Ferrari LaFerrari vs Mclaren P1 vs Porsche 918

Don't know what youre talking about, Ferrari never said they wouldn't sell me a laf. They put me on a list and that was the last I heard of it. But I'm not interested in the laf anyway so it doesn't matter to me. I'm in no way pissed about it, don't know where you get that crazy idea.

 

Did you miss your calling as a screenwriter?

Here's a couple of new photos I snapped on Saturday during my visit to see the final P1 Production Prototype, PP3, at McLaren Beverly Hills. Just in awe of this car.

>8^)
ER
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Love the P1 overall. The shape is so modern and that trick rear wing just looks the part. I like the shape of the LaF too but wish they added a retractable rear wing. The 918? Not a fan of its shape. Interior-wise I like the LaF's and the 918's, not the P1's - it's just not special enough.

Performance wise LaF should be the straight line champ and the P1 the 1-lap track champ (thanks to adjustable ride height - down force) except at the Nurb where apparently, the 918 reigns as 1-lap champ.

I think McLaren erred by not implementing energy recovery thru regenerative braking DURING braking, like Porsche and Ferrari. Apparently the P1 only implements regenerative braking while engine braking off throttle and off brakes, for brake feel consistency.

I do not think the improved brake feel is worth 1) the increased reliance on engine to recharge the batteries which robs the car of available power, 2) the loss of what otherwise is free brake assist, and 3) not sure about this but it may be that off throttle/off brakes engine braking (to recharge the batteries) scrubs off more speed or momentum than desired during a hot lap.

Is it possible that the cumulative effect of all 3 is the reason the P1 cannot beat the 918 on a long track like the Ring (on top of the alleged ride height difficulty on non-smooth tracks like the Ring)?

 

Ironically, i can understand mac's reasoning for not releasing a time. They just set it up
wrong by building up everyones expectations to the extreme. Porsche seems to be the winnen in this, by just exceeding all the expectations without making a fuss about it.

 

Whatever you say frefan

 

Bridge to gantry
Porsche 1 : McLaren 0

 

Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Between this mess up published by Evo and the stupid ECOTY where a Mini beat the Cayman S and the Alfa 4C I think Evo is losing the plot!

 

This says it all. Pathetic from McLaren.

"McLaren, through designated mouth-piece Nick 'Evo' Trott, are saying the Nürburgring is too dangerous, and setting laptimes is irresponsible and dangerous. That's some pretty impressive talk for a company that just spunked untold thousands of euros per day for several weeks of testing here."

 

Nick Trott has been lent a long term 12C by McLaren too.
There's no way he's going to say a bad word about them.

It's pretty hard to get a bad word said about Ferraris now too.

Clever. Very clever from the manufacturers to buy journalists like this. Mclaren have failed to convince the greater public - BUT will it make a difference to potential buyers?
My view. Some... but not all.

 

I think at that now mcLaren can talk about the performance of the P1 by whispering whatever they want to say in the ear of the potential buyer. If it didn't do the numbers they had hoped they've saved themself some embarrassment. If it beat the Porsche then there like "yeah we beat Porsche but were too cool to publish it because it's not really a competition". At this point regardless of what the P1 time is mclaren have disappointed the general public by jerking us around.

 

Did you miss your calling as a comedian?

Erik, your input on this forum is among the most informative and level-headed of any I know. I have learned much from your posts on both McLaren and Ferrari. I also appreciate your ability to shrug off McLaren's poor PR choices over the last couple months. Over the years, I've done the same with various other entities that I follow.

But you gotta admit man--their handling of this 'Ring business, especially now that they've effectively bought EVO's Trott--is pretty shameful. The racing pedigree of the F1 alone is enough to call everything they've done into question. Twenty years ago, Murray builds a car that, after a few modifications, shows up at LeMans and takes it outright. Now, Dennis has built a successor on the back of his promises, but after showing up at the 'Ring--which, in many ways, is the unofficial LeMans of our time because manufacturers don't really race their big boys anymore--he pulls the plug and cries moral foul.

It sucks. I love the P1. But this sucks. It's like going to a UFC fight only to see the most hyped fighter make a hippie speech about peace and then walk back through the tunnel.

 

I find it amusing that people are getting so bent out of shape over all this Ring business. McLaren definitely need an intervention regarding their, uh, "marketing," but I think there's very little probability the P1 isn't the quickest of the Lalalalala/P1/918 around a circuit. Even if it isn't, how many people are buying one car or the other because of a lap time during a non-standardized, unsanctioned, unsupervised testing procedure at one track? Very few. Most of the people convincing themselves people are making such a decision will likely own none of them outside of Gran Turismo 6. "Yes, I was definitely going to buy a P1 but then they didn't release the Ring time so I decided not to!"

Personally, I'd love to have any of the three regardless of what they ran at the Ring, as they push different buttons.

 

I am certainly no expert but to me what seems obvious is that when all 3 of these cars (918/LaF/P1) were designed using various special hybrid systems, the designers simply never took into consideration the performance of the vehicles over very long lap, minimal-braking tracks like the Ring. And thus when Dennis proclaimed the Ring time would be record-breaking, he didn't realize at the time the design limitations of his hybrid engine when used on a very unique track such as the Ring.

It's likely they calculated how much regenerative braking power could be generated over short tracks that require near constant braking etc and that ultimately we'll find out that all 3 of these cars will perform AS EXPECTED once they are taken to traditional tracks where lap times are 45s-2m.

I don't want to go as far as saying that Porsche got 'lucky' in the way they designed their hybrid system (remember their system too showed weak battery charge near the end of the lap on the last straight) but it seems both Mac and possibly Ferrari got 'unlucky' when they took the car to the Ring and likely discovered the design of their hybrid systems simply don't mesh well with the demands of that particular and unique track.

It puts them in an unenviable position of having a fantastic car that will likely outperform the 918 on almost ANY other Track, except for the one track that enthusiasts all look to for a measured evaluation of true performance. I hate to say it but if all 3 of these cars had traditional non-hybrid powerplants, the results would likely be as expected however with varying hybrid systems and the unique demands of the Ring, the results are simply skewed.

All that said, even if all 3 published their Ring lap time, I have a strong suspicion that the times for 2 consecutive laps for all 3 cars would be both shocking and disappointing.

 

Mac needs a wee bit more brand cache to do the Ferrari "talk to the hand" This is what I would say:

"Sorry Nick, and apologies to EVO and the rest of the world. We have a sensational car, the P1. However, it has been very difficult to optimize our car for The Ring. We had hoped for and anticipated a most extreme lap time, but as of now we have yet to reach that target. Sorry about your featured article. Much respect to Porsche. No surprise really, as they have a great car in the 918. Now lets talk about Ferrari's arrogance"

EVO needs to put out a new piece with the 918 instead. ' "Ring Meister" now with 910+ hp, Oh dear'

 

haha...great pic!

 

+1.

It should be the 918 on the cover of this months issue. Why they refer to a car that failed to perform at the Ring as the "Ringmaster" is beyond me, it makes absolutely no sense.

 

Agree with all of this, but there's no chance of Erik admitting that McLaren have seriously ****ed up with how they've handled this situation.

 

Makes perfect sense to me. Have you seen the car that the editor Trott has been driving this year for free?

 

I noticed. Sad to see.

 

...but on the flip side the new GT3 is EVO's new car of the year in the same issue.

In any case, the 918 offers a very impressive package. Not to mention that it is surely the more usable of the three and usability is something that strongly appeals to me.

 

I did - I work in technology instead. It is a terrible shame.

Thanks for the kind words - I try to keep it on an even keel despite having certain preferences. I am obviously not an official representative of McLaren, an employee or a stakeholder in any of this - I am just a fan of past projects and a hopeful optimist of what they have to offer automotive enthusiasts in the future.

Well I don't know about buying Trott, but McLaren's real mistake was made in Geneva when Ron spoke. If the world wasn't primed for a 'new benchmark' there would be far less controversy today over their current decisions. They clearly didn't start down this road with a complete plan and for that they deserve a lot of the grief they are getting.

The rest of it is mostly nonsense though with certain people very obviously painting the situation in the worst possible light to suit their arguments and biases. McLaren's insistence they will never produce the figure certainly gives these characters a comfortable position from which to claim anything they like. That part is what has me most entertained in all of this - partly because these times (still) don't matter to me and shouldn't matter nearly so much to them, but also because it was oh-so-predictable that some people would attempt to use this course change to their apparent advantage.

>8^)
ER

 

The safety comment from McLaren makes no sense as real races still occur there, and they don't make Toyota Corollas where safety really matters, ie. family cars.

What I don't understand is if I was there, and obviously people were there as we have the videos and photos, I would have timed the car. Now yes rumors are they were not stringing full laps together but I can't understand why somebody hasn't posted the times they took and yes if they were all slower than 8 minutes or something then we have some proof that they were only testing, not going for a lap. And if they did shatter the lap record, well we would know.

What has the world come to when people go to a race track to take videos and photos and not lap times ...

I have to conclude that McLaren failed and while driver ability and knowledge of the track is a big part of a lap time there, more significant there than any other track, I can't believe they can't design a track rocket that won't also work at this track. Bit of a fail, like designing a F1 car for Monaco only.

McLaren need to post Silverstone and Monza, etc. times real soon to regain some credibility IMO. They could at least state that those tracks are closed tracks and therefore their safety concerns make sense.
Pete

 

I agree. If you look at they way they set up the MP4-12C for the Top Gear track it smashed many other cars times. It seems that they perhaps aren't knowledgeable enough of the ring to do this.