Ferrari LaFerrari vs Mclaren P1 vs Porsche 918

You're the one who keeps suggesting nothing I say should be considered to be true without corresponding proof - again that is a failure of logic.

The fact of the matter is that the absence of the proof you so desperately desire doesn't serve as proof of anything to the contrary on the statements I have made or McLaren has made, no matter how many times you tediously repeat yourself either.

Seems like a stalemate for you and I at the moment, but I'm very comfortable that when the next move is played in this game, I'll have the victory.

>8^)
ER

 

I urge you to read McL's release again carefully. The write in circles, they write in passive voice and they write in riddles.

There is yet to be a declarative statement that "We drove one complete lap at the Ring in under 7 minutes.." Rather they talk about achieving the speed that is necessary to achive such a time. Consider that statement . . . they "achieved the speed necessary to make" the time. Why write like that? Unless they couldn't get it all together on one magical lap.

It is deceptive, and they don't need to be deceptive. Just publish the time or just say it in a way that leaves no room for ambiguity.

When I was in college, we often trained on a downhill slope--we'd run sprints for 100 meters downhill. (Running downhill promotes muscle memory and helps you run faster on flat land.) A friend of mine onced achieved a hand timed pace of 10.29 seconds for the 100 meters, which would have been a time sufficient to achieve a bronze medal at the 1980 Olympic Games. However, he was running downhill and it was hand-timed, not electronic.

Details matter.

 

I believe you are passionate about the brand and car and I believe that you probably spoke to an employee regarding their endeavors at the ring. Those require no evidence as they are not extraordinary claims.

Their ring time does require evidence and sadly you have nothing to add other than a more amateur smoke and mirror show than Mclaren are running.

The tedious repetition is all you considering.

 

I think with anything, when your goal is to look for places to cast doubt you will probably find them.

The end of their video couldn't be a more clear statement to the point you tried to make.

"So did we do it... did we complete a sub-seven minute lap? Yes, of course."

If you missed the message there you should probably watch it again.

>8^)
ER

 

Certainly more worthy than McLaren.

Seriously if this honour role constitutes McLaren naming themselves as the most successful name in Motorsport they are clearly delusional:
McLaren Formula 1 - Honours

No offence

 

What in the world is your definition of truth then?

 

I think from their perspective it is like winning the Triple Crown in horse racing - The Belmont Stakes, the Preakness and the Kentucky Derby - and everyone remembers Secretariat and maybe War Admiral who achieved this result, but outside of those individuals who care about horse racing how many other prize winning horses can the average person name? And how many other events?

Formula One Championship, Indy 500, Le Mans 24 - it would be hard to argue those aren't the most coveted trophies to hold in all of motorsport and the events most recognizable by an average enthusiast. Winning these three titles is not something any other manufacturer can lay claim to - and of course McLaren have piled on a lot of other successes beyond that.

If you want broadly successful you would have to look at a company like Ford who has competed in nearly every form of 4-wheeled racing in the world at some point, and typically done fairly well in the process.

>8^)
ER

 

You left out DontWannaBGlue.

One of the most successful horses of all time



I'd think Porsche should be considered winningest of all time for Motorsport but just on a races won mark. Nothing really important.


P1. Beautiful. Check

P1. Fast. Check

P1. Proof. Well no need. Cuz they said so.

 

Anything I say, of course.

The truth is a fact. Facts are supported by evidence. Evidence in this case has already been provided.

Unfortunately a few active participants in this discussion have made it clear they are discounting every piece of evidence McLaren have presented so far as not enough for them. Some have and will continue to suggest that the financial incentive for these agents of McLaren to present false evidence is greater than the individual's own integrity too. This argument is made despite the fact that P1s are sold to people who bought them without any great concern over the Ring lap time results. Imagine that...

Some say the only evidence that will count is a visual recording of the entire lap as other contenders have chosen to do in the past, but McLaren's reluctance at this point to give away the P1's full abilities precludes them from doing so at this very moment. Their desire not to engage in a Ring lap time battle against other manufacturers who might try to beat them is also driving their decision according to other statements they have made. This twist in the story is giving the naysayers a seemingly comfortable but I'd say tenuous position to level their objections. Anyway, visual evidence may be the only standard that works for some people but it is not the only type relevant for facts to be considered as such.

Another definition of evidence that supports facts is something that could be demonstrated by repeatability. I have no doubts of the P1s ability to to complete a lap the Ring in under 7:00. This is something that has already happened on at least one occasion and is something that can, and probably will, be repeated which leaves me zero doubt the statements I have made or the position I have taken in this discussion. Assuming McLaren don't supply the full results of their efforts to be examined at some later point in time, with all the interest in this topic, someone else is sure to try.

Recapping: As it has already occurred, as there is evidence already available to support it, and as the process could be repeated if desired then the statement is already a fact regardless of whether some on the internet refuse to believe it. That's the truth.

>8^)
ER

 

With all due respect, I think you are showing your Yank. I have only heard of one of those horse races (Kentucy Derby). I would hazard a guess that the three most coveted trophies in Motorsport would be the Formula 1 World Championship, the Moto GP Championship and the World Rally Championship.

But that's besides the point. For McLaren to openly state that they are the most successful name in Motorsport based on four categories is ludicrous.

You could actually turn the argument right around and say that McLaren is one of the least successful names in Motorsport.

 

Clear visual evidence of a win is nothing new and has been relatively universal for quite sometime: Fans, journalists, and the general public have attended automotive races for decades because all parties have wanted to participate in the visual confirmation that is required for a win. Seeing has always been believing.

A lap time via an in-car video is simply a modern reinterpretation of clear visual evidence. This is easy for fans, journalists, and the general public to understand, and they have made this clear by the amount of hits they contribute to lap time videos posted on YouTube, as well as the traffic they log among automotive websites that repost those videos.

McLaren don't seem to adhere to this understanding of clear visual evidence. That is frustrating. Even more frustrating is their denial of its importance in the light of Porsche's easy, willing compliance to that understanding.

You don't seem to adhere to this understanding of clear visual evidence. That is frustrating. Even more frustrating is your denial of its importance in light of the rest of the world's easy, willing compliance to that understanding.

 

The only value that 'clear visual evidence' has would be to silence (downright embarrass actually) the naysayers. It doesn't change what has happened or the statements that have been made as evidence of what happened when McLaren set a lap time at the Ring in the P1.

I also believe my friends, and I want my friends here to believe as well. Simple as that.

>8^)
ER

 

They probably wouldn't do that.

I also think the average person, even the average automotive enthusiast, would not know of or mention the MotoGP Championship. You might get World Rally out of a number thanks to video games. A larger percentage would probably know about "The Chase" in NASCAR where at least McLaren Electronics supplies the ECU. And didn't you know the world revolves around America?

>8^)
ER

 

I refreshed this thread...the page number has gone up....the posts appear new...

But if read them there is nothing new?

 

I didn't watch the video, I read the release.

But even in that snippet you quoted, look at the sentence structure.

"Did we complete a sub seven minute lap? Yes . . . ."

Why not just state: "We completed a sub 7 minute lap." Why the cute sentence structure?

 

You've gotta be kidding me. Watch the video.

>8^)
ER

 

From my POV Erik have put A LOT at stake here. He comes across as extremely confident in what he has been told. It would be like an epic internet suicide for him to be wrong.

The P1 is hideous, ugly to boot, but when someone here comes out on top, I think it will be Erik. He has been consistant throughout the thread.

Then people can b&w about Mclarens strategy etc. All that means NOTHING if Erik is right.

 

believe what exactly? That McLaren put in a sub 7 minute lap? I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone who would dispute that.

 

oh hi. Not totally sure who you are, but I am pretty sure you are not the guy who determines what does and what doesn't mean anything.

 

I very much doubt had Porsche released the same promotional video and press release regarding their time at the ring certain Mclaren mouthpieces would suggest they were 'evidence' of anything.

The only thing Mclaren has released evidence of is that they can write paragraphs and edit video. Congrats.

 

Their is no 'top' to be had. I remain neutral to the idea that they beat 7.00. I'm not entrenched in the notion that they absolutely didn't but have seen nothing to confirm that they did.

My position has been consistent. I'm skeptical about sub 7.00 until proven otherwise and that goes for the 918, LaFerrari and the P1.

 

In 1998, McLaren claimed that the F1 had set a new record for the world's fastest production car. They stated the exact speed achieved (391 km/h) and provided the following video evidence to serve as proof of their claim.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZqM79R1c30]McLaren F1 - 241mph Speed Record - YouTube[/ame]

In 2013, McLaren claimed that the P1 had set a sub-seven minute lap time around the Nürburgring Nordschleife. They refuse to release the lap time and have provided no evidence of any kind to serve as proof of their claim.

When the 918 Spyder set a time of 6:57 Porsche provided the following video evidence to serve as proof of their claim.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Yz8cizr6sI]Porsche 918 Spyder Record Lap Onboard - YouTube[/ame]

When the 599XX set a time of 6:58 Ferrari provided the following video evidence to serve as proof of their claim.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNwGCcFi2PI]Il filmato on board del giro record in 6'58''16 / On-board camera of the record lap in 6'58''16 - YouTube[/ame]

Enough said.

 

I've heard from McLaren insiders that when they go back to the Nordschleife to improve their lap time that the PR campaign will change from the "of course we did" catch phrase to "Oops we did it again".

 

I simply cannot believe they have not made it in under 7mns. I just think they like being cocky and that's how they are being.

Might they be waiting for Ferrari to show their cards before they reveal their time?

 

I have doubts that Ferrari have any interest in the p***ing contest between the other two cars at the ring.

Its probably why their promotions have referenced the ring the least if at all compared to the other two.