Ferrari LaFerrari vs Mclaren P1 vs Porsche 918

IMO your posts are almost entirely tinfoil and a garnish of garbage. Are you embarrassed when you press submit?

 

1) Would love to see the P1 weighed? I bet the weight difference, would be a less than what you're saying.
2) You take McLaren's numbers as if their the gospel. Don't you know German HP, and Torque (and it's delivery, loss, and sustainability), is the creation of Black Forest Elves?
3) If the 918 loses 127 hp above 175 MPH, then an extra 11 mph (to 186 mph) would be nothing. Natural Momentum would carry past 186 in a blink. Remember, Car and Driver had 918 0-180 17.5 secs, and Sports Auto and Motor Und Sports had a Weissach and Non Weissach 918 under 20 secs 0-186 mph

4) More importantly: Instead of trying to discuss our feelings, or what we think, or should be; why doesn't McLaren just give the car to Sports Auto, Motor Trend, etc., so they can do a fully instrumented test, or H2H (as Motor Trend recently requested, and McLaren denied), to avoid all this? The more test the better.

Sutcliffe, has already been debunked numerous time. I'm sure, just like with Evo, if we do some hard digging, we can/win find out how Sutcliffe tried to protect McLaren in this article.

The British Jingoism and protectionism's really getting embarrassing, quite honestly.

 

Ello, mclaren fanboys and porsche's fanboys, too /Joking /

I'm still craving for more and more of LaFerrari.

Looking just on this

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zf4TMyB6Amw]Onboard LaFerrari to 213mph! - YouTube[/ame]

and 918 C&D test mentioned earlier, we can make some comparisons

mph ------- 918 ---- LaLa
-----------------------------
0-30 ------ 1.0 s --- 2.08 (very relaxed start vs F12 berlinetta to beat)
30-60 ----- 1.2 s --- 1.44 (still very relaxed)
60-100 ---- 2.7 s --- 2.48 <---------------here, look from now
100-130 --- 3.0 s --- 2.52
130-150 --- 2.6 s --- 2.32
...
130-160 --- 4.3 s --- 3.76


and I must add that 918 0-60 time is here claimed low: 2.2sec (!);
also should add that Porsche's times should be provided as 1.0x s for example
because they can have cut hundredths of the second.
(nevertheless it doesnt help porsche here very much against LaLa)

and I am waiting to see more and more of LaFerrari because I think it is really
stunning in every way the Ferrari intended it to be

cheers,

 

Hey Mark I got you man.

But, once again, you're asking me to tell why Porsche does or didn't do something...I dunno. Lol.

Maybe Porsche doesn't care? Maybe Porsche did find a problem; told Sutcliffe, and he didn't report, mention it? Maybe, there was no problem, and Sutcliffe just implied his numbers (under 30 secs), and Porsche complained, and Sutcliffe did nothing about it? I don't know (though I have my own thoughts). Lol.

I agree the numbers make no sense. However, if Boytoy is correct; that Sutcliffe didn't' report any actual high speed acceleration times, and just ambiguous "over 20 secs", "under 30 secs", and Porsche may not have liked it. But only a fair magazine would recognize and adjust those numbers. I didn't see any of the other numbers, as I haven't read the article yet.

Once again: I see plenty test, where cars underperformed, and the magazine usually explains why (bad/wrong tires, broken this, broken that, or Manufacturer could only get development vehicle, etc.). So it happens more often then you think.

Remember, many of these articles are published weeks, sometimes months after the cars are tested, while the test car is gone and away to another magazine, traveling to one, or back at HQ being serviced, prepared for another mag. So unless, a magazine is willing to sit on an article (probably not), the test usually gets published. Everyone (including the cars) are on a time schedule.

Hope that helps?

 

Ditto!!

 

0.5 has been well published, and spoken by Porsche.

It's true ( being too lazy to pull up a press sheet, interview or article). Smile.

 

That's what I told him, in a much nicer, lengthier, diplomatic fashion. Lol

 

So working in the automotive industry for so long, what part of the ''p1 also blitzes the 918'' don't you understand

 

Steve Sutcliffe, doesn't qualify as an automotive Journalist anymore.

He's already been debunked in this argument numerous times, even before his latest creation.

So I'm sure he "wouldn't understand" indeed. Lol

 

I think you need to wake up and face reality

 

I prefer to understand more from measurable parameters...
From this underneath, what you don't understand?
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

I don't see a p1 compared in the same place and time under the same circumstances.

Scientifically, the latest autocar issue offers a more controlled experiment, with the p1 giving better results

 

Scroll around 15cm. above, put some glasses and look again...

 

Ok, since you said so.

I remember the Evo H2H, TG H2h, Motor Trend (where the P1 was invited but declined), Car & Driver, Sports Auto, Motor Auto Und Sport, and Road & Track realities.

 

Your argument has is invalid because according to the 'latest' data

The p1 proved to be faster

 

Why would Porsche design the car to lose all of that power on the top end, where you need all of that power the most? Doesn't make sense on a supercar of this caliber.

Seems like either a) cheap, not very well thought out design or b) intentionally designed because they know the battery will be discharged before 165mph.

IMO that would explain the 918's relative shortcomings on a high-speed circuit like the ring, and also how those shortcomings don't show up on the smaller tracks where other magazines have tested.

 

data? where did you saw data?

 

Yes drift this has already been clarified. P1 has regen at all times from emachine which is permanently attached to the crank.

These guys are still speculating based off flawed logic.

 

The 918 was designed to be fast on tracks and real world use not straight lines . That's why on timed track tests it has beaten the p1 every time .
Even though if you do the maths and look at every single other performance test , something was obviously not right with this 918 . Every single test has them within seconds or split seconds of each other now there's a 10 second difference to 200 ? Too funny
Wether a driver error ( driving after depletion of battery in e mode for example ) or a car problem something was definitely wrong ( on that run ) as anyone with a calculator can plainly see . These cars are not fool proof .
Regarding buntingthorpe , it's an airfield , much wider than any race track and definitely advantageous to the p1 and the downforce as there is so much space to corner unnaturally with a super wide line . On road and track so far 918 has been superior , p1 can have the airfield victory with Suttcliffe , lol . Congratulations

 

+1, riddled with ad-hominem attacks.

 

My real world is filled with straight lines. Perhaps you don't get on the highway much?

 

How many times you are racing with cars up to 200 mph on the highway in Louisiana?

 

Spot on!
And once again - we are talking about one and the same car - S GO9184, used in all tests before (AMS, AZ and TG...)

 

Given the ridiculous number of posts and pages of inconclusive drivel regarding P1 and 918 can we just agree that they are pretty well matched and move on? Don't understand the point in this, well, pointless debate.

 

Not racing, per se, but you would be surprised!