Ferrari LaFerrari vs Mclaren P1 vs Porsche 918

That's what I'm waithing for, was a lost of time stay here talking to some unable to open his mind, look at details and reads based informations. Y'd lost train guy.

 

Just pointing out the nature of subcontracting, and the fact that who puts the last bolt on doesn't change recognised manufacturer or the copyright holder.

And the F1 LM was produced by making an F1 GTR road legal. Whereas the P1 LM was produced by making the P1 GTR road legal son. Do you not see a pattern son?

What exactly makes Lazante a tuner BTW son? Could you show me their engine, turbo, exhaust, ECU tuning and suspension packages etc. Because... basically son... they don't exist... could that be because they aren't a tuner? A tuner being someone who takes road cars and tunes them. Hardly what we're talking about here, is it son?

A a pre-emptive celebration, of a production car that hammers 918s and LaFs.

But you are tuning a production car, a car you had to buy in a lesser state and modify post sale. This isn't what's happening here.


So in your mind, if McLaren takes a GTR and road-legalises it and sells 5, it's somehow different to working with Lazante to do exactly the same thing. I don't really get that logic anyway. Hell, even if it was all Lazante, it would still be a repeat of the same process and hence the end product would still have the same validity as a production car. I've not seen a stone tablet anywhere saying, "Lazante shalst not make production cars." Not that it happened that way anyway, because they needed permission to use the P1 LM moniker anyway.

 

Please man stop it.I don't want waste my time to argue with a man who makes many grammatical mistake and can't spell properly.Now that you have lost you are just continuing to spam insult thats what people typically do.Also you were the one who said 7:45 was from a Mclaren book which again is false and now that you were unable to find the mistake in the Auto car article,I wouldn't argue about F1 with you,some one like Peloton 25 and hurstg1 are more reliable about F1 than most of the people.

Atleast unlike you I accept when I find that I am and don't say that test A is biased so this car was faster and so on like you did with BM.And yeah I would verify any article which seems suspicious to me like I did with F1 GTR,Estoril article and F1 LM downforce of CAR article.I think all of this is done to make F40 look better and F1 look bad.And now the straight line acceleration in le mans was about 45-:1:09 which is 24s and now we don't even know about how much meter did he accelerate to let alone make the average speed estimate and the acceleration curve with respect to time is also not linear to give an accurate estimate for topspeed.

Also I wasn't talking to you lol.

 

You must to stop before.
The problem with you is that seems you are short of objective culture before the technical one.
If my 7.45 was false, being considered to be, then was objective your theoretical 7.20 that you were based on what?
You have not had the objectivity to admit that a car had bigger wheels and tires, and different than alignment delivered angles. Indeed a war, when pictures are visible by anyone.
You have not had the objectivity to admit that car was modded in a video. The video showed a trick exhaust with no info behind.
Do you think that was creative talk with you? If you prefere talk with Peloton go there provided with greater objective humility.

You need it.

Good luck.

 

He's Italian I believe, not typing in his first language.

 

He's worse than this guy. A great laugh if you haven't seen it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b7iUKaPlBl8&t=271s

 

Yet somehow this bit is more applicable to the recent spate of Thermal tests.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b7iUKaPlBl8&t=348s

 

But I never said 7:20 was real,it was just what I heard in one forum I think is ptcc or something like that.But this is different from your claiming that it was from official Mclaren book.But I did agree that car had different tires and bigger wheels when I looked carefully and thats why I removed the 17" statement.But you also claimed car had different ride height which was incorrect if you compare photo side by side at same angle.

Okay but in the F50 video I did say that F50 had different rims and exhaust but the power they displayed was the same and weight was displayed as manufacturer's claim only.

I don't have problem with respecting other's opinion,as a human being I do agree that I may make some mistake but I think discussions should go on without insulting anyone like calling one an idiot or something like that.And FYI I am not much experienced in forums very rarely do I ever comment ,most are just by some random browsing around web.But this is the first time I had this type of debate.So I think you may be right about humility and so I will try to improve that.

Also I don't know if you were trying to make fun of me in the previous comments or if you were being sarcastic about that Estoril problem.And also Peloton also told the purpose of body roll in F1.And now coming to autoweeks article.It states that F1 GTR 96 was 7s of the 1995 at pre qualifying well it is a bit wrong at prequalifying 1996 version did 3:50.246 and 1995 one did 3;58.780 it is more than 8s faster.If you compare qualifying times it is around 9s faster.Now concerning WSC prototype status,it said that F1 GTR was only 2s slower than it but at pre qualifying it was around 3s slower,it might be almost true for qualifying times however.Whenever I look at article I want accurate information,so there are some errors.And I don't like it when someone exaggerates a cars performance in a magazine and make it look faster than they actually are like Car said F1 is faster than a F1 car above 130mph and C&D said F1 has better straight line speed than an LMP of its time.

 

Sorry didn't knew that.I stated it only because I thought he and I may have misinterpreted some of each others comments due to that.

Regards.

 

Do you understand that you are trying to save you face again? If you did agree the height aspect, had you agree all the overall alignment aspects? with that alignment and wheels are you able to honestly admit that was uncorrected to use and compare it with Enzo and CGT for lap times? But you don't think to be uncorrected? Frankly!
Concerning the Jap F50, are your eyes able to give you brain a input that were suspected and uncorrected details at the panel data on the video? Or your brain is just able to prove the Michelin tires aspect with that?

Tell me, then I stop. Is that your honest objectivity?

 

Well Sport, now that I've helped you comprehend the extremely confusing concept of homologation we can move on. Yayyy nice job sport! Its important to learn something new everyday.

It's comical that in your summary of subcontracting you conveniently forget to mention that the outsourced parts are assembled on the car by the manufacturer. I have no issue with companies using outsourced parts, everyone does it. However, the manufacturer is responsible for the putting the parts onto the car. Mclaren doesn't ship their cars to Xtrac/Riccardo to have their trans installed. They do it themselves.

A car absolutely does become unoriginal when it is has new wheels, increased displacement engine, new exhaust, parts removed (air jacks), new aerodynamics & altered interior (just to name a few of the changes!) installed all by a company that is not the original manufacturer and done offsite away from Woking.

Man oh man is it hilarious to refer to the tuner P1LM as a production car!! I didn't think it could be any nuttier after bringing jets into the equation but you just topped yourself sport. Bravo!! Having a third party charge hundreds of thousands of dollars in modifications, by turning the already ultra exclusive P1 GTR into the tuner P1 LM definitely fits the bill of "production car". LOLOLOL sport

You wanted an example of Lanzante's tuning packages you say??? I graciously provided you with a link below. It's a car called the P1 LM, I think you know it sport

Meet The McLaren P1 LM, The 986HP High Downforce Grocery Getter

Sport were all waiting to see your P1 LM insurance card. Maybe you can call up your broker and find out why its taking so long to get???

 

Keep telling yourself that. Say it enogh times and you may actually believe it.

 

I am waiting for you to proclaim the 570S is faster with your twisted logic.

Of course surface matters, that means traction matters. Exactly why Porsche went with AWD to put down all that power effectively, not just in the 918 but also the 919.

BTW, you do realized a 919 out accelerate a F1 car? A F1 car has a higher top speed but takes longer to get there.

 

From your own link son.

Meet The McLaren P1 LM, The 986HP High Downforce Grocery Getter

So McLaren saw that they were making P1 GTRs road legal, and joined together to make the P1 LM.

McLaren P1 LM is the world's most extreme, exclusive supercar - Autoblog

McLaren P1 LM is the world's most extreme, exclusive supercar - Autoblog

So:

1. Produced with Mclaren.

2. Production road car.

Find me any link that says it's a tuner car? Or any link describing the tuning packages Lazante does for any other car?

Not all F-35s are finished by Lockheed though are they son?

So increased capacity engine, different wheels, new aero, reduced weight and altered interior makes a car a tuner car? Therefore GT3 RS is a tuner car, as is 997 GT3 RS 4.0 and the GT2 RS. In fact given that they're all 911s, only the stock Carrera is original, all the rest are tuner car imitations. And as for RuFs, well, definitely tuner cars. And the One:1 is obviously the ultimate tuner example of a Mustang, since it uses a Mustang engine and the Zonda and Huayra are Merc tuners. Both just an engine and transmission with a bodykit really.

 

Well you're trying to claim that somehow those kinds of times are typical. Whereas I said they were evidence of a bad surface. So either I'm right and you're wrong, or the 570S is really faster than all three. Your choice depending on how daft you wish to be.

How much it matter is surface-dependent though.

This argument has been done and destroyed already. Show me an LMP1 car at 100kph on a corner exit, get to 300kph in 6.0s dead.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ap3XGB6PAI

The LMP is faster 0-100kph, but that's where it ends.

0-200kph
919 - 4.8s
Merc F1 - 2.4s (0-100kph) + 2.0s (100-200kph) = 4.4s Note that 2.0s was measured from before car was straight too. And next year they're getting wider slicks.

Porsche 919 Hybrid - Technical Specs - Porsche AG
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOhAIsLdRpk

100-301kph
919 - 11s
Merc F1 - 6s

Same conditions on corner exit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehZsfG6M6MI&t=44s

 

Sorry,I don't want to be mean but I think I am having some trouble understanding your comment(2nd,4th 5th and 6th sentence).First of all the bedford test was done in November 2006 at that time #40 had stock brakes but the same tires as Enzo and also 19" tires.Reason I told stock one may still lap as fast is because at damp tsukuba it was only 0.3s slower than 2 Eleven which was 0.2s faster than Enzo and lost some time drifting in the video of Evo test.At lap from 0:20-1:41.Below are the parts where he lost time
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7cKvZMLQnQ

1.He didn't maintain racing line at corner in 22s,

2.He didn't run over the curbs at 45s,1:02 corners(he did it in CGT and Enzo video).

3.Then he also lost some time drifting at 1:11,1:32 and by tire squealing at 1:40.

Then I also pointed out reason why I think 00's tires aren't appreciably grippier than 90's tires because in skidpad test which measures mechanical grip F50,F40,EB110,F355 were able to pull similar figures as that of Enzo,Carrera GT,Saleen S7,etc.

Now if you read the comment I didn't agree with height aspect as it was clearly same in side by side photos.You compared the photos from different views to reach conclusion.

Now about alignment,I don't know which alignment you are talking about but if you are talking about suspension,I agree but you should remember that CCX also had chassis set up for 1;17 top gear lap.Also we don't know if other cars were set up for track use too because we can't see suspension,chassis setups from outside of car,can we?

Now about F50.I know that rims and Exhaust were different but tires were surely better than the first run and tires are one of the most important factor in lap times.But you can't claim that it generated more power and had lighter rims without proof.And more over F50 only hit 228.57kph in the main straight compared to 239.3kph for F40 which makes sense as F40 was faster in straight line.I am sure you didn't have patience to watch full video.

And I don't know how you can look inside a car and claim that suspension was modded when Top gear showed same type of suspension in F50 VS F1 car.

You also don't know if that was an update from the factory or not before claiming that it was an after market modification.And by telling you to stop,I mean to stop throwing comments with insults at me.

 

A great Christmas present to us all would be for Lieven/Myocoft to give it a rest.

 

Ok don't worry. Evidently our brains are going really in two different ways. Different way of seeing things. I tried to divert it looking at the objective aspects, in vain.

The proof of what I'm saying I checked with the Jap F50 aspect. Being Fchatter and F.owner I would place questions about power looking at a different exhaust than the stock one in a video. You don't. But the fact is that a 'TubiStyle' exhaust generate more power. IMO the proof is the presence. This is our different way of objectivity.

The japan F40 in the video was owned by the Club F.Japan President at the period, the car was fitted with Tubi exhaust also, and setted with little higher boost. I'm sure the car was also provided with few little mods. The difference in our own objectivity here is that you just look at the video, but I checked at the car. You are free to not believe me (like you made with my F40LM and F1 GTR's power), but that's the truth.

And now for the alignment. You are listing me the drive errors on the Boedford video. Ok, I agree that the lap was not as clean. But think about having done the same drive with less specific alignment, wheels and tires. The car will be less responsive inside and outside the corners, more frequent corrections at the expense of lap time. Your objectivity say you that a stock car had almost done the same lap time, but to me the car had lost even more time.

I'm not blaming Evo mag to choose that blue F1 for testing at Bedford, for the same reason I'm also blaming Koenigseeg if thay sent a tuned alignment to TopGear, expecially if that alignment was off the delivery setting.

Sure I have not the glass ball to look at inside the car, but I'm confident with any technical aspect of a car expecially when details are really visible in the case, over than camber angles are visible ,then it'is not more a question of factory update, aftermarket kits, or.... this means it's just off the delivery.

This is to claer that it's not a personal thing with you or McLaren.

 

He is on the wind up, lol. He agrees on other forums that no Customer SV has ever come close to the ring time Juiced car.

 

LOLOLOL sport you really aren't the sharpest tool in the shed. But its OK! I didn't want to quote that article because it's unofficial and written by a journalist. But since you did, everything you just quoted and made bold proves my point. It clearly says "made by Lanzante" & "It's (Lanzante's) first limited 'production' road car". Why doesn't the journal say made by McLaren sport??? Oh rightttt because it was modified by Lanzante. Whoooopsss

"So increased capacity engine, different wheels, new aero, reduced weight and altered interior makes a car a tuner car?"

UMMMM yeah sport that's pretty obvious. When the work is done by a party other then the factory & and away from the factory facilities that its very obviously a tuner car. I don't know how that can be any more obvious. The cars you mentioned GT3 4.0, GT2 RS ect were completed at the factory so they are very clearly and obviously factory cars.

 

Have you driven both? Hmm no. Mark Webber did and he already said that a while ago in an interview.

No one dispute the F1 car has higher top speed and higher acceleration at the top end. Higher top speed is pointless, outside of internet bragging rights. At Le Mans,all the LMP1 cars are basically hitting terminal velocity around 5-6 times on a lap. The strategy is to cover area under the curve quicker for fast lap times, that means initial acceleration out of corners, that's why the 919 has AWD to effectively put down 1000+HP out of corner exits to get to terminal speed faster, that's why the electric boost comes on early in the acceleration curve and then tapers off at the top end. Same philosophy is applied to the 918, that's why the electric motor cuts off after 265km/hr and is pointless to add a 2 speed gearbox to maintain the front motor running till terminal velocity.

Oh, go find a circuit where cars spend more time above 265km/hr than under. That's the circuit a P1 will surely beat a 918.

Once again, with your Youtube knowledge you think you know more than people that drives cars. Wonderful!

 

Actually the first quote said McLaren was involved too and the second said it's a production road car, and both say it's a McLaren.

Look like tuner Carreras to me by your definition.

 

You have to admire his courage though.

He knows he is wrong and the whole world is debating against him, yet he still try to wage a one man war.

Me think of Hitler fighting against the world, enemies on all sides and battlefronts on all sides.

Come to think of it, it's not courage, it's just stupidity.

 

Not at all. 918 ran 6:57 and 7:13 with Sport Auto. SV ran 6:59 and 7:15 with Auto Zeitung.

 

Lieven, do you just sit by your computer all day and wait for people to reply to your posts? Don't you have homework or something you can do?