Ferrari LaFerrari vs Mclaren P1 vs Porsche 918

Sorry guys, no time to read so many pages back. What's the main point of the argument now?

 

Yeah but you didn't mention that in 1994 chicanes were added to the track,track was 180m longer and narrower and that F1 set its lap time with 2 passengers.For configuration of track go to below link
Estoril - RacingCircuits.info
And for further proof,F1's and bikes in 1994 run through chicanes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1994_Portuguese_Grand_Prix
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b9MBS8Cp98A
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mtaiXNs0Ikg
And also 7:45 was the estimate for owner's lap and F1 was faster than 430 Scuderia at tsukuba in same condition.

 

People think the P1 is P3 and crap because some guy got half a dozen laps to set the fastest time in each and the P1 was slower occasionally on tyres that could well be inferior, with an unknown quantity of driving errors in the given lap.

 

That SV was not stock, and you know it. If Mac had a time to beat the 918 round the ring they would have been singing from the roof tops. Lol.....

 

How about when I raced the P1 and Lafa in my 918, 2 real Pro race drivers that can actually drive. 918 won every thing, and I was asked not to run Hot Lap mode.....

 

Oh ok. But this does not change the fact that the F1 seemed to be not effective in corners like was in straight line. Skipad and slalom were low.

 

Okay coming to that topic,as for cornering you might read this nurburgring article with cornering speeds
https://web.archive.org/web/20061211035518/http://www.jwhubbers.nl/ring/docs/am-1093-5.jpg
And compare it with cornering speeds of sport auto lap,if I remember somebody estimated 7:22 from the cornering speeds.
Lamborghini Aventador LP 700-4 im Supertest: Skulptur extremer Dynamik - AUTO MOTOR UND SPORT
As for tsukuba lap time you can see that the track is damp by reflection of light and moisture comming off the wheels during start,weather is cloudy and relative humidity is 92%.Besides BM in their facebook page also admitted that conditions were bad.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YcRY15toko0
As for 430 scuderia it did only 1:08.31 in that condition
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RF3tWa6BLUA

Also in tsukuba cornering speeds are important than straightline performance and guess what F50 was more than 1s slower than F1 inspite of that.And Estoril lap tells that F1 can hold its own very well against modern supercars like ZR1 and 458 italia which were slower than F1.

And I have read many people saying that F40 is faster than F1 around track which is incorrect when you consider condition in which it lapped and amount of laps but in a wet circuit,it is a different story.And as for downforce F1 generates 200lbs at 149mph while most supercars don't generate even downforce.This is done by underbody fans which suck the air from the bottom.An car has High Downforce mode which can be turned off and on.

 

Oh come on, I can't use your's and McLaren's logic and reasoning?

According to McLaren, each successive engine in the 12C/650S/675/688/P1 is considered a brand new engine whenever they add power, the only exception was when they upgraded the original 12C's engine for another 25HP. Using that logic, the more powerful engine in the P1 LM is a brand new engine, that means a 'different' engine.

If you think of the 918/919 as Porsche's 'hybrid platform', then they are of the same 'chassis' Both are mid-engined, carbon tub-ed anyway, close enough

Both got 4 wheels, and full body work, so using your own logic they are the same also

Think of it this way, Porsche chopped 4 cylinders off a V8, take out the passenger seat, and generally lightened the car even more, and that could explain the weight difference


So in the end, you should compare the P1 LM/P1 GTR's performance to the 919 please

Oh, at least Porsche built the 919 themselves, instead of having a 3rd party.



I am playing by your rules at your own game dude.

 

I've heard that somewhere before, oh yeah, Nissan GTR 'ring lap 8 years ago.

 

You're not using any logic from here.

They don't use the same chassis or tub in the case of the 918 and 919 though. LMP is endurance racing going down hill.

That could explain the weight difference if you'd just smoked 1000kg of crack but otherwise no.

 

I own that article but this is not really convincing by the fact that speed corners on that map we are not sure how they are corrected and accurate, it seems that they were printed there just with a glance to the tacho more than a accurate telemetry speed corners like Sportauto does. Untill these speed corners are taken by the accurancy of a tachimeter we really can not say nothing more, let alone the estimated lap time.

I talked with many BPR racer and they confirmed me some nuances many year ago that, despsite the older design of the angles, the F40 does not felt the years compared the F1, also starting from the road cars. This was simply a question of damping setting, and efficency of the angles more than a structural question.

 

But the thing is that F1 is not that slow in corners as many say.The car doesn't have rear antirollbar not for comfort but Jonathan Palmer said that F1 had unpredictable handling with antiroll bars.

Also for that article I read somewhere that in a chinese forum that Gordon Murray claimed a 7:20 time for Xp4 and I don't know why would they provide just corner speeds in the article,perhaps they may have adjusted it in such position that its average speed gives the lap time,otherwise what is the point of the article if speeds aren't adjusted to speculate lap time.

Secondly Andy Wallace said that the car was very stable at 205mph in topspeed run.

Also like you said Estoril wasn't faster in 1994 ,infact it was a bit slower due to its narrowness but was still faster than ZR1 which again is faster than an Enzo or CCX .And as for F40s laptime it was faster than Carrera GT at suzuka which is faster than an Enzo on track.But that doesn't immediately mean that F40 is faster than Enzo or F40 is faster than CGT,it is simply explained by no of laps.

Furthermore an Xj220 did 7:46 at ring and as the ring is bumpy soft suspension isn't really a disadvantage.So it doesn't make sense that F1 can't cut off 20s from a lap time set by an owner who is not a pro driver at all(refering to 7:45 lap time).As for F40 I think it may do a 7:39.

 

I figured your source was a freaking YouTube video. This is enough evidence for you to make such a claim? Two videos where the times are separated by two seconds? You're too much.

 

I don't want to say that the F1 is slow as many say, but the F1 is not fast in the corners as the map in the article try to say!

I don't know how Murray claimed about Ring time, I do not like forum hearsay but even by the fact to try an estimations just looking at a map speeds that 99% were taken at a glance. Look at some speed corners of the map compared to the 6.48 Sportauto lap of the Radical SR8:

Aremberg: F1 112 kph; SR8 111 kph 1,85g
Ex Muhle: F1 144 kph; SR8 140 kph 1,80g
Bergwerk: F1 112 kph; SR8 121 kph 2,10g
Hohe Acht: F1 129 kph; SR8 129 kph 1,90g
Brunnchen: F1 121 kph; SR8 124 kph 1,70g
Schwalbenschwanz: F1 121; SR8 95 kph 1,75g

How is that possible that a GT car, made in early '90 is able to get same speed and forces as a Radical SR8 even doing better in many occasions? Then, How can be possible to extrapolate a lap time with that speeds on the map?

On the other way, on the Estoril map (which I have forgotten the lengths of the tracks) there were printed speeds and g forces, by the fact that in the occasion a telemetry system was surely applied on the car. Unfortunately we have no data to compare with other cars with accurancy, but it seemed that the car does not get so high lateral forces as speeds publisched earlier. The higher figure was 1.17g on a 110 kph speed corner. A more common figure for that moment.

In a Mugello test with a Ferrari F1 and a 348, the F40 get a higher force of 1.29g. This does not explain nothing in comparison being not made in the same corners, but as Sportauto lists, forces are forces.

The fact that a owner did 7.45 is not a proof, because we don't really know about the ability and effort of that driver. Take for granted does not prove anything. There are owners able to extract a very high portion of potential of the car. Who knows?

 

Owner in question said that if he were to drive the car it would be 6% slower than fastest possible lap time and owner in question is flemke before his F1 was modified in 2007.Oh on the note for skidpad and slalom,they were done with burned clutch,worn tires and most importantly on the US spec Mclaren not the European version I am talking about.

You can read about it here by the friend of the owner
http://www.ferrarichat.com/forum/288gto-f40-f50-enzo-laferrari-sponsored-bradan/5925-enzo-mclaren-f1-3.html

And now talking about lateral g's well if you find the lap of an Enzo at silverstone stove with a passenger it pulls only about 1.2g,Lexus LFA pulls only 1.14g at goodwood with a passenger.It depends on many factors like surface grip,limits pushed at corners.The 1.17g may have more to do with passenger onboard than its limits.And now here is the huayra bc lapping estoril with a passenger,it only pulls 1.3-1.4g at max even in fastest corner while its limit is around 1.6-1.7g.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYa6Rjrad0E
Also there is a video of F40 doing hot lap at dunsford where they pulled only 1.14g and still lapped exceptionally fast if you time them
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jB3-Gr2kzF0

Infact if you look at the tarmac on Estoril,it has clearly been resurfaced and might have been provided high grip tarmac like they did with Spa,so that can also explain higher lateral g.Oh and if you are looking for the map it can be viewed here
Estoril - RacingCircuits.info

The track doesn't look faster to me in 1994 as first of all it was narrower so that can effect cornering speeds and lateral acceleration,secondly it was 4.36km vs 4.182km
Edit:Here is the goodwood lap with telemetry for lateral g figures
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABzcxTkcizg&feature=player_embedded

[[In a Mugello test with a Ferrari F1 and a 348, the F40 get a higher force of 1.29g. This does not explain nothing in comparison being not made in the same corners, but as Sportauto lists, forces are forces]]
I am sure that in F40 there wasn't any passenger.Secondly as you can see even Huayra pulled 1.4g at estoril so ZR1 should be pulling less and F1 pulling only 1.17g can be explained by Estoril having lower grip than say Hockenheim.And it can also be due to passenger onboard.If according to you if F1 is slow in corners then how did it beat F50,430 Scuderia at tsukuba?And then how did LFA set Goodwood record when it pulled only 1.1g with passenger when it pulled 1.3+g in hockenheim?The answer is difference in grip level of track,obviously,isn't it.

And owner I said in question wasn't a pro driver which you are ignoring,also you said in ************** that it was said in a famous Mclaren book,which one?None that I read mention that lap time.

 

If the F40's driver in the video is pusching hard I'm a world champion winner! The video is showing a 1.14g and if you are looking and seems he is going for a walk. He is using the gearshift like a grandma and he is really going quiet looking back at the tacho on the esses. I think is something wrong? Lateral forces comes over 1 on straight. Am I wrong?

Anyway coming back to one of the main points: The speeds corners of the F1. Look again at some speed corners of the map compared to the 6.48 Sportauto lap of the Radical SR8:

Aremberg: F1 112 kph; SR8 111 kph 1,85g
Ex Muhle: F1 144 kph; SR8 140 kph 1,80g
Bergwerk: F1 112 kph; SR8 121 kph 2,10g
Hohe Acht: F1 129 kph; SR8 129 kph 1,90g
Brunnchen: F1 121 kph; SR8 124 kph 1,70g
Schwalbenschwanz: F1 121; SR8 95 kph 1,75g

Do you really think that way the right way to say the F1 potential on the corners? or to extrapolate a Ring la time? IMHO absolutely not.

Concerning Tsukuba laps/videos, I'm not so confident about their reliability. The Japan guys seems they were not using the same effort all the times. With them there is just the way to say little or nothing.

Tomorrow I will try to find that lap time figure.

 

No I don't think F1 can outcorner an SR8 LM.But I was referring to average of all 43points which will slow it down eventually.Alternately it might have run on slicks.

And about LFA at goodwood,if he was just cruising around then how is he 4s faster than Nissan GTR test done by Autocar?And same can be said about F1,who will drive the car at absolute limit when they have passengers onboard?Or maybe track has lower grip level than say hockenheim,nurburgring.

And if F1 is really slow in corners how did it beat F50 and 430 Scuderia in tsukuba with just 1lap+warmup inspite of damp weather.And we all know tsukuba is a tight track so straight line performance doesn't help much.If a non pro driver has done 7:45,I don't understand why you think pro drivers can't improve the lap time.Source clearly states it is not done by a pro driver.

 

Again.

Concerning Tsukuba laps/videos, I'm not so confident about their reliability. The Japan guys seems they were not using the same effort all the times. With them there is just the way to say little or nothing.

Concerning the driver, I know that a pro driver is a fast units of measure. But what this does prove? Example, I have a friend that is very fast on our own track days, his drive is very effectively on car and bike, but he is a pro? no he isn't, but his lap times were always very competitive. The passion of driving and ability, is not a job.

See you tomorrow. It's late here. I will try to find that lap time figure.

 

Well, dude, so same chassis or tub means the same platform in your mind now? Glad we got that out of you. You have been trying real hard to argue with me about the P1 is NOT on the same chassis/platform as the 12C for the longest time............. To further the deciphering of your logic, will you admit the P1 is just a soup-ed up 12C now? There is no shame in that, I have a 12C and I loved that car.

I wished I have 1000kg of crack, I'd be rich, but too bad you smoked like 1001kg of those the last couple years arguing the P1 is the fastest thing on Earth.

Finally you see how ridiculous your own logic is, took a long time buddy! Really lovely for me right now, you stepped onto every single trap I laid for you in public forums, everything you wrote comes back to haunt you. All the pick and choose, all the goal post changes, all the excuses, all the 'proofs'. Boom! All went up in smoke basically within the last 2 days here in Fchat in your posts.

 

Holy smokes, I left for almost 2 years and this thread is still going on?

If you raced you would concur that all the technical arguments about relative lap times of these street cars don't amount to... much. This all boils down to brand loyalty.

Sorry for interrupting. Please carry on.

 

Wow Lieven/Sroser...you have really gone off the deep end with this one.
It's official, Evo and Autocar can't drive for XXXX! - FastestLaps.com
By the way, Alexander has already debunked that FXXK & GTR video.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Dude you know I really don't have any brand royalty, I have had cars from Porsche to Ferrari to Lambo to McLaren to Mercedes.

But a certain someone in here have a blind religion to McLaren.....................

 

Here is how this thread deteriorated. We had the final showdown between the 918, P1 and LaFerrari on the Grand Tour show. A former F1 driver lapped each car and the result was that the 918 was the quickest, followed by LaFerrari and then the P1.
The result infuriated Mycroft/Lieven, and thus there needed to be explanation as to why his favourite, the P1, came in third. Typically, Mycroft will have one of two excuses ready for when his car loses:
1) Bad tires on the P1 vs the opposing cars
2) Bad driver (who seemingly only drives the P1 poorly, not the other two)
3) Some combination of 1 and 2.

It is a situation that is rather like the rabid sports team fan that many of us know. I know a fellow who lives and dies by his local team’s results. When his team loses, there is always an explanation: either the refereeing went against his team, or his team made some stupid mistakes that cost them the game. He will never admit that the other team may have just been better; there is always some extenuating reason why his team lost.

In this case, Mycroft rationalizes the loss using both bad tire/bad driver excuses. Because there has been very little information released regarding these laps other than the overall time, he cannot go into full attack mode on the driver, so he is focusing on the tire situation.

Because the base P1 has (for whatever reason) spec’d narrower tires than the other two cars, he feels that it is not representative of how the car can perform. He has therefore set aside the actual P1, and is now focused on something called the P1 LM, which is a third-party tuner car based on the track only version of the P1, the P1 GTR. The LM will have 80 more hp as well as being lighter (e.g. no passenger seat) and provides much more downforce and wider tires than the production P1. I understand that there will be a total of six of these cars made. Therefore, the LM is the true representation of the P1, not the 375 examples that people actually bought.

This car may or may not be road legal in most countries (I doubt it would be in the US as I would expect that they would have to test the car for crash standards, and with such a limited run, it would not be worth it). It may not matter with such a limited run; they could be sold in very specific countries that have very liberal definitions of what constitutes a road car.

When it is pointed out to him that it is not exactly apples to apples when you compare a track car turned road car by a third party to an actual production car that is designed to be road legal throughout the world, he feels that excuses are now being made by the other car supporters. What is most bizarre is that he will equate this extremely limited, third party modified P1 LM to fully legal, production cars that happen to be the most track oriented in other manufacturers line ups, such as the Porsche GT3RS.

So that is why this thread has deteriorated. I would prefer to keep the discussion to the actual three cars in subject heading, but it keeps getting hijacked.

 

I have to correct also that point about Estoril. I just checked.

In 1988 the track was longer as you said but in 1988 but Touring cars like M3 Motorsport run a lap in 1.46.5 that with a lenght of 4350 meters was a average of 147 kph.
500 km Estoril 1988 - Qualifying Results - Racing Sports Cars

In 2003 during the FIA GT qualifing the best Ferrari 360 NGT did a 1.40.8 that with a track of 4183 meters taht with a lenght of 4183 meters was a average of 149 kph.
FIA GT Championship Estoril 2003 - Qualifying Results - Racing Sports Cars

So how can be possible a NGT 2003 Ferrari in similar average with a older touring 1988 M3?
All that explain that the track was "faster" in the first configuration than today. It was longher but the average was higher. Today on shorter track the Mclaren F1 would be lapped a higher lap time than before.

I sow so many funny videos with the Japanese with the GT-R that honestly they are lost their credibility and consistency.

I will try to explain easily. There are tons of fast ringers all the weekend at the track that aren't pro driver. So the term pro/not pro does not prove nothing to us for a 20s faster lap time at the Ring having nothing other in hand.

I think you are the guy that claimed that Ferrari Enzo slower than the Mecca F1 at Bedford track in another forum. Also that point must be corrected expecially if you are not looking at the pictures and more precisely to the wheels size, the hot alingment and the exhaust of that blue F1, almost like you have to defend the Mecca reputation.

Well I'm a supercar fan, I never said the Mecca was a slow car but starting from the Nurburgring speeds on the map, passing from the average at Estoril and having just a customer lap time for the Ring, we have no any single point that is able to confirm to us the ability of the F1 to lap so fast as you intend to be. Sorry guy but this seems to be the truth!

I will try to find the source of 7.45 lap time.

 

Oh man.I wasn't talking about lap time in 1988,I was talking about lap time in 1994 when chicanes were added to the circuit.I have attached configuration of estoril for 1988-1993,1994-1999,2000-present in the attachment.And besides if you compare the time for 2nd sector for F1 vs ZR1 which is 32.3 vs 33.65 and yeah that part is unchanged in configuration and width.Chicane addition in 1994 is even stated in official website and F1 was tested in July 1994.And there is no way to take route without chicane as those are blocked with tires.
History - Circuito Estoril | Portugal

And now about the lateral g part.In estoril GT3 cars pull slightly less lateral g than a circuit like even in corners of same speed
Estoril Lap(1.6g max)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BmK6NhAQ3H8
Spa (2.4g)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQpr9Irvjz4
Paul ricard(1.8g max)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SzZqBfaXdg0


And another think you didn't even consider corner speeds,one can have higher lateral g with less speeds sometimes and you can also see it in sport auto tests.

Also speaking about 7:45 lap time,it was estimated from this clip,does it really look like he is pushing the car to the limit.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Deq1ISUpHyY

And 996 Edo GT2 did a lap in 7:15 inspite of pulling only 1.3g at ring.

And finally about about the Tsukuba lap.If you think they are biased,then same can be said about other magazines.
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login