Ferrari LaFerrari vs Mclaren P1 vs Porsche 918

Nuff said. I will deflect the point again on the Nurburgring because we never find an agreement on the Estoril.

First of all I want to clarify the fact that the F1 video at the Ring available on Youtube seems to be really slow, using the stopwatch the F1 lost about 10 seconds to the XJ220 Video from the Hocheichen to the Adenauer-Forst. Knowing that the XJ220 did 7.46.36 on the 20.832 kms track (so about 7.41 on the 20.6 kms track), I don't know how was possible to estimate the F1 in 7.45 secs.

Anyway I worked in another way taking on hands the laps made by M. Basseng with the 5 supercars and the map of the F1 you provided. We need to use also a margin of error for the F1 tachimeter by the 4-5%, the speeds on the map seemed really by taking a look at the tacho and for the same reason I checked that the car did about 369 kph at the gearing with the tacho at 385 kph in a high speed picture of the dashboard.

Coming back to Basseng, and looking at the Koenigsegg, just because is very fast in straigth but rude on the corners I tried to compare speeds with the F1 on both maps.

Making short the story, the CCX seemed to be just faster on the long accelerations, sounding similar speeds on many corners (sometimes the F1 seemed faster on some corners but the reason was because of the margin error I think more than effective higher speed corner), and on the long straight of the Dottingher Hohe.

If Basseng did 7.33.55 with the Koenigsegg, I think a time similar to 7.35-7.37 could be done for the F1 at the Ring. Map numbers would say something like that.

A faster time is very hard to me also because of the older tires.

 

I have not heard about that EVO test before. Could you post it either here or on GCF? Also, if the mods done to the F1 would be still covered under warranty in that EVO test, then whatever ferrari does to their cars during Mag test, that customers can also do and still be under warranty, is fair game.

That picture! Im looking at some serious heresy here!

Well, if we compare the times of the enzo to the f40 at fiorano and bedford, both are around four seconds. Fiorano is a 3.0km track, while bedford is a 2.7km track, so if stretch the track to 20.6km, and add about two seconds to each kilometer, a twenty second difference seems reasonable. If you also factor in the enzo having a suspension problem, you could probably shave off about three or four seconds on that time. Right?

 

Just for the record, the Enzo does about 195 MPH in the standing mile at 2,658' ASL.

Here's some data I have handy for my Enzo at 400' ASL and 2,658' ASL...
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

And a Porsche 917. 0-200 MPH in 12 seconds.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

McLaren F1 does 60 to 170 in 14 seconds. 0-200 in 28 seconds.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Cool info Bill, thanks!

 

Okay first about Estoril,I have confirmed that it was done in 1994 as in 1993 there was no sponsership board of Renault in 1993 if you look into videos from races in 1993,there was Campari board instead of its place in 1994 at superbike 600cc that board was of Renault only and none was their at Aryton Senna F1 vs Porsche 911 demonstration in late 1993.Below is video for 1993 F1 lap for verification.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fp5kRWMA1nM

Now coming to configuration part for clarifying that point I have done lap times in Assetto Corsa with cars
RUF CTR 2:05.364
M3 E30 1988 2:11.987
KTM X Bow R 1:59.917
And their time from orehla to esses were as follows
RUF CTR 15.712 (tanque corner 89kph)
KTM XBow R 14.144 (corner 103kph)
M3 E30 16.8 (corner 93kph)

You know that F1's time from orehla to esses was 18.2s(32,3-50.5) in that case F1 would have lapped in something like 2:15s (as it should be too slow in corners,even then M3 E30) instead of 1:55.9,so that explains 1994 configuration and also you have to note that 991 GT3 which did 1;53.7 did so in 17.5s.

Now about 1.17G lateral acceleration of estoril can be simply explained by telling that Estoril has lower grip than other circuits like Vairano has in this scan(1.13g for R8 1:13 lap, 1.07 for GTR lap 1:15),even in 120+corners.
http://i63.tinypic.com/2ugyzvp.jpg

Now coming to N'ring time,you have to know that the ring is very bumpy so having a soft suspension is not a disadvantage.Plus at the ring F1 hit 200mph on the straight,so it is faster than CCX in the straight (around 305kph).I think that it will be faster than CCX for sure.

Yes it does have old tires but you have to remember that F1 also later came with Michellin PS tires which were much better than Goodyear eagle tires.With Goodyear tires it lapped 1:04.62 in damp condition and 2 miss shifts,so that would put it at 1:02.62 in ideal condition,Note:-this is only my estimate.So I won't be surprised if it lapped under 7;30.Also you have to note that it was only 0.3s slower than a Lotus 2 Eleven which was faster than Enzo at Bedford,so I doubt that Enzo can break 1:04 barrier in damp condition.

I put it anywhere between 7:22-7:30 with michellin tires and 7:30-7:38 with Goodyear eagle tires and considering how much faster was F1 GTR than XJ220 at races.
BPR Global Endurance GT Championship - Championships - Racing Sports Cars
Le Mans 24 Hours 1995 - All Session Laps - Racing Sports Cars
Before considering F40 LM,you must remember that they had 750hp which was 250hp more than stock F40,XJ220 had same power,F1 had 27 less and not to Mention in 1995 F1 GTR had more rolls than other racecars unlike 1996 if you see the photos carefully.

And now about XJ220 video,I think that it skipped some segments because when I timed it,the time came around 7:34(1:26-9:00),no bluff.

And now speaking about 7:11.Now I don't know if it has occurred or not but best way to confirm this is to ask Mika Hakkinen or Matti Kyllonen(since he was one who allegedly told about it) himself via tweet or interview or personally.Now going for the sources from wiki,I think this emerged in 2007 in Auto motor und sport Sweden in 2007 article
Varvrekord på Ringen av Richard Göransson - auto motor & sport
Or a car dealer website of sps automotive
SPS Automotive Performance - Race

 

Hi Jo Sta7,
Could you provide similar data points that Apolo provided for his 918 runs? It could be graphed and the lines compared to see if in fact Apolo owns the super 918 (918 LM?)

 

@supermafy and @Kingjr9000
I agree that F1 was probably modified but the tires(though modern) didn't really look like 18" but was more like 17" if you compare it with photos of stock F1.Also another thing to be noted is that he did not maintain racing line and lost some time on drifting.So I think stock F1 with clean lap like Enzo and CGT can do the same lap as unclean lap of that F1.
Here is the test
Litchfield Type-25 v Caterham CSR 260 v Lotus Exige S v Radical SR3 1300 v Ariel Atom v Porsche Carrera GT v Ford GT v Ferrari Enzo v McLaren F1 | Evo
And video for F1's test
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7cKvZMLQnQ
Video for CGT and Enzo
Porsche Carrera GT: Fastest ever test - Porsche Carrera GT | Evo
Ferrari Enzo: Fastest ever test - Ferrari Enzo | Evo
And if you put it into perspective of F1 vs 2 eleven lap times on damp tsukuba,this time may be possible.Note:-Murcielago lap was for LP640 and 360 CS time was done with rear wing added if you see the videos
http://www.zeperfs.com/en/classement-ci3.htm

And also skidpad and slalom tests were done on US Spec F1 on worn tires and burnt clutch at 105F not on European F1,if skidpad seems too low according to owner's friend in this website in Enzo or F1 forum.

 

I have to say that mainly I can agree even I don't like to use video games to the verify. Anyway we need to know more about the gain of track performance of the F1 with Michelins.
Concerning BPR engines power I'm sure the cars were air restricted, the F40 GTE/LMs power were from 580 to 680 hp, it dephends to the team and the boost configuration. I'm talking of GT1 cars. The F1 GTRs were claimed to be 636 hp in 1995 and they were, but many engines were also rated as close to 660 hp (expecially in 1996 even if claimed at 600). XJ220C engines were in many case much similar to the stock power or little more, just few cases they used 600 and over hp engines, expecially later.

I had not the same impression as the your. IMO tires profile and wheels diameter seemed more like a 18" size.

This is a little bit too strong. Estimate gains in alignment and tires evolution is very hard to me. There are too many details involved that some of them can gain more than onter and viceversa. Anyway the negative camber of that alignment is very well visible and that enough to be good on corners. The improvment depends also behind other angles figures if they were corrected. Honestly these are impossible to see by nude eye, but are very important during the speed corner and out of the corners. We can only see that the chassis of the F1 still sound good for sure if many parts around are imporved, but from here to say that a stock can that the way is long.

 

if you wanna know why the speciale is not a full on racecar
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4d1ozlN_Z8

 

I am sure that in real life Auto Foco.Turbo drivers will be much faster than I was in Assetto Corsa.Normally my lap times are much slower than those attained by pro drivers in real life.In MP4-12c I only managed 8:05 at ring.Since AC is reputed to be accurate simulator (even though F1 GTR which is even slower than GT3 and Group C cars are slower than their real life counter parts),I used it to verify.I am glad that I could convince you through research.

Now to add the information about 1995 F1 GTR,yes in earlier time it ran 636hp(later reduced to 600 for BOP) as announced at jarama but as far as I know F40 LM was run at 700hp according to commentator at jarama race @5:47.You can also notice that F40 was faster in the straight than Mclaren.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4Ixx3JoEac

But on the note of 1996 F1 GTR,it actually had lesser power than 1995 models but had double downforce with stiffer suspension.The 660hp you are referring might be for unrestricted engine.

And now about the Michelin tires.I think it may be around 3s faster in a 2:29 track when you compare improvement of F50 with pirelli tires at suzuka(2:29 to 2:26) and quarter mile time(from 12.1-11.1s).

 

Okay but in the new Bedford Autodrome test,Carrera GT was only around 3s faster than an XJ220.And also 1:19.7 time was done on different day with different conditions.In the same day it did only 1:20.2.

And on the other note,I don't think time improvement from tire gain is that high as you think for instance F40 pulled 1.01g at skidpad,F50 pulled 1.03g and CGT pulled only 0.99g while Enzo pulled 1.01-1.05g.After seeing these figures I don't think the mechanical grip difference is very high.Also don't forget that tires of trinity pull 1.1+g on skidpad.Which is greater than gap between 90s and 00s.

If you consider F1 was competitive at Estoril and Tsukuba(considering conditions),you will understand.

 

I'm sure, I was there in some races at the period and I know many people behind those Ferrari teams, the figures I mentioned comes from Michelotto and the figures of the Mecca was Gordon confessing in a article. Maybe really 700 hp delivering engines were used only at Monza in 1995 by the two Ennea cars. But in 1996 LM race the higher BMW unit developed 663 hp if I recall. The power of Ferraris were confirmend me by the Club Italia Team director recently when I meet him. The greater advantage of the V8TT was the torque more than absolute power.

 

Alignment figures are very valuable. Infact I said that tire gain is hard to know.

 

ho, Master!!
p.s after or before engine-rebuild?

 

I found the article of the BMW engines, engine 1995 rated at 665 bhp, engine 1996 rated at 633 bhp. Source Autoweek June 1996.

I don't know about that times untill that cars on Japan videos are more or less tuned. Many details shows modded exhaust, aftermarket shock absorbers and so on. They also use lighter wheels and sometimes looks like disguised settings. This is the main reason why I usually don't use that Tsukuba or Suzuka times as reference.

 

I think you are thinking that F1 GTR had 660hp based on the fact that it hit 205mph in the straight at race.For your information in 1995 F1 GTR only hit 281kph at mulsanne straight.In qualifier the 1996 F1 hit topspeed around 302kph,I think that 205mph was reached due to drafting the LMP cars otherwise it is aerodynamically impossible,even standard F1 will struggle to reach 205mph in mulsanne straight.

Source for power output:Racecar Vol 6 Issue 1

Okay but in that test brakes were stock,I recall some one saying that F1 had modified brakes and suspension in the car.Infact the brakes were modified in 2010.But as I pointed out the mechanical grip between 90's tires and 2000's tires are very negligible because in those time people went over tire wear rather than outright grip unlike todays cars.

So if you put modern tires(post 2010) on F1,Enzo,CGT or any other old cars would be significantly faster.

Now speaking of alignment,we don't really know how much was the suspension stiffened but the ride height as much as I can see is the same as other F1's when you see them side by side.Also as I said CGT was only 3s faster than XJ220 which should be slower than F1.
CGT 1:23.3
XJ220 1:26.7

Also you have to remember that soft suspension has better mechanical grip than stiff suspension,so unless we are talking about racing cars it isn't that much necessary without much downforce.

In racing those are used to squeeze every ounce of performance from the car by making them 0.5s faster.In fact the only way to significantly improve the lap time is by providing much better tires and brakes.

 

Well what's the Formula One car doing then, is that a road car?

Where's the MSO HS?

Your argument doesn't hold up, sorry.

So why was Paul Bailey's 918 4mph down on his LaF on the same day?

Stop kidding yourself. The average 918 will not be just 1mph behind the LaF on the same day.

 

Distance covered and mph are two different things though. Having a speed 1mph down on a P1 or LaF at 1.7 miles is unheard of for other 918s.

If it's already catching, i.e. faster in mph at the 11s or 1/4 mile mark, then there's no way the average 918 can possibly be just 1mph down at the 1.7 mile mark, especially given that the front e-motor allegedly drops out at 165mph.

 

Engine 1995 rated at 665 bhp, LM engine 1996 rated at 633 bhp. Source Autoweek June 1996.

The F1GTR top speed in 1996 was 329 kph in the Mulsanne straight source the LM 1996 yearbook. The lower speed usually comes from trap speed before Indianapolis corner.

 

Well firstly only an imbecile races on a public road.

Secondly, I agree that the 918 is faster on slower tracks. 30mph hairpins are what it excels at. However, for those who like track days at Spa or Silverstone, where Pure McLaren days often are, I'm convinced that the P1 will come out on top on either tyre. Ditto for most F1 GP tracks. The difference between say Anglesey Coastal, with an average speed of 75mph for these cars and Spa or Silverstone GP with an average speed of 100+mph will be pretty huge. Out of a 30mph hairpin, the 918 can lay its power down better, that's accepted, however, out of O'rouge, Blanchimont and Paul Frere at 120mph it doesn't stand a chance in hell, especially when it has less downforce anyway.

 

205.44mph for P1 at Bruntingthorpe ins standing mile.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfLqa4vlmFI&t=294s

 

Didn't the F40 have a plexi glass side window too?

If they make it into an official model like the P1 LM, then fair enough.

 

While I haven't measured a P1's acceleration, test data that I have seen shows that it accelerates faster than the 918 at high speeds (above 124 or 150 mph). That's due to lower drag. McLaren allows the driver to remove downforce and drag at speed while Porsche doesn't. Porsche is set up to support safe high speed driving on public roads (autobahn) and therefore doesn't allow the driver to remove downforce and drag. Funny that even though the Porsche is set up for road driving, it is quicker than the McLaren on most tracks.

BTW, suggesting that Apolo1's 918 is modified is complete nonsense

Here's my earlier post on the 918 WP's acceleration - actual cars delivered better performance than promised by Porsche.