Comparison tests Porsche 918 vs McLaren P1 vs LaFerrari

[Emu]

Better than a twisting politician

And what makes you say that? There's no twisting required, some people just don't like it when someone points out the temporary nature of the terms under which the 918 is competitive against the P1.

Some people also can't handle the fact that the P1 can beat the 918 by 1.2s on some tracks, even during those 2 minutes and come up with pathetic excuses, rather than looking at the different nature of the track and understanding why.

People who can't accept simple facts are the ones that are truly 'twisting'. I've never disputed the 918's hot lap win at LS, I've simply pointed out the wider issues that the telemetry has brought forward via treynor. And again, some people a) don't like those wider issues and b) refuse to accept them.

 

[Bucketslash11]

1. No it isn't, the Caparo T1 is a very specialised track car.

2. No, it just isn't.

http://www.tyrereviews.co.uk/Tyre/Michelin/Pilot-Super-Sport.htm
http://www.tyrereviews.co.uk/Tyre/Pirelli/PZero-Corsa-System.htm

3. I think the AWD would help it out on the corkscrew significantly. I'd estimate sub-1:35 at least. P1 could comfortably do the full 20.832km lap in under 7 minutes.

1. and the P1 isn't....*cough 600kg of downforce cough*

2. how can a PHYSICAL OBJECTIVE test disprove SUBJECTIVE refrences? that doesn't make sense

3. what do you use to estimate your time, i use the nürburgring unofficial time and the fact that the TGTT and autocar dry track are fast tracks (you can also use the F12 vs LFA to prove this point 1:38 vs 1:36)

 

[Deleted member 25]

The passion in this thread is quite honestly unbelievable, i don't how you guys manage to get going with such insignificant and boring discussion.

 

[330CIZHP]

Mclaren never built their own engine, Lotus won with Ford powered cars, Red Bull and Renault. It takes a good chassis and good engine to win, one can't do without the other. So yes, Mclaren, Lotus effectively won half of their constructors championships. I will like to add that Ferrari has won championships all on their own.

Yep, Honda engines. I always find it surprising while reading McLaren accomplishments in F1 as to how Honda is generally ignored and does not get the due credit for being such an instrumental force in those wins.

 

[Monster]

Yep, Honda engines. I always find it surprising while reading McLaren accomplishments in F1 as to how Honda is ignored and does not get the due credit for being such an instrumental force in those wins.

Same with Renault and Red Bull...but anyway...this topic is for another thread.

 

[Bucketslash11]

The passion in this thread is quite honestly unbelievable, i don't how you guys manage to get going with such insignificant and boring discussion.

honed my argumenting skills on youtube

 

[Emu]

1. and the P1 isn't....*cough 600kg of downforce cough*

Does it weigh 500kg *cough*?

2. how can a PHYSICAL OBJECTIVE test disprove SUBJECTIVE refrences? that doesn't make sense

Wasn't an objective test:

Several problems with that test:

1) Off the shelf tyres, not bespoke 918 and P1 tyres.

2) Pirelli sponsored event, not really independent.

3) Laps done on separate days. Time of day, track temperature, ambient temperature?

4) We don't actually see either of the two MPSC2 hot laps in CH's COTY run, but we do see the hot laps for every other car. Now it's interesting that some people are skeptical when McLaren doesn't release a lap video, but when someone else omits the fundamental basis behind a test result, no one questions it. Even the TR laps in that video are badly edited, so it's not really good journalism.

5) The GT3's MPSC2 time is just poor frankly. You wouldn't expect it to be 4s down on a 458S, you'd expect nearer 2s. So when the TR hot lap ends up where most estimates would have put the MPSC2 lap in the first place, it's not very convincing.

http://www.tyrereviews.co.uk/Tyre/Pirelli/PZero-Corsa-System.htm

90% of the dry grip of the PS Cup, but way better in the damp, and lasts lots longer

MPSC2 >> MPSC

"lasts lots longer" - Does that sound like 80 vs 60 on the tread wear side of things?

The only tyre they'll commit to saying it's better than is the PS2.

I've only gotten 500 miles out of these tyres as they've been used on my track wheels and are never used on the road. They take a couple of laps to warm up, and you won't want to use them between the months of October & March, but once up to temperature they easily exceed the grip of my normal Michelin PS2s on the track although this extra grip comes with a price that means you don't get as much progression before you lose all grip.

Many of these subjective reviews are based on objective track running.

3. what do you use to estimate your time, i use the nürburgring unofficial time and the fact that the TGTT and autocar dry track are fast tracks (you can also use the F12 vs LFA to prove this point 1:38 vs 1:36)

Autocar dry track wasn't dry when the P1 did it, hence defeating the object and it was a different driver. Why continue to reference a test you know isn't valid?

1:38 - What track is that for?

Anglesey Coastal - 2 fast corners and P1 wins by 1.2s. One can only imagine how badly the 918 would get its ass handed to it through Eau Rouge, Pouhon, Blanchimont and Curve Paul Frere. It would just be embarrassing. Deep down you know this but you won't admit it.

HL mode unsustainability issue - The interesting thing is that all the Porsche folk made exactly the same criticisms of the GTR, that they now object to being applied to the 918. The crazy thing is that the GTR could maintain its lap pace for much longer than 2 minutes. That's not to say that both cars don't have some neat tricks, especially wrt being easy to drive fast but both fall short when compared to lighter, faster cars, sometimes with more downforce on faster tracks, or over sustained periods on track days.

Big Willow - 2s between 918 and GTR, 1:20ish lap. 6 times 2s is 12s, 918 is 11s faster on 'ring. Big Willow is a far better indicator than either of the two tracks you mention.

 

[kingjr9000]

Well what's the problem with sending a customer car. Since Ferraris hardly even get driven typically, they should be in tip-top shape. Why not use customer cars?

I don't really know what the problem is with sending customer cars to a manufacturer comparo. But I think the problem with sending a customer car is because most customers don't want to have to deal with insurance policy for the cars having to be driven by someone else in case something happens. But, here's a good example of what happened on top gear: if you have five friends, three wants to go skiing and two want to go rock climbing, who wins the majority in that match? Three people beat two, right? So now everyone has to go along with what the other three said and just deal with it and go skiing.

 

[Emu]

Or just allow customers to supply their cars without horse head treatment. Apparently Mclaren did volunteer a factory car if you look at their Twitter feed anyway. They've never bottled out of anything so far, even allowed a customer car test at Laguna Seca, I think they're being unfairly accused of a lot of things that actually apply to Ferrari. Ferrari has always been the one to prohibit testing in case their BS weight and acceleration figures come to light, but then they already have anyway looking around YT videos. You can argue that they're not accurate enough to see whether it's faster than a P1 or not, but what's indisputable is that the LaFerrari does not have 700hp/ton, or anywhere close. Even on the speedo it takes 21s from 100-205mph vs <20s for P1 (Autocar).

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

This is not 700hp/ton at work.

 

[Betty Swollocks]

The Caparo T1 is just proof that Brits can destroy German crap with minimal effort.

On behalf of Brits, I'd like to apologise.

 

[gtaqv]

Just want to share a best motoring test where they tested a few convertibles, the curious aspect of this test is that all cars were timed with the roof up and down.

Nearly all cars were faster with top down, only the boxter was faster with the top up but by merely 0.06seconds.

So it is very possible that on the evo lap the 918 wasn't slower at all, for having its roof down, especially considering that the track is relatively small.

@10:49

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[lbonu1967]

So I present you clear evidence and you deny it?

http://jalopnik.com/5760248/how-ferrari-spins

http://www.6speedonline.com/forums/ferrari/236758-chris-harris-ferrari-cheats.html

These are evidences. Press car with track alignment.
CH must be drunk when he wrote the article, he confused the 599 GTB with the 430 scuderia.
What a piece of real information.
Hey look about the 650S sport auto supertest. Damn 7:35 at the ring !!
What the hell !! reading Macca forum. << It has no sense >>. << It's not possible>>
Slower than a Mp4-12C, Macca boys work like shrimps.
Do you need a push by hand ?

 

[gtaqv]

I agree with mclaren for not wanting another comparison on a small track like the top gear TT, this cars must be compared on f1 worthy tracks... Laguna Seca is an interesting and nice circuit, and it's great that they tested the cars there, but doesn't suit this cars well...

 

[Emu]

These are evidences. Press car with track alignment.
CH must be drunk when he wrote the article, he confused the 599 GTB with the 430 scuderia.
What a piece of real information.
Hey look about the 650S sport auto supertest. Damn 7:35 at the ring !!
What the hell !! reading Macca forum. << It has no sense >>. << It's not possible>>
Slower than a Mp4-12C, Macca boys work like shrimps.
Do you need a push by hand ?

Are you for real here? Do you know how large a minute of a degree is? Basically, it could change by that much between the start and end of a few laps, hence why suspension geometry needs to be checked and reset fairly regularly.

As for Sport Auto times, huge pinch of salt. When someone gets the same time with a Gumpert Apollo S as a GT2 RS, their times are all but meaningless. Has there been a 650S supertest?

 

[Bucketslash11]

Does it weigh 500kg *cough*?


Wasn't an objective test:

Several problems with that test:

1) Off the shelf tyres, not bespoke 918 and P1 tyres.

2) Pirelli sponsored event, not really independent.

3) Laps done on separate days. Time of day, track temperature, ambient temperature?

4) We don't actually see either of the two MPSC2 hot laps in CH's COTY run, but we do see the hot laps for every other car. Now it's interesting that some people are skeptical when McLaren doesn't release a lap video, but when someone else omits the fundamental basis behind a test result, no one questions it. Even the TR laps in that video are badly edited, so it's not really good journalism.

5) The GT3's MPSC2 time is just poor frankly. You wouldn't expect it to be 4s down on a 458S, you'd expect nearer 2s. So when the TR hot lap ends up where most estimates would have put the MPSC2 lap in the first place, it's not very convincing.

http://www.tyrereviews.co.uk/Tyre/Pirelli/PZero-Corsa-System.htm



MPSC2 >> MPSC

"lasts lots longer" - Does that sound like 80 vs 60 on the tread wear side of things?

The only tyre they'll commit to saying it's better than is the PS2.



Many of these subjective reviews are based on objective track running.


Autocar dry track wasn't dry when the P1 did it, hence defeating the object and it was a different driver. Why continue to reference a test you know isn't valid?

1:38 - What track is that for?

Anglesey Coastal - 2 fast corners and P1 wins by 1.2s. One can only imagine how badly the 918 would get its ass handed to it through Eau Rouge, Pouhon, Blanchimont and Curve Paul Frere. It would just be embarrassing. Deep down you know this but you won't admit it.

HL mode unsustainability issue - The interesting thing is that all the Porsche folk made exactly the same criticisms of the GTR, that they now object to being applied to the 918. The crazy thing is that the GTR could maintain its lap pace for much longer than 2 minutes. That's not to say that both cars don't have some neat tricks, especially wrt being easy to drive fast but both fall short when compared to lighter, faster cars, sometimes with more downforce on faster tracks, or over sustained periods on track days.

Big Willow - 2s between 918 and GTR, 1:20ish lap. 6 times 2s is 12s, 918 is 11s faster on 'ring. Big Willow is a far better indicator than either of the two tracks you mention.

1. why market it using downforce-, G- and laptime figures?

2. it's funny (read:hypocritical) how you criticize him for not showing a full lap yet you buy all the BS of mclaren without any second thought

the speciale and GT3 comparison is apples to oranges as you introduce more variables (chassis, aerodynamics, steering, etc.) when we need to have the least amount possible (CH video)

not to mention that it shaved 2 seconds of without effort (he's not a pro racedriverdriver)

3. the 1:38 is for LS which we talked about EARLIER, the main point is:
acceleration, top speed= / = good laptimes

need further refrence UG gallardo, it doesn't have a chance of beating the 918

 

[kingjr9000]

It would be nice to have Jim on this forum to debunk some of the engineering and car myths since he's an actual racing driver.

 

[Emu]

1. why market it using downforce-, G- and laptime figures?

Because it's effective marketing. And I believe that on GP tracks the P1 would be uncatchable to anything short of a LaFerrari and that's really the kind of track these cars were made for.

2. it's funny (read:hypocritical) how you criticize him for not showing a full lap yet you buy all the BS of mclaren without any second thought

I saw what the P1 did at Anglesey Coastal and I know the 'ring has lots of high speed corners, I also know that the 918's HL mode doesn't last 7 minutes, so I'd be extremely illogical if I didn't believe a sub-7 minute claim. Whereas with the TR vs MPSC2 debate, I see lots of comparison tests where bespoke MPSC2s are beating TRs on lateral and braking g. So it would be extremely illogical to believe that every car fitted with TRs just handled really badly. The LS telemetry also shows the same situation. Therefore the CH test is confounded by other results.

the speciale and GT3 comparison is apples to oranges as you introduce more variables (chassis, aerodynamics, steering, etc.) when we need to have the least amount possible (CH video)

Has the 458S beat a GT3 by a similar margin anywhere else?

http://fastestlaps.com/comparisons/porsche_911991_gt3-vs-ferrari_458_speciale.html

Track 911 GT3 458 Speciale
Vairano Handling Course 1:12.88 1:12.49
Sachsenring 1:32.97 1:32.76
Castle Combe 1:13.10 1:11.90

You have to admit, 4s looks pretty damn suspect.

not to mention that it shaved 2 seconds of without effort (he's not a pro racedriverdriver)

Based on the above, maybe the 2s was just there for the taking in the first place, on either tyre.

3. the 1:38 is for LS which we talked about EARLIER, the main point is:
acceleration, top speed= / = good laptimes

Not really sure what point you're making here. A Mustang 302 LS beat the 2008 GTR there, so sometimes you just get funny results.

need further refrence UG gallardo, it doesn't have a chance of beating the 918

Yes but we know that the P1 is no UG Gallardo. It does handle, and handle well, otherwise it wouldn't be anywhere near a 918 on LS. Anglesey Coastal vs Laguna Seca is an indicator that faster tracks and faster corners favour the P1, so as we move to GP tracks and the 'ring, the P1 will become faster than the 918 based on that logic. I'm not being biased here, just using logic based on results and a knowledge of the two cars. You have to admit that when you can only pull 0.8s in a 918 despite three 40mph corners, no fast corners, one 40mph down a slope and a 35mph corner at the start of the main straight, it is pretty impressive that the P1 is even hanging on to the AWD 918. Plenty of lesser engineered RWD cars with the same PWR wouldn't.

 

[Unotaz]

Does it weigh 500kg *cough*?


Wasn't an objective test:

Several problems with that test:

1) Off the shelf tyres, not bespoke 918 and P1 tyres.

2) Pirelli sponsored event, not really independent.

.
.
.

While others on this forum have real world experience driving these cars extensively, lots of track experience on the Trofeo Rs and MPSC2, you dismiss their comments outright with your "internet facts". Have you driven the P1 or the 918? Do you have any real world experience on the track with either the Pirelli Corsa tires, MPSC2 or the Pirelli Trofeo R tires?

And for once, please answer my questions directly without deflecting it on new topics.

 

[330CIZHP]

Not really sure what point you're making here. A Mustang 302 LS beat the 2008 GTR there, so sometimes you just get funny results.

Nothing funny about your example. The Laguna Seca was a very track capable car to begin with (Ford officially claimed it could lap Nurburgring in 7:40). It is not a stretch to imagine it might be quicker than a 3 - 4 year older iteration of Nissan GT-R.

Besides, the Laguna Seca was on very sticky Pirelli Corsa System track tires (comparable to Cup 2 tires) and GTR initially used Potenza RE070 tires, which accounts for the better lap time.

 

[Emu]

Nothing funny about your example. The Laguna Seca was a very track capable car to begin with (Ford officially claimed it could lap Nurburgring in 7:40). It is not a stretch to imagine it might be quicker than a 3 - 4 year older iteration of Nissan GT-R.

Besides, the Laguna Seca was on very sticky Pirelli Corsa System track tires (comparable to Cup 2 tires) and GTR initially used Potenza RE070 tires, which accounts for the better lap time.

And the solid rear axle?

Sometimes in the limited time available when many cars are tested at once, as was the case in the aforementioned, the results just come out bizarrely. 1:40.45 is definitely very below par for any R35 GTR. In fact, I'd be surprised if an R34 GTR couldn't get beat that time. So you can't really use large tests where the driver has had only 3-5 laps in each car as absolute gospel proof.