Whats with Ferrari and bogus HP numbers?

I haven't done 0 to 60 or 1/4 mile official results in my f12. My f12 came with Bridgestone tires .

P1 was losing against 650 with both using launch Upto 120 mph. It was a fair race. Was I surprised when this happened? No, I wasn't because I've driven both extensively. I was surprised how the official 0 to 60 times was faster in a p1 then a 650 when in real life it's not


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Let me say thanks for taking the time to respond. Your post is very good and I will admit I am engaged in 'magazine' racing right now. If there is one thing both 04G and I agree in, is your credibility here. I still think your 162 was awesome, but I can understand the argument (it should be more) -Very fair.

However, given you said the 911s were tuned (I'm assuming you F12 is stock) - I still argue it's an exaggeration to say the F12 is at the BOTTOM of the class. Do please correct me if I am wrong to believe this.

Here is a link to the official data just case anybody wants to check it out for themselves.

Shift S3ctor CA Airstrip Attack Results

Probably the best comment of the whole thread.

 

I respect your relative anonymity here/ wanting to separate the church and state but you mind if I post your IG handle? Despite being a long time member here, I've stopped reading and or posting (largely b/c of the attitudes displayed in this thread) until you mentioned the thread on IG. If anyone had reason to doubt what you'd said, they could watch video proof.

 

Bayareanady is my I/g. I posted a nice in car vid of my soeciale today from our Ferrari drive


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Indeed. Enjoyed that video - the Capristo exhaust sounds great. Hope to catch you at Cars and Croissants sometime.

 

As mentioned earlier, I've ran some simple Statistical Analysis on the numbers Paul provided. All data will be analyzed with a 95% Confidence Interval (5% chance of being wrong). I'll separate the posts out for simplicity.

Chart 1.
Overlaid histograms of all cars. As you can see, although the Bugatti takes third place in regard to top MEAN speed, it has by far the most consistent results. We call this Standard Deviation or Sigma. Also note a clumping of cars between 160 and 165 and others trailing behind.

Chart 2.
This is an ANOVA (Analysis of Variation) which tells us whether the cars have Equal of Unequal Variation. This is an important condition to resolve when determining whether the data from separate groups are statistically equal.

Chart 3.
This is AMOM (Analysis of MEAN). This is the second component in determined whether the data is statistically equal. Any point outside the red lines is >2 Sigma (95% CI) away from group MEAN suggesting that it is not statistically equal to the group.

In summary of this group, the cars are NOT statistically EQUAL (P<0.05).

What you can also see is that the cars are grouped into three subgroups:
1. P1, Veyron, 918
2. 911 Turbo's, F12
3. 650's, Huracan

I'll run further analysis on subgroups 1 and 2.
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Next we have the analysis of Group 1 being the Veyron, Porsche 918 and McLaren P1.

These cars had obvious distinction from the rest of the pack but are they equal to themselves?

Chart 4.
Overlaid histograms. I chose a Weibull since this had to best distribution fit

Chart 5.
ANOVA. P= 0.142. Cars have Equal Variance

Chart 6.
ANOM. MEANS are the same with a 5% chance of being wrong.

Just to be absolutely sure, I ran a 2 sample T-test to confirm each car in this subgroup did have EQUAL MEAN.

Chart 7.
Mclaren P1 vs. Veyron (P=0.164)

Chart 8.
Mclaren P1 vs. Porsche 918 (P=0.211)

Chart 9.
Veyron vs. Porsche 918 (P=0.809)

In summary, all of these cars in this subgroup are statistically EQUAL
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Now let's analyze Group 2. This subgroup includes the 2011 Porsche Turbo S, 2015 Porsche Turbo S and Ferrari F12.

Chart 10.
Overlaid histograms.

Chart 11.
ANOVA. P= 0.681. Cars have EQUAL Variance

Chart 12.
ANOM. MEANS are the same with a 5% chance of being wrong.

Again, to be absolutely sure, I ran a 2 sample T-test to confirm each car in this subgroup did have EQUAL MEAN.

Chart 13.
T-test between 2011 Porsche and 2015 Porsche . (P=0.590)

Chart 14.
T-test between 2011 Porsche Turbo S vs. Ferrari F12 (P=0.578)

Chart 15.
T-test between 2015 Porsche Turbo S vs. Ferrari F12 (P=0.748)

In summary, the Porsche 911 Turbo's and Ferrari F12 are statistically EQUAL
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

My head is spinning! I am sure I would be very impressed if I were clever enough to understand this!

 

I'll post some more commentary since it looks like it's getting to be more of a technical analysis now.

It's not as simple as just using graphs and the data from shift sector. Veyron and 918 owner are veterans of this event and have a full support/racing team with them.

P1 speeds varied for a few different reasons which I'll elaborate on once I get home (note; I was expecting 180 mph over half a mile based on what other owners had done at similar type events. I kept tweaking. (tire pressures, race mode vs non race mode until I got what I felt was the correct result)




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I underlined the important parts.

Veyron, Porsche 918 and McLaren P1 are statistically equal meaning, you can run these cars against each other as often as you like and there will be little chance you can predict the winner within a 95% Confidence Interval. Same goes for the 911 Turbo's and F12.

I should also repeat that this analysis is based on the data provided in the linked image from Paul's post. The F12 having only a few sample points is disadvantaged in regard to Standard Deviation. IOW, too may assumptions have to be made to complete the analysis.

 

W@W!

Sam, I thought you were just joking when you said you would run the stat analysis!!

Holy Cow!

ExoticDreamer's run while your data may say statistically similar, is all the more impressive since he was approaching it without full racing team support.

Well, Done! (he still won)

Now to the big question, is the F12 at the bottom of 'exotic' class? I believe only 'bolt-on' modification are allowed. ExoticChaser's car I think was tuned (I earlier said it was stock)

It sounds like, from his recollection, he broke 160 once (hit 163) - but felt it was just a wrong anomalous time, the other runs all were sub 160. The OPs original argument is why is the 911s (tuned or not) consistently hitting 160s+.

Could be a myriad of reasons, but as far as the premise if the F12 is 'over-reporting' HP, I have not yet seen anybody provide evidence of so. So while it while true the F12 is not as consistent, or heck is truly slower then say a 911t - until some real evidence that there is a consistent over-reporting of HP #s - it's speculation at best.

I think this may be a more valid criticism, and I respect it based on "exoticchasers" own experiences.

Got to say Thanks Sam for all the analysis - very cool of you to do.

 

You're welcome but to be fair, the analysis is still incomplete without sufficient and equal sample sizes. 14 is plenty. 6 should be minimum but 3 is way too low.

PS. I just realized that you linked the SS Excel spreadsheet. I typed all the data in which explains the spelling errors

 

Frankly a rwd loses a lot of power as it cannot be delivered effectively or efficiently you need much more power compared to a rear engine car.

 

At the end of the day, isn't that what this is all about - traction? Irrespective of the amount of power, if you can't put it down effectively and turn it into forward motion, you aren't going to post good standing start acceleration times.

When it comes to traction, a front engine, RWD car is going to be at a disadvantage even to a rear engine RWD car with the same power, and cannot hope to hold a candle to a car with 4WD. So the apparently poor results for the F12 are not about lack of power, but poor traction.

There is, however, more to a car than standing start acceleration times, especially if you don't want to spend all your money on tires and clutches!

 

Yes, the TQ curve and how the gearbox ratios are matched to it are a significant factor in a vehicles ability to attain velocity efficiently. If one has the relevant data the TQ thrust scalar for each of the vehicles would explain the results very well.

For the laymen, the engine produces 'X' amount of TQ at each RPM point given that this is more or less a constant the gearbox provides the needed TQ multiplication to get to a desired speed, how fast in time that occurs comes down the TQ of the engine and the gear ratio of the transmission. The envelope that the engine and gearbox are working in also include traction limits and vehicle weight. A TQ thrust scalar chart will include this data and would be very telling as to what the vehicle is capable of. Sometimes the gearing is off enough to where speed is lost before shifting into the next gear, or traction limits are exceeded to cause a loss of speed due to a lack of traction. Bottom line, at a certain point it's not just power to weight that dictates the faster vehicle but how effective that power is applied to forward motion. Historically Ferrari has the worst gear ratios and thrust scalars I've ever charted.

 

I'm still wondering about driver related error and a delay in the shift to a higher gear by a 0.1 to 0.2 sec at speed. When the delta is 2-6 MPH, that's a hundred feet or so of acceleration missed.

 

Hi Curt,

A good thing is this thread gave me exposure to "Shift S3ctor" events.

They really do look cool (no sarcasm)

It looks like a lot of fun. Taking the OPs claims at face value, I looked up other speed traps for Ferrari and was only able to find more 2 more F12s (I could not find he 458 S that exoticdreamer mentioned, nor the other Ferrari the OPs mentioned as well - although I believe them).

In one event with the F12, as the OP stated, they did not break 160. Interestingly enough though, I discoverd one of the drivers is somebody I've had drives with in the past. He brought an F12, and an Aventador (he also owns a 458 SA) - both (F12, Aventador) lost to a Huracan and both had the same trap speed (154). Next time I see him, I will ask him for additional context.

Now "exoticchaser" mentioned this data doesn't seem to jive with his recollection for his specific event, so I am open to the possibility that the data might be trash. If so, it makes an objective analysis impossible.

here is the raw data Sam

Cheers

 

Using launch control the car shifts for you.

Rolling start it can be done differently. For example, you can shift the entire time (obviously driver can shift at the incorrect RPM) or you can go manual and leave it in second gear and when you pass the relevant cone you can punch down the accelerator and then change it to auto simultaneously. Note: this is for rolling start. From a standing start people would use launch control.

 

Here's some vids. Huracan vs 650 (both stock). I know the huracan owner and talked to him about this (he usually drives an underground racing lambo. I wouldn't get too focused on which car gets down the airstrip first since one driver can get off the line later then the other.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjriWf-Wq3o

 

my favorite vid. P1 vs 650. Fair race both using launch control. This is an example of what I mean when I don't necessarily trust manufacture times. The 650 was ahead until about it's fourth gear change. This was an accurate representation of both cars. No driver error.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XyiNKI2KtnU

 

I have attended events similar to this with friends who are car guys and have run there cars etc...

I was happy to see the rolling start... but I was shocked to see how many people used the wrong gear still...

A friend of mine took his 430 and was one gear too low and just past the start line had to change up... he couldn't figure out why he was so slow... I payed attention to his next run figured out that he was at the top of the rev range and said... try one gear higher next time. He thought I was nuts... next thing you know he comes back thanking me and was several miles an hour faster...

I was shocked at how people didn't know this as it seems like common sense to me... but also I thought the rolling start would eliminate the variables of bad drivers... turns out... nothing can be eliminated... only reduced

 

You guys tell me what you want me to analyse and I'll give it a crack.

 

Thanks Sam,

I think the age old adage of "garbage in, garbage out" may apply to this stats. "Exoticdreamer" mentioned he felt the previous data set was completely out of wack. You should probably hold off since the data might be corrupted.

I know that Shift S3ctor said that they had problems with measuring equipment in earlier events, so this maybe fallout from that.

I believe the more recent Oregon Data will be released soon, I hear the equipment there was much more robust. (but just speculation on my part)

Be well and drive in good health.

 

It's commendable that you are trying to do this.

Paul is correct with the garbage in/garbage out.

The 918/veyron/tuned 650s are veterans of the event. They knew what they were doing from the get go.

Most of the rest of us were just out there to have a good time. Only when I started seeing the requests for the go pro's to be put on the cars and the tremendous number of youtuber's, instagram people did it take on a serious note. It sort of took the fun out of it because things got serious really fast. We started to understand that the results were going to be broadcast all over youtube and people analyzing and over analyzing the results/videos without knowing the entire story.

As an example; I was told ahead of time that I would trap at a higher speed if I did not put it in race mode (ie., have the wing up in the p1). First time I went down the air strip all of the warning bells came on the car and I could see on my on board dash that all four tires went red and car started limping. It detected that conditions weren't ideal and started to protect itself and myself. I started talking to Mclaren and I was told to lower the tire pressures from 32 psi to 24 psi and put it in race mode. In race mode the alarms will still go on but as an FYI and the car wouldn't go into limp mode. Next time I went down the strip the car didn't go into limp mode and I trapped higher. Once the tires were in the proper temperature I then went back to non race mode and that is when I trapped 179 mph.

Therefore, trying to do a statistical analysis won't really work. Myself and James (whom I think paul referenced in an earlier post) can tell you that in the ideal conditions with the f12 we consistently trapped lower then huracan, 650 and aventador. The biggest surprise to all of us was the huracan. It was pretty neck and neck with 650 and aventador despite having a lot less horsepower. Also, f12 was surprising because it consistently trapped lower then the three that I just mentioned.