I, did...
... but we, or at least I, still do not.
As I stated (and gave an example of) above, you did not give proof. You linked to the main page of a website. That is not proof.
I'm not a moderator, so I don't know what you received warnings or an infraction for, but I believe he's talking about your behavior, which would mean that they're relevant to your behavior in this conversation, which is why he brought it up.
He also did not call you a liar, and the link you posted was (for the umpteenth time now) useless to prove anything. Useless.
So, just out of curiousity, if I did search through the Super GT thread... I would find this link? Because the very little discussion I read in that thread posted no links like the one you did above.
Finally, you provided a source in a correct way. Sadly, it does not prove that the NSX will be MR. It speculates that the NSX could be MR, and that if it did end up being MR, it would be performance adjusted in the BOP, but considering the dreadful job that google translate did of the page, you could really infer anything out of the article. So to call this single page your sole source of proof makes your insistence of the NSX being MR quite laughable, since your argument is so poorly supported.
No, it does not. I know it does not because I read it. Just like you did.
...if the vehicle does happen to end up being MR. Which we don't know whether or not it will at this time.
Last edited:
freshseth83
(Banned)
- 8,246
- freshseth83
I'm just going to let you have fun feeling stunned when you see the NSX run MR in 2014's Super GT series. Have fun writing page long posts for nothing.
Even with the broken Japanese to English translation from google, the 5th paragraph-
Just to clarify, this Bando person is the head of GTA which is the governing body of Super GT. So the head of Super GT has stated that he is allowing Honda to use MR layout and applying BOP to it. It doesn't get much more official than that.
Even with the broken Japanese to English translation from google, the 5th paragraph-
They recognize the use of the MR for the NSX and apply BOP performance tuning to mid-engined NSX.
Just to clarify, this Bando person is the head of GTA which is the governing body of Super GT. So the head of Super GT has stated that he is allowing Honda to use MR layout and applying BOP to it. It doesn't get much more official than that.
Last edited by a moderator:
- 3,584
- Phoenix, AZ
- GTP_Snaeper
If you don't want to be considerate and respond to me spelling things out for you, that's fine. I've tried writing shorter posts and they go over your head. I've tried single paragraphs and those go over your head, too. So apparently, I can't win with you.
I'm not going to be "stunned" because there's the possibility that it could be an MR car. My original question was how they were going to make an MR car work with a spec tub that's made by a single company for all three manufacturers. You never provided an answer for me and you continue to refuse to do so, so I guess continuing asking you for an answer is a waste of my time.
I read the translated page from the link you provided. I read the paragraph you quoted above. It's far too incoherent for me to assume anything. If you want to assume that's what they're talking about, that's fine. But don't state it as fact, that's against AUP.
- 28,309
- Brooklyn, NY
- KR_Viper
- I Renown I
Seth, there's an edit button. Avoid multi-posting in the future.
- 111
- Malaysia
- GTOS_RVoon
Here's the SUPER GT Class 1 (GT500) New Technical Regulation for 2014 【For reference】
- 111
- Malaysia
- GTOS_RVoon
- 9,741
- Las Vegas UTC-8
- Wardez
- Wardez
Exactly 
Well, in my humble opinion I'd rather they continued with the HSV than bring back the rebooted NSX
That car's too awesome, and I just don't like the direction they're taking the NSX roadcar anyway, or the look really. Purpose built machinery always wins me over.
Well, in my humble opinion I'd rather they continued with the HSV than bring back the rebooted NSX
That car's too awesome, and I just don't like the direction they're taking the NSX roadcar anyway, or the look really. Purpose built machinery always wins me over.
- 111
- Malaysia
- GTOS_RVoon
Exactly
Well, in my humble opinion I'd rather they continued with the HSV than bring back the rebooted NSX
That car's too awesome, and I just don't like the direction they're taking the NSX roadcar anyway, or the look really. Purpose built machinery always wins me over.
I agree with you, Wardez. 👍
freshseth83
(Banned)
- 8,246
- freshseth83
I know how to spell. I don't need you to do anything for me.
I provided the answer to your questions. With links to show you. "as-web" is Japanese autosport. "Bando" is head of GTA. Autosport interviewed him and he says they (GTA, the head of SuperGT) have accepted that the Honda will use the NSX as an MR layout. There's also the fact that the Japanese will produce their own chassis.
I know what they said because I translated it, as did a Japanese member of another forum. Nothing I said is against the AUP. Even with the translation not being the best, the quoted paragraph is easy to understand. They (ITR and GTA) recognize the use of the NSX as an MR. The NSX will follow with the road car layout as does the Lexus, Nissan, Mercedes, BMW and Audi.
Sure thing bud.
freshseth83
(Banned)
- 8,246
- freshseth83
There is no argument. We will see them testing by the summer the chassis for 2014.
- 9,741
- Las Vegas UTC-8
- Wardez
- Wardez
But you're not sure of that, you can't be, there's absolutely no confirmation of it yet. There's strong hunches one way or another, but as you said, we'll wait and see.
Personally, I think it'd be awesome if they could continue a midship layout, but all signs seem to be pointing to this not being practical or within regulations. The only thing really going for your case is the fact that the car itself is going to be MR, but the concept's also AWD, so...
Personally, I think it'd be awesome if they could continue a midship layout, but all signs seem to be pointing to this not being practical or within regulations. The only thing really going for your case is the fact that the car itself is going to be MR, but the concept's also AWD, so...
- Status
