Ferrari LaFerrari vs Mclaren P1 vs Porsche 918

How many customer cars do you think are going to spend any serious time at tracks to justify the track only downforce decision?

Its akin to making the P1 an amphibious vehicle just in case a customer fancies a short cut. In fact that may have been of more use than downforce the owner can't use day to day.

 

i disagree with that. in the case of laferrari perhaps, but i think 918's and p1's will be track-ed plenty

 

I absolutely agree. Aside from the people collecting these cars, I believe a large percentage of the remaining owners will spend some time exploiting this tech at the track.. The car still delivers considerable downforce in street trim as the dual element wing is still deployed but obviously not to the extent found in RACE mode.

 

I'm definitely tracking mine. Its the safest way to enjoy it fully.

 

Ginge82, the purpose of these types of cars is to advance important technology to a new level. That's why they're once in a blue moon vehicle programs. In the case of the 918, it's mainly their hybrid technology. With P1 the same but different, as well as its active aerodynamics. With the LaFerrari, probably a bit of both and interior packaging, at least until we know more. So, unless you're a Luddite or a technophobe, I wouldn't knock any of them for moving the game onwards in any respect.

 

Once the p1 has all fluids on board it will be only 100/130 kg lighter than the 918 .
The 918 is a multi use Supercar , I hate the word hypercar , ( a cabrio !) that happens to monster tracks . The p1 is a track monster that was mean to monster everything at the ring etc and work on the road .
I know who I think has done a better job .

 

I am well aware of their technological merits and I'm also aware the Ferrari is unlikely to be driven, like most Ferrari supercars sadly, the P1 likely to see little track use and that leaves the 918, which is likely to be the most usable and therefore likely to be the most used and enjoyed.

I judge their technological merits accordingly. Again, lets just see how many owners start bringing their P1's to tracks where its party trick can be most enjoyed. We have 375 to watch out for.

 

I think LaF will be the most user friendly car of the trio in terms of suspension

 

More than the 918? Doesn't seem to be so from the pictures at least...

 

When you start having to talk about stuff like what is or what isn't road-legal, legal limits and speed limits, user-friendliness, driveability, luggage space and road-comfort in order to justify one car over another, then it has lost the battle to be the best supercar.

Case-in-point, the 959 was a four wheel drive daily driveable luxurious tech-laden supercar, while the F40 was noisy, uncomfortable and held together with green glue. The F40 was clearly the winner among the press and among the 1980s buying public. That said the 959 was still a great car.

 

The 918's great noise, ridiculous acceleration and its ability to scare the piss out of anyone brave enough to push it are a given at this point.

Those things you mention are an aside to its brilliance as a driving experience and not an attempt to find a silver lining. They are also things many potential owners consider whether they are palatable to you or not when discussing these types of vehicles. If you don't think that's accurate ask a F40/supercar owner if they could change things about their cars what would those things be, especially those that drive them frequently.

 

Mr Craigy , we can kid ourselves all day long that these are raw drivers cars . The truth is these are not , they are laden with electronics to enable the average joe to keep a car with f1 levels of power , road tyres and limited aero on the road with the minimum skill . In that case why not make the cars good at everything ? These will spend as much time in cities and on roadtrips as on track ( in fact vastly more time will be doing more normal things ). A dedicated track / race car is better and more fun anyway on track . What fun is it wizzing around 10 times faster than all your friends anyway ? Everyone is selling these cars that they can do multiple things , even Mclaren .
The truth is buyers of these cars already have the old raw stuff ,none of these cars are anything like an F50 , f40 or carrera gt and theres no point kidding ourselves otherwise .

 

Or the least user friendly of the 3, considering its low ride height, non-adjustable suspension and long overhang. That's my guess

 

I completely agree with your perspective regarding these cars. owners will be lucky and should enjoy them plenty for what they are.

 

that long over, and the flat angle of its lower lip, is what will make real world roads/streets more of a challenge than one would think. the nose lift feature is definitely needed for this car...making steep entry and exit doable. but of course, this lift feature wont help when driving over very bumpy roads.

 

yep

 

completely different era. so much more is expected from high end cars today, whether merely a sports car or a super/hyper car. many things about the F40 would be unacceptable if it rolled off the assembly line now. laws have changed tremendously over the years as well. it could never be built like that these days.

 

But it would sell like hot cakes if it did. Lets face it we all long for raw cars still. The car that feels the rawest here will win the magazine comparisons when we get to that level ... IMO.

I personally don't see the point of a 900hp car if it requires electronics to keep it down to manageable levels. I'd rather have a 500hp car and no electronics and scare myself
Pete

 

don't just give me numbers, give me what they mean 'in practice'. your '1000lbs, it just isn't a fair fight' ... the extra 250lbs vs. P1 is a lot more detrimental on paper. in Magazine Racing, you might as well throw in the towel just looking at the weight figure. GTR is classic case of "there's no way it's that fast because it's so heavy (3750lbs). latest Nismo GTR ran ridiculous sub 7:05. yes, it had Ring tuned dampers, and the engine map optimized for unique nature of NS, but the bottom line is this: a 600hp, 3700lb car lapped pretty much neck and neck with P1's BTG 7:04.

of course, if you could be lighter, you always want to. wear and tear, etc. but we're talking about 3650lbs, not 4650lbs. in reality 918 obviously has great agility given its rear steering (it drives a lot smaller than it specs). it has excellent corner entry, mid corner stability, and massive grip coming out at corner exit. despite being a 'pig' at 3650lbs, it even stops right up there with the worlds best. what about straight line drag racing? the extra weight clearly hurts the car...err...not so much. we're more than likely going to see 0-60 in 2.4sec (Porsche's latest claim is at 2.5sec, given history of conservative claims, it should nip that time) the estimates for P1 and Laf is 2.8 (massively quick for rear drive). at the NS, was the extra weight (relative to the p1) the 918's downfall? um, no. See, I left 'weight' out of it because I don't think it is a huge factor. the P1 is only around 250lbs lighter, not the 500-700lbs that many were expecting. So given the nature of the vehicles and their missions, it is actually amazing that the Porsche actually weighs so little with all the tech it features. so, does the P1 being 250lbs lighter actually put it so much out of reach performance and usability wise? No and no. the 918 has massive performance, in a straight line, and around a track. in the 918 the benefits offset the added weight, especially at tracks like the NS and on typical roads. all of the tech is clearly meant as trickle down, so it's quite an achievement in packaging, never mind that they even got everything to work at all. you're right, it's not a fair fight. in fact, it's not a fight at all. it's a non-issue.

as for the downforce. P1 clearly has an edge at its most extreme, its lowest and stiffest ride setting. so, its advantage will be when it's in an optimal setting (smooth, sweeping fast, race track). 80% of the time (I'm guessing based on ratio of street vs track use, plus types of tracks even when driven there) drivers won't be able to tap into that downforce advantage. at the NS, P1's maximum downforce was really inconsequential. in fast driving in the 'real world', I'm thinking the P1 still has more downforce potential but both cars will be much closer than if they were at their extremes. which means 918 gives up nothing under those conditions. yes, P1's massive 1300lbs potential is impressive as a static figure, but in practice it is not nearly. so the question goes back to the original post (the p1 is on another level to 918, that you can't compare the two): what is it that makes the P1 a machine that is on an entirely different level, so that the 'second class citizen' 918 just can't compete?

 

F40 can do that with 100hp less and I wouldn't change a thing about it.

FWIW, the P1 does feel very raw. not as raw as F40 because of better braking and TC. More like stradale.

 

Why are they not build road cars with both the undercar and external wings attached to the suspension so we don't need rock hard suspension with downforce.

Remember F1 only mandated that wings were not allowed to be directly attached to the suspension because they kept falling off. 40+ years later we know how to do this properly so no longer a problem.

Time to move forward and separate the wings from the body and down force only needs to affect the tyre patch, nothing else.

Colin's twin chassis car had it very right. The P1 would have the benefit of it's apparently high downforce everywhere if they implemented this.
Pete

 

Are you listening to yourself? Make it comfy for roadtrips? Make the car good at everything, and have a dedicated track car? What fun is being faster than your friends?

Thanks for proving my point.

 

I've never heard an F40 owner say "you know, I wish this car was more plush."

And F40 owners typically have a lot to say

 

I know what I want in a car . Just my visceral raw p and f cars ( not including other Marques, and more regular use sportscars ) number well over a dozen . I don't need an electronics laden Supercar to pretend to be a raw visceral car . I have enough of the real ones thank you very much .
If multiple uses in this new breed of Supercar are not important why does mclaren make such a big deal of it , why does Porsche ?
You listen to yourself , I live in the real world where the average driver doesn't have the skill to use a 900 plus hp car on the roads without bogging them down with electronics .
Madness .

As for being faster than your friends , that's only fun when you are in similar cars . Not them in a gt3 rs and me in a p1 or 918 , lol
I'm sorry if the concept of actual interaction with your friends on track is difficult to grasp . It's nice to be fastest because you can drive not because of your car .

 

Truth be told, the average driver cannot even use 500 HP efficiently (i.e. without spinning here and there) without traction aids and/or 4WD. That said, you can always switch all the systems off and you have the raw, visceral experience that you want. The only issue is that you will have nearly 1000 HP (LaFerrari era) instead of 500 HP (F40 era) to deal with. Supercars in the past decade or so have had electronic aids in order to become both faster and safer. In a way electronics also make the car more focused as the manufacturers don't have to build so much leeway into the chassis and suspesion setup in order to make it driveable. Thus, these cars can be set up with less understeer and a more razor-sharp behaviour that will be tamed by the electronics if things go very wrong. Same thing happens with fighter jets. They are aerodynamically unstable in order to be as agile as possible. That would make them very hard to pilot without all the computers that ensure that the plane stays airborne. But in the end they are both better and safer than their ancestors.