Ferrari LaFerrari vs Mclaren P1 vs Porsche 918

The fact is that even if slower than the first lap (of which I'm not sure for the LaF), the Fezza's second lap would be much faster than the other two because it relies on its engine more. On a 2 lap race it would win by at least 30 seconds.
The average power put out by the LaF over periods of more than 10 min is higher.

 

It would be really interesting putting the three of them on a dyno and look at the power curves' decline in time with the batteries discharging. The P1 and 918 would plummet

 

I think that an hypothetical second lap is irrelevant for the braggin rights, which is what this all is about. In any case, no normal driver is gonna to push these cars so hard for more than a few minutes, or even seconds. The capability of running in electric mode is more important from a PR view, and could be more useful in the real life.

 

Comparing Bellof's car to anything that exist today is apples to oranges. His car had underbody venturies. To explain the difference, the legal aerodynamic aids of a modern F1 car gives a ratio of drag vs downforce at around 1:1,5
Bellof's Porsche and its venturies gave it a ratio of 1:5
A modern venturi car can give a ratio of 1:6

However, they are banned in all kinds of motor racing, and are not used on road cars.

 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iG-UHlue-4o]Up-close & Personal with the MCLAREN P1: Supercars Personified Features Review - YouTube[/ame]

 

I still don't see the point of the Nurburgring times.... My car is faster than yours? If anything I would find it a lot more interesting if cars were compared on more "real" tracks were most of us who track often their cars go. Obviously it makes life more difficult for manufacturers. Anyway that's just my thought and seems like most people here don't agree ;-)

 

Now lets see.
RWD hypercars: LaFerrari, P1, Huyara, Agera (4 different manufacturers)
4WD hypercars: 918, Veyron (both VW Group products)
I don't really see RWD as the minority, rather the other way around.

 

There are much bigger tracks than the Ring. Once upon a time in Italy there was a GP circuit that was 25 kilometres long. Even now, the Balloco track in Milan is longer than the Ring.

 

True, AWD still the minority, but it´s quite amzaing: it would be the logical thing to do, leaving RWD just for the purists.

Yet, RWD still not the minority, but I have the feeling their number is going down, and will go down more with all this hybrid stuff. Even Ferrari is offering some sort of AWD now.

 

Eh...

 

jeez....tell me how much different the p1 is from the mp4. looking at this video its basicially the same interior

 

Sheesh lol. The ring is used by most manufacturers. Therefore the track of choice.

 

Only for their cold weather model.
I remember vividly that Lamborghini said that they wanted their cars to be friendly to the average Joe, hence the 4WD. Valentino Balboni though prefers RWD any time of the day.

 

There was a great article in one of the Vintage racing mags about the 1989 Audi Quattro trans am car. The interesting thing was the tire wear in racing, which I had never considered. They put similar HP down via 4 wheels, and the competition put it through 2. So by the end of the race, the rear tires on the other cars were toast, and the Audi was fine. They were untouchable at the end of races. Of course, it was banned because the other manufacturers were not going to enter races they couldn't win.

I watched the US Touring car series that went along with ALMS a few years back, with BMW, Acura, I think Mazda, and Audi cars (run by Stasis Engineering). At the time, we knew the mechanic for Bimmerworld so it was a fun series to follow, and it was televised on Speed. The Audis were AWD A4s. Some of the cars were front drive (Acura) some rear (BMW). I remember that the Audis had incredible starts because of the traction, and if there was any traction limit (rain, or sand at Laguna Seca for instance) the Audis were dominant. Otherwise the weight was a significant disadvantage.

I would think with endurance racing such as LeMans where weather and tire wear are both significant factors, AWD would be a real advantage.

As to which is more fun as a hack, it depends on what you are doing. For sure rear drive is the more pure on a Sunday morning jaunt, and I get torque steer in my S4 that degrades the steering feel. But on track, as a ham-fisted novice, AWD allows me to run right on the ragged edge. If you are a really good driver (as all of you no doubt are ) then rear drive is probably more rewarding. But for the rest of us, AWD and some built in understeer gives a level of safety that actually lets you get the car completely loose with confidence and have a big hoot.

 

There is Huge political pressure to reduce tire wastage in racing and when F1 and Sports Car Racing goes to one/fewer set(s)per race AWD will come to pass for the reasons you state.

 

I don't know about sportscars, but F1 is going the other way around. We used to have robust tyres that could last almost an entire race. Nowadays cars need to make up to 4 tyre changes per race.

 

Next year they´re going to give them two sets more per weekend, IIRC.

 

"Michelin would want a shift in emphasis in F1 away from the multiple pit-stop formula that has been provided by Pirelli's high-degradation tyres, at the request of the sport's commercial supremo Bernie Ecclestone.

It believes the current approach in F1 runs counter to the growing requirement and demand for environmental sustainability in automotive manufacturing."

 

Well, you can tell Michelin to shod off. Pirelli is staying at least till 2018. FIA backs Pirelli for 2014 | FIA | Formula 1 news, live F1 | ESPN F1

 

It all depends on how good it gets and how much it costs. If they prove to be reliable and affordable, why not? You just have to find a balance between the pros and cons.

Right now, there is a giant con in the argument -- cost.

If the systems become more affordable, prove to have long term reliability, and can be serviced/replaced at a reasonable cost down the road, I see no reason why it wouldn't.

As of right now, I have no interest in owning hybrid or electric cars. The performance is impressive, but I'm not impressed with the price/performance ratio, especially considering you don't need any of it for the street.

If I see $25K cars with 300 mile range, or $100K sports cars with LF/918/P1 hybrid systems and regular car maintenance/reliability, I'll be interested. At $100K for a good Tesla and $1M for an LF/918/P1, it just doesn't make sense financially. I really respect the technology and all the works that goes into making these amazing cars, but at the end of the day the economics just don't work out.

All that said, this is the kind of work that needs to be done to get to feasibility point later on. Such is pretty much how all technology works and I'm confident that one day it will get there.

 

Hybrid or no hybrid, these hypercars would still cost 7 digits.

 

It looks similar but it's totally different (except for the few buttons).

Do you think LaFa's interior is totally bespoke? It looks 90% similar to other Ferrari models.

 

Former McLaren boss suing for wrongful dismissal | Autocar

 

Maybe after the 7.04 Nring time!

 

No. Apparently they promised him 6.33 % equity share but couldn't quite match it.