458 Italia vs McLaren MP4 Blighty - The UK press decides

First off, I am not McLaren attorney. Second, the weight in EVo is exactly what Mclaren quoted back in Feb. Look it up.

No, you don't go magically from 2.1 secs behind on a shorter track to .6 ahead on a longer one. Remember, italia had the dual clutch and na engine at hockenheim, too.

 

So you will dismiss that McLaren is lying because you aren't a lawyer yet you will attack Ferrari for the same thing? Sounds a little hypocritical don't you think? Go back and read what you have posted about the moral aspect of lying and cheating. Now you are saying it doesn't matter because you aren't a lawyer... Hmmm

Have you ever seen the layout of Hockenheim? There's ample room for you to stretch the cars legs, all the way out to top gear, Bedford is a different story. Are you claiming that track layouts have nothing to do with lap times?

 

McLaren lying about what?
Do you know where the biggest advantage is of a double clutch? On upshifts. When you are really stretching cars' legs. Cars don't make up three seconds depending on the layout.

 

Lying about the weight of the car, the car used in the test was 100kg over.

Yes that is the major advantage but that will not counter a 60hp difference on a long straight going through 3 or 4 gears. The track layout will have a profound difference on a lap time, to argue otherwise is pointless. Bedford West Circuit in no way resembles Hockenheim, just look at the difference in straight lengths (not to mention Hockenheim is 1.1 miles longer)

 

I think this is one of the issues. Different cars work better on different tracks. The Mac may be longer geared or it may have an advantage with it's airbrake in high speed turns that really don't make much difference on this particular track.

I really don't know the track and I don't know the cars well enough but I do know it's possible that cars can be faster or slower depending on the race track they are running on.

That, to me, makes more sense than saying the entire test is BS.

 

Exactly, it is down to a myriad of factors. Some things will favor the McLaren, some things will not, it is inevitable. It would appear that the 458 as tested is faster around Bedford and possibly Rockingham too, if the McLaren boys can't "take it on the chin" it's a bit sad

 

Especially when you are dealing with two high performance sports cars where the difference is only a couple of seconds here or there.

The 458 tests exactly as fast as the Enzo at Fiorano. Does anyone really think the Enzo couldn't wipe the 458 on a bigger, longer track?

 

You are exactly right, Kryz has argued the whole time that the most minute of details will have a large effect on lap time. Unless of course that means the 458 sets a faster lap time on stickier tires than it did on harder tires.

Roger Green of EVO (I don't know whether he is up to Kryz's standards) said he thought the 458 would be faster than the Enzo around Rockingham, which is a 2.5 mile track with some pretty nice stretches of straight, who knows though.

 

It was not 100 kg over, it was exactly as advertised 1434 kg. You are clearly confused between dry and curb weight.

Another thing you are confused about is the Hockenheim. It's the Hockenheim short that AMS does their supertests on:
http://fastestlaps.com/tracks/hockenheim_short.html
2604 m
versus Bedford:
http://fastestlaps.com/tracks/bedford_autodrome_west_circuit_post_062008.html
2896 m

Bedford is roughly 300 m longer. Do you see my point now?

 

The front end doesn't look like a F1 at all. It looks like a 360. Here's a F1 front end:

http://www.phys.uu.nl/~huizinga/photo/MCLaren%20F1%20Front.jpg

Here's a 360 front end:

http://www.autocarwallpapers.com/cargallery/2011/02/2007-JNH-Ferrari-360-Modena-Front-Images.jpg

Here's the MP4-12C front:

http://www.carsendse.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/2010-McLaren-MP4-12C-Front-View.jpg

The F1 front end had: miniscule hood panel, hood scoop, intakes under the front, a totally different design. If you just put a line across the front vents in the 360, you'd have a MP4-12C front end.

When I was talked about the "new F1", I wasn't talking about the MP4-12C. I was talking about their next car. The convo I had with "those who shall not be named" about the car lead me to believe it will not be a "new F1" in any way, shape or form.

 

A couple second difference on the track is a large one. You simply do not overcome three seconds unless the differences in the layout are pretty extreme. Even better, Gumpert's time at Hockenheim is over 3 sec better. So Italia overcomes 3 secs to Gumpert, to RS2 (mind you two very different cars). That simply does not happen.

 

That does certainly make more sense, it would be interesting to see the Italia on it's softer tires here. This doesn't fully discredit the times though, Hockenheim Short has a good 1/2 of the lap that is nearly three "Monaco straights" separated by maybe two corners. Cars are always going to perform differently on certain tracks, some play more to their characteristics, just look at F1. Do you agree with this?

 

It does when you cannot apply 700hp to the ground, the Gumpert could have had cold conditions (or damp) at Bedford. If it's tires are anything like you mentioned (slicks) it would have a profound difference, same goes for the GT2RS on it's cup tires.

 

No, I'm not being clear.

What I mean is that one car can have an advantage in straights or under acceleration and the other can have an advantage in brakes, engine torque, or something else like aerodynamics. So, over the entire race, it averages out to be something really small --- so small that just a few other factors could make a difference.

I bet if you put the two cars on a different track, you could get a much bigger difference plus or minus for the 458.

 

Look at my post above. Overcoming 3 secs to one car is one thing. Doing it to two very different cars in nigh impossible. Three seconds on a one minute track is a LARGE difference.

 

No, that does not happen. Especially with two very different cars (Gumpert and RS2). Again, .5 sec over 1 minute track - possible; 1 sec over 1 min track hard, but not impossible. 3 secs over 1 minute track to two different cars, pretty much impossible.

 

You are discounting the fact that they are on similar type (cut slick or near slick) tires, not to mention temperatures in Germany vs UK, look at my post above

 

Boys... I'm leaving you now. Gonna hit the Vegas strip and find something more interesting to talk about!

 

I absolutely agree that different cars will shine on different tracks !!! That's no secret, heck it's true from even the cheapest form of dirt racing all the way through Formula One

The reasons are well understood, and it has NOTHING to do with any supposed Ferrari brand-bias. The factors involved are :

- gearing ... what does the torque curve look like, compared to the RPM range where the car spends most of its time on any given circuit?

- suspension, weight balance, and dynamic weight transfer ... how does the weight transfer & roll, coming out of corners? What's the percentage of sharp corners versus gradual one on any given track?

- throttle response ... yes, if you've got lots of turbo lag on a track with lots of slow corners and straights that aren't long enough to nullify the difference, you're at a disadvantage.

- shift times .. how many shifts in each circuit? The shorter circuit may have more. Doesn't take too many shifts, if you're saving a 50~100 miiliseconds a shift with a dual-clutch transmission, to accumulate a 1 second advantage

These are just a very FEW reasons why power/weight NEVER tells the whole story, and why a car can absolutely shine on one circuit, and find itself struggling on another. Don't take my word for it ... ask any accomplished racer or team

It's already been offered countless times in this thread, but it's worth repeating :

The Ferrari is up 4-0 against the McLaren in the UK press, on subjective merit alone. It's also up 1-0, so far, in an objective track test. It requires no magic or crazy leaps of faith to accept this data as credible. To dismiss it, however, requires layers upon layers of conspiracy theory, rampant bias across the entire UK press, and inexplicable behavior from some whistle-blowing folk hero who now is strangely silent when confronted with (in fact, participating in) tests & data believed by some to be totally impossible.

Furthermore, many of us are still wondering why magazine reports ... and more specifically, the lap times presented within ... are held as the end-all, be-all metric of performance that will ultimately determine someone's buying decision? Especially after the credibility of the ENTIRE automotive press has been called into question by that same individual? It's almost textbook schizophrenia, i tell ya ...

BOTH cars are amazing. ANY OF US would be fortunate to own either. BE happy with either one ... you'll never need to justify your choice, to anybody

 

I am sorry, but sticky tires and more power are never a problem. You just have to warm them up properly and they will gain you an advantage

 

Gearing, turbo lag and all that jazz cannot explain the 3 sec difference. it just does not happen. You can easily overcome gearing issues with huge torque (since you don't have to shift much), which both cars have in spades. There is no way, Italia can overcome such a large difference to both of them.

I can see your reading comprehension is not improving. i clearly have not chosen any car yet.

 

You haven't chosen a car yet, because the magazine test reports on the McLaren vs. Ferrari have thrown your pre-biased world upside down. You are still a slave to what you read in the press, and my point stands.

 

No, I pay attention to actual performance vs. promises. I know that you will be able to rationalize away anything. You are hard at work as we speak.

 

You're kidding yourself, once again.

After many requests, you STILL have yet to define the unbiased, reputable source for what you consider "actual performance". It seems to be Chris Harris, your hero, except for the inescapable fact that he implicitly AGREES with the EVO test (by virtue of silence following, and in fact participation with, the EVO test).

Is Chris Harris your source for "actual performance" data, or isn't he? What does he say about the EVO test results ... explicitly, or implicitly?

What is your source for "actual performance"? All evidence presented so far points to one answer, and one answer alone : the magazine that declares the McLaren winner, will be held as the unbiased source of true data

 

No, evo is the source of the test. His silence is his silence: it does not confirm anything or deny anything.

As I state before, another lesson of reading comprehension for you, I believe EVO's times for all the cars. McLAren performance is poor compared to the scud and GT3. Italia performance is impossible for a stock car, and it has nothing to do with McLAren.

You simply cannot understand that I am not a fanboy. Being one, your imagination fails you.