458 Italia vs McLaren MP4 Blighty - The UK press decides

The 458 EVO tested this time around is a different setup then last time around, how are you going to explain that 1 second time difference? McLaren came out with an effective marketing campaign and maybe a lot of it was propaganda, I am neutral to both manufacturers. But Ferrari bought the McLaren noise, got scared and went overboard this time with their ringer car. Now its blatantly obvious Harris was correct.

 

What's there to comment about that? It's a fast time for a fast car.

 

One second? Easy. Temperature. Track condition. Driver experience.

So, does Hamilton do every lap in his F1 car within one second of one another?

Come on guys. If you going to argue that Ferrari and Evo are cheating, you have to come up with something better.

You keep skipping over the issue that Evo testers voted it BEST. How in the world can they know the car they are track testing is a ringer and still vote it best?

 

It's been suggested that :

- different humidity levels on different days
- different air temp on different days
- different track temp on different days
- different rubber on track on different days
- different tires, or tire conditions, on the same car on different days
- different motor condition on the same car on different days (spark plug wear, gas quality, etc.)
- different driver attitude, mood, sleep deprivation, etc on different days

might be enough, in unknown combination, to explain approx 1% difference in lap times.

And as we all know, power-to-weight ... while strongly correlated to lap times ... doesn't tell everything. Otherwise, top fuel dragsters would rule every road track in the world Other factors that matter : tires, gearing, shift times, aerodynamics, suspension, etc.

 

What is so terrible about Evo saying this in their test:

"We tested the Italia and it weighed "X". But, our past experience and from customer cars, we have seen "Y". We can't explain the difference and Ferrari cannot give us an explaination but we wanted our readers to understand the difference and how it may have impacted the test."


Simple, honest, straightforward and not acccusing anyone.

What's so terrible about Evo saying THAT?????

Or, are they just that stupid?

 

everyone is avoiding the question you keep asking : if it's SO obvious the Ferrari in every journalist's hands is a ringer, why isn't McLaren crying foul ... and discrediting EVERY magazine that declares the 458 as the winner?

 

No 1 second gain on Bedford is ridiculous. Magazines cannot afford to be blacklisted by a marque like Ferrari period. That's what the Harris rant was also referring too. So they just play along. At least some of the American mags would take customer cars for testing, and the numbers would always be totally off published Ferrari times. This dates back to Modena days too when the thing was slow as hell in the real world but super fast in mag testing.

"The customer is not always right." -Enzo Ferrari

 

I'll admit, it could have been any of those factors. But I must disagree with you on the 1% difference -- it's a lot more than that. Perhaps on a longer track like the Nurburgring Nordschiefe, a second's difference doesn't matter, but it certainly matters here.

For some perspective, the Bedford track is 2896 meters, while the Top Gear test track is 2820 meters. On small tracks like these microseconds count: saying that it's only a 1% difference is like saying the Enzo was only 1% slower than the Veyron on the Top Gear test track, which is quite implausible.

 

ummm .... 1 second out of 80 seconds is 1.25 %.

really not open to debate or maybe simple math is just one of those crazy tifosi things ...

 

Ok... let's get this straight.

It's IMPOSSIBLE for Evo to smell a ringer

It's IMPOSSIBLE for two tests on different days with different drivers to have more than a 1 second difference in lap times.

It's IMPOSSIBLE that Ferrari would not cheat.

It's IMPOSSIBLE that the Mac can be slower in this test.


Do we have all your impossibles now? Can we now talk about what's possible?

Like, the testers voted it best after everything was added up?

And, that the McLaren BEAT 458 in every drag race but somehow the Italia was "rigged" to do better on the track?

Geez let's go back and argue that Pearl Harbor was a conspiracy dreamed up by FDR to get us into World War 2.

 

The burden of proof must always lie with the accuser, and I doubt McLaren can somehow furnish some tangible evidence that implicates Ferrari or Evo of some hand-in-hand conspiracy.

And for the record: I can't accuse Ferrari or Evo of anything, since I don't have a shred of evidence. I can only question their published times, which are tangible and (ostensibly) reproducible.

 

missed one :

it's IMPOSSIBLE for McLaren to care one bit about what the press says about their cars

Good point, by the way, on the drag test. Ferrari was SO CLEVER with their supposed "ringer", that they rigged the car to lose the drag tests, but win on the track ... thereby cleverly hiding their foul play

 

But you still can't explain these two facts:

Evo voted it best while apparently either too stupid to see the car was rigged or are being paid off. It seems ridiculous to assume that every writer would vote it best KNOWING or even SUSPECTING they were being lied to.

The Mac beat the Italia in every drag race situation and yet this same car beat the Mac on the road test. How can you explain that the car was rigged and not have it beat the Mac in a straight out race?


What you can assume is this:

The people at Evo believe the results to be honest.

And, the Italia goes over this particular road course faster than the 12C.


That would be the most logical explanation instead of shouting corruption and thowing mud at everyone involved simply because you don't like the results.

 

Yes, I think toys are being thrown out of the pram here.

 

Again, as Harris' expose reveals Ferrari blackmails magazines into being complicit. In other words, no matter their private suspicions, they go along with it. They have done it for years.

As Chris Harris also explains it's no wonder that Italia beat Mcalren (and Gumpert and RS2) on the track, since they are in the habit of supplying two cars: one for straight-line work and one for track work. In this test, they could only provide one car, unfortunately.

The larger point is that your Ferrari blinders are growing to a ridiculous size. What you fail to understand is that we are neither McLaren nor Ferrari fanboys. We want fast cars and mfr's not lying to us. You should be up in arms, too if you suspected something is off. Yet, you are making every effort to look away from pretty convincing evidence.

This is not a criminal trial. It's a civil one We are looking at preponderance of evidence. And it is pretty damning.

Also, we are not talking here about which is a better car. It's not about McLaren at all. It's not even about Italia's driving experience (which I think leaves something to be desired). It's about pretty impossible performance of a street car and what that tells us about Ferrari and its integrity.

 

So.... Evo is afraid of BLACKMAIL. Oh, I get it. Like the last time Harris went on his rant, everyone just forgot about it. It was a mulligan. It never happened....and we just go back to cheating again like "the bad ol' days" and Evo just closes it's eyes and waits for the check to arrive with LDM's signature.

Logical... NOT.

I see. So, everything we read that is positive for Ferrari is just one big lie.

Then, why do you even care about this test?

How many times do we have to explain we don't care about tests (cooked or not) when deciding to buy a car. I think this is number 939,352.


I just want to get this straight from you.

The ONLY explanation for this test is that

1) Ferrari must have cheated

2) Evo knew about it and did nothing to alert it's readers despite one of it's key writers talking loudly about cheating in the past.

3) Evo is too stupid to even bother to check if the car is rigged or check see if the weight numbers are significantly different than past numbers or customers cars.

4) Evo can't find anyone with a customer 458 to weigh.


If you believe that, it kinda makes you wonder about the credibility magazine writers, doesn't it?

 

They can always count on Ferrari customers to be in denial.

I don't care about Italia's time as such, but I do not like being actively lied to. You don't care. I find it strange, but it's your car, your decision.

As to the test results overall, I have no idea why they chose it. They might well be right. That's not what we are talking about.

 

As you've said, either :

The 458 really IS winning in comparisons in the press, both subjectively and objectively

--- or ---

there's a big, deep, anti-McLaren conspiracy. Ferrari is cheating ... heck, Chris Harris says so! ... and ALL the magazines are complicit. Not only the editors, who are ALL being bought (or threatened with blackmail), but the test drivers are too. They don't care about their integrity as journalists, because they are ALL brainwashed to become part of the anti-McLaren conspiracy.

Finally, anyone who doesn't immediately see the later explanation as the only viable one, well ... they just have their BIG, RED blinders on. The "evidence" is just overwhelming!

got it

 

It's not denial. It's called indifference because WE DON'T CARE!!!! (Number 939,353).

We don't care about what one car did or didn't do on one track one day with one driver with rigged or non rigged equipment.

It doesn't matter. What is so hard to figure out here? You don't think we know Enzo always cooked the books? Wow... Enzo was a liar and a cheat. Ummmmmm... yah!

We still like his cars anyway. That's not denial. It's indifference.

 

It's not anti-McLaren conspiracy. It has nothing to do with McLaren (they have to worry about Porsche being so close).

Chris Harris exposed the practice and it since has been confirmed by others (Chris Chilton from CAR).

When, I first saw the original Bedford lap time, I was very impressed (go back I posted about it back in the day), even though it was out of whack with AMS times (where Italia was very close to the scud at both the Ring and Hockeheim). I could not quite understand where the almost 2 secs came from, but I took it on faith. However, when, Italia starts running competitive with race cars on slicks (Gumpert) and especially in light of Harris' expose, the most likely explanation is that the car in question is out and out ringer.

it takes a real effort on your part not to see a problem here.

 

This is fine. I know you don't care about it. We discussed it many times. I am just surprised that you are not concerned about being comprehensively lied to. I still enjoyed my scud even though it sounds like its performance tests were BS. BUT, it does not change the fact that I take exception to being lied to so comprehensively.

 

It doesn't take any effort at all for me to look at a product and tell if I like it or not. I don't need someone to tell me that. I don't need Consumer Reports or some celebrity talking head on TV testifying how great this weight loss system is to let me decide if it's worthy of my purchase or not.

You keep arguing two different things. You keep arguing that the test is a cheat. But, you can't explain these facts ABOUT the test:

Well, if it was a cheat, why did everyone vote it best? And, why did the Mac win the drag races yet lose the track test?

It's one thing to "cheat" with the numbers. Its a whole 'nother thing for the testers to know the test is rigged and still overlook it and report it. If they did that, then THEY are the real cheaters.

So, I'm assuming you're calling the testers and editors at Evo CHEATERS and LIARS, right? Because the cat is out of the bag already so there's no need to be quiet now.

 

wrong again

The accusations of single journalist (Chris Harris) do NOT make the "ringer" theory the MOST LIKELY explanation, for every test where the 458 is declared the winner. As we've already touched-on in this thread, there's more factors involved in lap times than simple power/weight ratio ... and there's WAY more factors involved in providing a satisfying driving experience in a high-performance road car, than any simple set of numbers can provide.

That's why it takes ZERO effort on my part to actually give some credence to what the press has been reporting, in 458 vs. 12C comparisons. I promise, you're spending WAY more effort on your conspiracy theories, than i am