Looks like a blend of current Enzo, 458 lights and Mclaren P1 = Autocar fails yet again
I haven't seen the car, but if it's anything like the autocar rendering I'll eat my shoe. It's a mash up of so many current cars that it jut looks silly.
I have to disagree. I think it is a good magazine that normally has good info. Can anyone who has seen the car say this definitively is not it? Personally I doubt it is accurate as it is an unlikely scoop and is not offered as such, more just Autocars's best guess at present. I really hope it looks better than this but the concern is there is nothing immediately that shows on the mule that contradicts it. They are clearly wrong on power and weight as we know the F12 already makes 740 so it is guaranteed to make more than that in this car and then has at least 140 of KERS and all that will weigh more than 1100. Hopefully they are equally accurate on styling although their history on forecasting is not bad.
I like Autocar a lot. They always have thorough tests and usually before any other mags. And before the Internet, that was where i used to get my car news.
Autocar's renderings are generally garbage. For example - this was what they said the McLaren F1 successor was going to look like. Compare that to a photo of the P1 and find one single element that matches besides the fact they both have wheels and tires. I can't see any resemblance between the two. The only elements they got right on this rendering of the Enzo successor seem to be the ones that you can see plainly by studying photos of the mules and the chassis shown in Paris. >8^) ER Image Unavailable, Please Login
You are correct because the P1 is not ugly. But anyway... Autocar should fire their "artists" and stop paying their sources. >8^) ER
Even though Sutcliffe is a honed racer, excellent tester and a good journalist, the standards of Autocar's tests are sub par. More often than not, I disagree wholeheartedly with their conclusions; it makes me think that they drove a different car to the one I drove! Moreover, their numbers are usually a joke and differ a lot from the median of all other mags. Amusing it may be, but like Top Gear, it's not a reliable source of information. That said, they are not always wrong of course. I find CAR or Evo much more agreeable readings though.
Read the SCOOP Autocar review and they seem to have some facts muddled but a few points I was unaware of. Interesting that the CF tub is made of a Carbon so expensive that it was banned in FI and this is an exclusive tub unlike the Macca. They suggest 850 BHP and then elsewhere in the article say the F12 engine should be tuned to produce at least 800 and then add at least another 100+ for KERS and you get well in excess of 900. I dont give that much credence to the image, although the rear looks more credible than the front. Same magazine compares the F12 to the Aventador in a brief road test and an easy win for Ferrari on all fronts.
interesting, the part about the CF being banned in F1. would like to know the details. hmm, it's not like it's technically out of this world. it's just Toray's higher end fabrics, being the T-800 and T-1000 used in new 'Enzo'...these things have been around
You are right and are missing little. Aside from the chassis material being banned for F1 due to expense etc, the rest is really a rehash of what we already know.
I do not know this for sure, but I also thought that teams were allowed a certain budget on R&D and on the car every year?