Ferrari LaFerrari vs Mclaren P1 vs Porsche 918

Yes, but it doesn't "hit a wall" as a famous British journalist has said some time ago...

 

Did not need to.....happy to have done so, did 2 practice runs, then one quick one. To be fair it was very close to the wall and the car was moving around on take off, I would have done another run in required, knew I had at least another 0.4 in the bag, due to the glue along with could have dialled the tyres down if required....to performance settings

 

Yes then journalists get carried away. It of course still accelerates faster than most anything else.

Someone asked about LF more responsive than 918. Well that power train is the most responsive even though the 918 has more torque. That V12 is a symphony on wheels and reacts realtime.

Same applies about the journalist when they all tested the Avendator SV and 675 LT. They all get enthusiastic which is sort of understandable. If you listen to the narrative of multiple tests they use the same phrases again and again for different cars. Still entertaining though.

For us as car fans when has there ever been a period when you could buy such fine motors! It's becoming almost too much. Hardly have time to enjoy what I have before the next highlight comes.

ps: you should get the German Sport Auto mag. They tested the Avendator SV. Resume ist that it's a great car but not a lot different than the normal car. And they love Lamborghini.

 

Imv, after all my runs that I have done at v-max and the making of part 2-3 the LF has the slowest reaction time on take off, on my "none glue run" I was approx, 30 meters in front of the LAFA at the 1/4...

I agree it had the best sound by far, and will have a higher top speed than the 918.

 

Did Lafe use the LC??? even so, LaFe has the best 201-402, time and delta-speed too
cannot wait for the last the @ the airpost, (I hope 2 miles)

 

But it was 3rd round Silverstone, and got owned at Santa.......the times don't lie, all cars had v-boxes...Whist it does have the higher top speed than a 918, the 918 will be long gone....

Just out of interest what are the factory claims for 186 mph and the 1/4?

 

Shame you didnt run the 918 on what might have been a better surface for it. Would have been even more interesting with same conditions as the others. 0.4 in the bag is an assumption not a fact. It might have been less, hey, It could have been more.

 

MT ran a 9.9 in the 918, 2.2 to 60

 

Tyres make a huge difference. The LaFerrari has the least aggressive by far!!! These numbers are ridiculous anyway. There have been 458s that were faster in the 1/4 mile than this LF run!!!

 

Yeah because conditions are always identical, c'mon now.

 

Cool thing about all three is that their use of batteries and e motors is with tech that will be outdated in a couple years (if it isn't already) and upgrades are absolutely probable. With that said, I think the 918 is the best platform to handle any power upgrades. As batteries become lighter and e motors smaller and more powerful, the 918 could conceivably become lighter and more powerful. The 4wd would allow the car to put the power down while the other two may just have a harder time maintaining control. Power without control isn't very useful.

 

MT ran a 9.9 in the 918, 2.2 to 60

 

MT ran a 2.4 to 60 and 9.9. CD ran the 2.2 to 60 and 9.8.

 

Porsche = There is no Substitute

 

Those times are ludicrous for the amount of performance these cars have. They should try a test with all slick tires to see what the best achievable time is. Furthermore it looks like they must have had limited time/ runs for the cars or weather was not up to par. I have seen cars with half the power run better times than all 3 of these cars.

 

So, with proper rubber the Laf would smash both of the others

 

Are the tire specs for all 3 cars posted somewhere? Tire choice can make a huge difference.

I'm not biased against any of the cars as I like all 3 but the results also look really really wonky to me... look a lot worse than what you'd expect from street numbers.

I know the author claims the surface was 100% dry. Maybe it was dry in some spots but from what I see in the video the section that they raced on in no way looks dry to me. The road surface looked wet along the starting section and then drier further down the track just past the overhead drag time displays. Even the side portions of the starting section looks different from the centre portions. An AWD car will obviously do much better under wet conditions.

Here's several screenscrapes from the video - you can even clearly reflections of the cars from the road surface. How is that possible on dry asphalt? And if you listen to the audio you can clearly hear tires slipping on a slick surface, LOL! Can anyone even fathom how far ahead the 918 is from the LaF? Sorry, I wasn't born yesterday. This is a belated April Fool's joke, right?

So who are you Apolo1, who just joined FChat in Feb 2015? Tell us what you do for a living.
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Both the 918 driver as well as Supercar Driver insist the track was dry - I have no reason to doubt them. It would be dumb to run them on a wet track as it would be a totally useless comparison - I'm sure they would have postponed the comparison until the track was dry. I believe the special surface on this track is sealed to protect from dust and thus gives it a shiny, wet look when it is actually dry.

I do think however that the track was quite cold that morning (as evidenced by the track staff all wearing jackets) so it would not be an ideal time to get the best 1/4 mile times. However, all 3 cars were run under the same conditions, so it is the comparative performance, not absolute numbers that are important in this case.

 

P1 on Trofeo Rs, 918 on Cup 2s and LF on plain old Corsas. The difference between these three tyres is huge!

 

It doesn't need many knowledge to know that every professional drag strip with all that glue looks wet, due to the above...
Some random pics from google will do the trick also...
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Well, it also doesn't take (much) knowledge to know that drag strips often get wet because drivers use water to set up their slicks. That's why I first asked about what tires the cars had on. OTOH, if they do apply a special glue (slick track) treatment on the drag strip it still doesn't take much track knowledge to know such a surface would also favour slicker tires over tires with more grooves.

Thanks. Here are images of the 3 tires from TireRack. The readers can decide for themselves which tire resemble slick racing tire more.

Image Unavailable, Please Login

If you also listen carefully, you can clearly hear tires chirping and slipping in the video where the 918 goes against the LaF and I'll bet it wasn't coming from the 918's tires.

IMO, this hullabaloo is more about tires and how they help cars perform on a special surface than a real world performance comparison between these 3 great cars. Why brag about the cars being "tested in identical conditions" when the tires make such a huge difference on a slick track???

I think this was at best an unprofessional highly-flawed test, and at worst... I'll let readers decide for themselves.

 

The Trofeo R is about 1''/minute quicker than the Cup 2 on a dry track. The Corsa is about 1.5''/minute slower than the R on said track. Huge dry traction difference!

 

When we arrived the track was a little damp in patches, it was then dried, I spoke to one of the guys that manage the track he said if any thing there was to much grip.....

The Lafa and P1 through the use of glue were able to improve to about 0.4 on their time without the glue.

I did not run on a glue track as felt comfortable with my time, also did not do a tyre dial down, I know from my own time on track that even on short one a dial down can be worth over 3 secs a lap......also I short shifted.....plenty more left in the 918......and my tyres were struggling with grip......

 

Flawed test ?
Unless you mean factory cars,.....lol
3 privately owned cars, 2 pro race drivers, one hobbyist....all cars filled with same fuel from same pump, etc can not have been any more transparent....

As for unprofessional, don't follow all drivers walked the track, attended drivers briefing, all required safety protocols in place....

Best get used to the result more to come in part 3.......

 

When a 950 BHP Ferrari posts slower 1/4 mile times than a 562 BHP Ferrari, it gets me thinking about the validity of said test...