Ferrari LaFerrari vs Mclaren P1 vs Porsche 918

The most important metric there is the standing mile time and there's nothing in it

 

Hahahaha. This is so hilarious. P1 haters are embarrassing. Lemme give you the timeline of events.

1. P1 haters all claim it's not 903hp all the time and make it out to be a huge negative.
2. Claim is proved wrong.
3. P1 haters claim the 918 needs to run in Hot Lap mode and for a test to be fair.
4. Hot Lap mode is yields massively inconsistent results due to it not trying to maintain battery power.

Someone please explain to me why you were all bashing the P1 over the retarded 903hp rumor, but now claim the 918 needs to run in a mode that will only last a short period of time.

Which car is the "nitrous" car now?

 

AMuS/sportauto hit 100 mph (160 km/h) in 5.1 seconds, 150 mph (240 km/h) in 10.1 seconds & 300 km/h in 19.1 seconds with the same press car (!!!) while autocar recorded much slower 5.7 seconds to 100 mph, 11.4 seconds to 150 mph and 29.7 seconds to 200 mph (320 km/h), also TopGear magazine recorded 5.0 seconds to 100 mph with the same press car, so between the TopGear magazine's results & the AMuS/sportauto results there is only a 0.1 second delta in their figures to 100 mph, yet autocar's figures register a 0.7 second delta to just 100 mph with the same press car. The autocar results are inconsistent with other data recorded with the same press car. From what I could tell (and it has been mentioned already in this 'mother of all threads'), autocar used race-mode rather than hotlap mode, why didn't they use hotlap mode when in a drag race such as this max. power is what you want...unless you wanted results to go a certain way perhaps?

 

The cars are very close. 918 has fairly irrelevant low speeds (launching) and P1 has fairly irrelevant high speeds (200mph). P1 is slightly quicker everywhere in betwee, but not massively so.

P1 vs 918

30 - 60: 1.49s vs 1.42s
30 - 100: 4.03s vs 4.17s
30 - 150: 9.43s vs 9.9s
30 - 200: 21.54s vs 28.17s

60 - 100: 2.54s vs 2.75s
60 - 150: 7.94s vs 8.48s
60 - 200: 20.05s vs 26.75s

100 - 150: 5.4s vs 5.73s
100 - 200: 17.51s vs 24s

150 - 200: 12.11s vs 18.27s

 

Who cares? Different day, different place. Both P1 and 918 were off .7s from 0-100. It doesn't make the test invalid. Just ****tier road or something.

There's actually a good reason not to use HL mode. Just because they did a standing mile, it does not mean they are trying to illustrate just drag racing results. Standing mile illustrates acceleration across various speed intervals. Race Mode on the NR leads to a significantly lower time, however, they can run Race Mode all day and achieve the same times more consistently. They can't run HL mode nearly as long due to the aggressive battery usage. That's why it's called Hot Lap Mode. Obviously it's not a consistent thing otherwise the mode wouldn't exist and it would just be called Race Mode.

Do you want to see results that are indicative of what the car and consistently do or do you want to see what it can do for 2.5 laps before the battery is dead? IMO it doesn't make sense to test a car in a mode that won't be consistent. You don't want a test to include dead batteries and you don't want a test to include a mode that can't be used all the time, just like you don't want to include much data when the tires and brakes are shot.

 

As a ferrari fan super disappointed they didn't show! They've created a great car! Even if it was slower in a drag race would that matter? Wouldn't matter to me! And wouldn't matter to a lot of their fans as well

 

So if I am hearing you correctly - we should throw out inconsistent test data from AutoCar because it is clearly irrelevant. Funny though, because most of the Porsche-faithful here have been hanging half their arguments on the P1's previous AutoCar test data that also offered rather inconsistent results. Hmmm...

Here it sounds like you are saying that the 918 only offers maximum power in one mode - a mode that causes it to fully deplete its battery reserve in rapid fashion, thus leaving its performance completely crippled thereafter. I could swear that had been the claim people were quite recently leveling at the P1. Hmmm...

Maybe it's time to change the 918's marketing slogan to "But wait, there's no more..."

#itsafeature

>8^)
ER

 

Absolutely - this moratorium on La Ferrari testing and the threats that come along with it are more of a let down than the 918's lap time at the 'Ring still being slower than the P1's.

>8^)
ER

 

I think we could argue about HL mode all day long as we could about IPAS...it was an attempt to may be explain the delta. However, I do believe that the autocar figures are inconsistent with other magazine's results. If we only had the TopGear results and the autocar results you may have a point, however, the 918 had been tested by many mags and the 0 to 100 mph figures are pretty consistent for the 918 (I only cite the 918 here as it has had most intrumented tests done, so the sample size is reasonable):

AMuS/SportAuto 5.1 secs (*)
TopGear 5.0 secs (*)
C&D 4.9 secs
R&T 5.1 secs
Autozeitung 5.2 secs (*)

(*) same press car

C&D also recorded a 0 - 150 mph time of 10.5 seconds on a non-WS car, in line with the AMuS/SportAuto figure. R&T recorded a 0 - 140 mph time of 9.5 seconds. Autozeitung recorded 0 - 300 km/h (~ 187.5 mph) of 19.5 seconds (very similar to the AMuS/SportAuto time).

 

Question, does HL mode have ANY battery regen?

Yeah, I know, it was probably explained 300 pages ago mired in ring slinging… so indulge me

 

You're missing the point.

As you said, the TG test for example has the 918 and P1 doing 0-100 mph in 5s. Both cars, not just the 918. Why are you claiming the 918 numbers are wrong and too slow, yet not drawing the exact same conclusion about the P1? If you want to subtract .7s, go ahead and do so, but make sure you do it for the P1 as well.

Compared to the TG test, the cars are off by .7s and .78s. More or less identical. CD recorded 0-150 in 10.5s? Ok, well this test was only off by .93s -- and we already know .7s of that time is from 0-100mph. You seriously find another .23s difference from 100 - 150mph suspect?

If so, you're crazy and I can't help you with that.

 

Then you don't understand IPAS as it doesn't change the ultimate power level of the P1, like Hot Lap mode apparently does in the 918. It simply gives the driver push-button control over when the E-motor adds its power while 'Boost' mode is engaged. If you never engage 'Boost' mode the P1 will simply handle it all for you.

KERS is still active in Hot Lap mode, but that's the only regeneration it receives. That alone isn't enough to keep the battery from going flat and the car doesn't do anything to prevent it based on my understanding.

>8^)
ER

 

My point is that there is a wealth of data illustrating that the 918 had been consistently faster to 100 mph by almost a second than in the autocar test by many magazines in no doubt varying conditions, so it would seem unrepresentative. The same can be observed with the 0 - 150 mph recorded times. There much less data for the P1, so I cannot comment on this and it's performance and how representative it is.

 

It's funny that everyone is talking about Hotlap mode and accusing Autocar for not using while not realizing that Sport Auto had the car in Sport mode. Huh

As previous posters noted, P1 was also that much slower than other tests.

 

Obviously the road was worse and thus the launch was worse.

0-100mph: .7s slower than you expect
100-150mph: .23s slower than you expect

And it's not like it's just the 918 that's a bit off. Look at the 0-60 time for the P1. 3.24s? A 12C can do 3-3.1s all day, and the TG time for the P1 and 918 were 2.7s and 2.5s respectively.

Clearly it's not just the 918 numbers that are off.

Both cars are a bit off their best and the differences are pretty similar. To me it's obvious that it just comes down to test conditions and that there is nothing wrong with either car. It's likely, and apparent IMO, that both cars suffered a bit down low, where traction is more relevant and road conditions play a bigger part.

 

That is good info as regards the sportauto test, may need to re-read that as I said earlier, it was an attempt to explain the delta between the autocar test and most other instrumented tests of the 918. Overall the Autocar results are somewhat off most other magazines, as I just said in my previous post, there is less data on the P1 to reach the same conclusion one way or the other, over time this will no doubt change.

 

You do realized what the engineer said is vague and contradict to what the official word from McLaren about not having brake regen right?

You need something, to capture the kinetic energy, on road cars, that means the load on the e-motor will be coming from the wheels up, through gearbox and then to the e-motor. That load will also means it will apply a deceleration force on the car, like engine drag/engine braking but in this case electric motor drag. That drag means regen braking. Regen braking doesn't means the brake pedal has to be used.

If McLaren states that the P1 doesn't have regen braking, that means they do not use the load from the tires/wheel up, and there is only 2 ways in a drive train where load can be applied to the e-motor to charge, either the road side or the engine side. Which also means the e-motor is getting it's load from the engine, that's called gasoline powered charging.

Under braking, engine power is not needed for propulsion duty, and the P1 directed that power into the e-motor to charge.

 

A swedish magazine called automotorsport has had a head to head test between the Porsche 918, LaFerrari and Bugatti Veyron. It will be out in stores on the 16th of October.

 

Has the 918 been to the ring again?

Will they have any hard facts, or will it be more "gut" feelings and vague driving impressions?
Wonder how they got a hold of a Laf

 

Don't know, lets see. I also wonder that.

 

Noone,
you are right in most points, but this comes to proof that P1 is absolutely consistent in BOTH Autocar tests:

First test/ Second test:
0-60: 2,8 vs 3,24 (deff not the best start here...)
0-100: 5,2 vs 5,78
0-150: 10,6 vs 11,18
0-190: 21,4 vs N/A, but around 22?

So, obviously P1 achieved almost one and the same and obviously its maximum potential (plus around 0,5 sec).

The questions is, what happened with the 918? It was launched badly and lost around 0,7 untill 100, which isn't a big deal and we can say it was consistent, but what happened at 150? To "hit a brick" as he said means two things - front motor shut off or battery depleted! First thing not possible, because 918 shuts its front motor at 170mph, not 130-150. And he was absolutely certain - 150mph!

918 isn't possible to take around 11 sec from 300-320km/h with one and the same car, tested twice before. For comparison reason, just look how effortlessly it accelerate from 330 - 350km/h (I know, speedo, but anyway around 12 seconds at THIS level...)
http://youtu.be/NmpBPXJ4-OA

Car which "hits a brick" at 240km/h can't do that, right?

 

Unfortunately, don't expect much... German AMS already published such "comparo" but it was only bla, bla... Doubt the Swedish edition to do more, than just translate it...

 

Ohh, ****...

 

Actually the motor shuts off at 164.5mph I think, but in any case, you're asking the wrong question. You shouldn't be asking what happened at 150; you should be asking what happened from 165-200 or from 185-200.

As you know, the time required as the speeds get higher becomes significantly longer. Not all 50mph intervals are created equal. The last 10mph are nowhere near the first 10mph in that range. I've seen videos of cars taking a super long time just to get the final 2-3 mph in the top speed. And not only are you looking at too big of a speed range from 150-200, you're also looking at 15mph with the front motor and 35mph without it. In short, it's just not a good range to be analyzing.

As for the speedo video, I just don't think that's a reliable source. Aside from the speedo error at such levels, the autobahn is far from flat. Could be significantly downhill for all we know. Best not to read too much into these kinds of videos.

Oddly enough, that video has the speedo reading higher than Porsche's claimed top speed and he's doing it in 6th gear instead of 7th. Is 7th gear not used for acceleration in the 918?

 

If I were AC, I'd just say **** it and test the LF.

Who cares if they don't invite you back in 10 years for the next one? You telling me you won't be able to get your hands on standard model Ferraris from a 3rd party test in the future?