Chris Harris on Ferrari's media-manipulation

[NarutoRamen]

I had a conversation about this with BMW Power over facebook. Basically, this shouldn't surprise anyone. Ferrari have been full of BS and stuck up attitude since their start with Enzo. I love Ferrari cars, and I'd love to work for them someday, but their attitude must change. With the rise of the computer generation, they will lose more and more control over trying to control every bit of detail.

And Harris is right, the fact they do this is stupid simply because their cars are good enough for them to not need to.

BTW, I have to admit, Harris is my fav journalist next to Clarkson.

 

[TMCCL65]

It's not as strange as it seems. Ferrari did something similar when the F50 was released, as noted by the Car and Driver road test. C&D got the OK from multiple F50 owners who agreed to testing, but when the test dates got close, the owners didn't go through with it. Ferrari had a talk with them, it seems.
The subject of Ferrari's concern for cars of "unknown provenance" was brought to light by Chris Harris when he worked at Autocar. They were going to test the 360 CS against the Porsche GT3 RS, both being customer cars. Before the test could happen, Ferrari had a word with the CS owner and the car was subsequently pulled. This was back in 2003, and I'm sure if were not true, Ferrari would have a very good libel case to consider. Who knows, we'll see if Ferrari pursue this further.

Regarding that 458 dragstrip test, that track is known as a fast one. A ZR1 reportedly trapped 3 mph faster than that, which would make it about 5 mph faster than the average from car mags.
But let's suppose all 458's are indeed that fast. Then why the need for Ferrari's engineers and test drivers and support trucks full of parts and tires at mag tests? The customer 458 being that fast only highlights Harris's point: that Ferrari are needlessly paranoid about the performance figures of their cars. And if they're not all as fast as this, perhaps there is a quality control issue at work here...

MIR (the one the 458 Italia ran at) is the same track that I regularly go to. I have over a dozen vbox files showing that my GPS trap speed is over 1 mph faster than the one displayed on my timeslips. Here is a thread where I go into some detail when testing my CL65 there:

http://www.germancarforum.com/internal-combustion/28651-testing-my-cl65.html

My car trapped 125.35mph with the vbox and only 124.00 mph per the timeslip. On all my dozen + runs with the vbox, the timeslip traps were 1+ higher than the GPS based trap speed.

I have also tested the slope at MIR, which drops less than 2' over the 1320'...which results in a -0.15% slope. There is nothing magical about MIR (unlike Sacramento Raceway which people magically trap higher on the timeslip than on their vbox). MIR is known for great track preparation and for being nearly sea-level. The Ferrari ran on a nice crisp and cold day which high performance cars love.

Also, I know the driver of the ZR1 who ran the great times. He is an incredibly talented driver. He can launch a car as hard with the stock tires as most people would do with drag radials. His runs are highly efficient (very little wheelspin) and he loses very little time with his power shifts.

Tom

 

[Levi68]

Really unbelievable. I hope that will not be the case of the McLaren. No if that is what BMW, Mercedes, Audi and so do, it is not a matter, but not Ferrari.

 

[Ultimate Car Guy]

Really unbelievable. I hope that will not be the case of the McLaren. No if that is what BMW, Mercedes, Audi and so do, it is not a matter, but not Ferrari.

Yeah, its almost as bad as making-up the spec of the future M3 in MS Word and passing it off as official.

 

[Guibo]

MIR (the one the 458 Italia ran at) is the same track that I regularly go to. I have over a dozen vbox files showing that my GPS trap speed is over 1 mph faster than the one displayed on my timeslips. Here is a thread where I go into some detail when testing my CL65 there:

http://www.germancarforum.com/internal-combustion/28651-testing-my-cl65.html

My car trapped 125.35mph with the vbox and only 124.00 mph per the timeslip. On all my dozen + runs with the vbox, the timeslip traps were 1+ higher than the GPS based trap speed.

I have also tested the slope at MIR, which drops less than 2' over the 1320'...which results in a -0.15% slope. There is nothing magical about MIR (unlike Sacramento Raceway which people magically trap higher on the timeslip than on their vbox). MIR is known for great track preparation and for being nearly sea-level. The Ferrari ran on a nice crisp and cold day which high performance cars love.

Also, I know the driver of the ZR1 who ran the great times. He is an incredibly talented driver. He can launch a car as hard with the stock tires as most people would do with drag radials. His runs are highly efficient (very little wheelspin) and he loses very little time with his power shifts.

Tom

Thing is, I doubt the Euro tests of the 458 have been on great tracks. Yet the 458 can still pull off 132 mph traps in those tests. The important thing we're missing here is: How fast would the press 458 be with full factory support in those same conditions? We just don't know.

 

[Sayyaaf]

Yeah, its almost as bad as making-up the spec of the future M3 in MS Word and passing it off as official.

we agreed it was MS Paint.

Regards.

 

[Mafalda]

Evo has some problems with Ferrari? ok- but this is a fake-scoop.
there're a lots of "strange-test
1. Mc f1 - Autocar: 240 mph WITHOUT lim rev (it means a customer F1 cannot do it!)
2. Porsche Carrera GT - Sport Auto: 0-200 Kph 10.2s with a quite bad start (usually 10.7s with better start...)
3. Gallardo 500ps -Sport Auto: 0-200Kph 13.0s (usually 13.8s)
4. Murciélago 580ps MY02 - Sport Auto supertest: incredibily 7'50", just 8s slower than Murci LP670 SV (+90ps, same weight, better tyres, better transmission, composite brakes ext ext etx)
5. 996 TT - SPort Auto supertest (with standard tyres): same laptime of a F430 F1 with PZero corsa
6. Porsche Carrera GT - Auto (I): 0-200 9.25 and 1 KM 19.42s, faster than Mc F1!!
7. 997 GT2 - Auto (I): km 20.59 @ 270kph (wih a bad start!)

Porsche 911 GT2 - 911 Coupé - Porsche - Prova - Auto
8. Panamera Turbo - Auto: 0-100 3.66s!
Porsche Panamera Turbo: 0-100 in 3"66! - Panamera - Porsche - Prova - Auto
9 997.2 GT3 - Auto: ...se with your eyes

Porsche 911 GT3. Pole Position - 911 Coupé - Porsche - Prova - Auto
10 Murciélago 580 (Auto and AMuS): 0-200 11.5s (usually +1s)
11 SL600 - C&D: 0-60 mph 3.6s
12. Ford GT - AmuS 0-300: just 34s
13 SLR - AMuS 0-300: just 32s
14 Murciélago LP640 - Quattroruote: 0-200 10.2s (usually 11s)
15. 997.2 TT Sport Auto (F): claimed 500ps, dyno 545
http://www.germancarforum.com/internal-combustion/32604-scans-french-sport-auto-nissan-gt-r-vs-porsche-911-turbo-manual.html
15/bis: Nissan GT-R: claimed 485ps, tested 525ps
16. 997.2 TurboS 530ps - Autocar: 1 KM 263 Kph , as like as the (...tuned...? :lol ) 458 Italia 570ps
17. Sl55 (see this thread)

this is a fake scoop, casually during the preview of the Mc MP4-12C

 

[Mafalda]

..probably don't remeber their supertest @the Ring with customer MC12 and Enzo....

 

[Mafalda]

LOL! :roll2:

nice video and nice pics but Mc does a little jump start

 

[DeDe]

4. Murciélago 580ps MY02 - Sport Auto supertest: incredibily 7'50", just 8s slower than Murci LP670 SV (+90ps, same weight, better tyres, better transmission, composite brakes ext ext etx)

Autocar did 7.43 with a Murciélago.

5. 996 TT - SPort Auto supertest (with standard tyres): same laptime of a F430 F1 with PZero corsa

That's not true. The time for the 996 Turbo is 1.14,6 min on normal P Zeros, while the F430' time is 1.12,7 min on Corsas.

10 Murciélago 580 (Auto and AMuS): 0-200 11.5s (usually +1s)

AMS tested the car in Nardo at very low temperature (3 Degrees Celsius) and a useable manual gearbox (instead of the silly, first-gen E-gear).

11 SL600 - C&D: 0-60 mph 3.6s

Those times are with 1-foot-rollout. So the 0-100 km/h time is close to 4,2 seconds. AMS once did 4,1 s with a stock SL600...

13 SLR - AMuS 0-300: just 32s

30,6 seconds. Factory's claim is 28,8 s, so it's believeable. The 650-hp SLR 722's time was 29,6 s (tested by Sport Auto). That's realistic for 24 more hp.

this is a fake scoop, casually during the preview of the Mc MP4-12C

It has nothing to do with the Macca. He's right, we all know that.

 

[Guibo]

..probably don't remeber their supertest @the Ring with customer MC12 and Enzo....

I do remember that test. The Enzo's dampers failed. Like I said, perhaps there's a quality control issue here...
Nobody is saying customer cars are slow, mafalda. What we are discussing is customer car vs factory car in same conditions. The 'Ring supertest doesn't answer that.

 

[Mafalda]

Autocar did 7.43 with a Murciélago.





That's not true. The time for the 996 Turbo is 1.14,6 min on normal P Zeros, while the F430' time is 1.12,7 min on Corsas.



AMS tested the car in Nardo at very low temperature (3 Degrees Celsius) and a useable manual gearbox (instead of the silly, first-gen E-gear).



Those times are with 1-foot-rollout. So the 0-100 km/h time is close to 4,2 seconds. AMS once did 4,1 s with a stock SL600...



30,6 seconds. Factory's claim is 28,8 s, so it's believeable. The 650-hp SLR 722's time was 29,6 s (tested by Sport Auto). That's realistic for 24 more hp.



It has nothing to do with the Macca. He's right, we all know that.

- Murci and autocar: mystery laptime, a Murci 580 cannot do better tha a Zonda S, 599 GTB and Murci LP640 almost fast like a Murci LP670sv
-996TT and F430: supertest means Nurbur..
- Usually SLR is slower than CGT, @ nardò 0-300 was 2s faster...

 

[Mafalda]

I do remember that test. The Enzo's dampers failed. Like I said, perhaps there's a quality control issue here... What we are discussing is customer car vs factory car in same conditions. The 'Ring supertest doesn't answer that.

these doubts are valid for all manufacturers, not only for Ferrari.
Ring us to the test showed that a Ferrari can do better than the CGT.
I remind you that 7.28 is the same time reported and four seconds better than that achieved by HVS

Nobody is saying customer cars are slow, mafalda. .

right.....You and Harris are saying only the customer Ferrari are slower than "official"....

 

[Guibo]

these doubts are valid for all manufacturers, not only for Ferrari.
Ring us to the test showed that a Ferrari can do better than the CGT.
I remind you that 7.28 is the same time reported and four seconds better than that achieved by HVS


right.....You and Harris are saying only the customer Ferrari are slower than "official"....

Not at all, it's pretty obvious to me that you haven't read the article without taking off your Ferrari™-brand blinders. Chris Harris is commenting on the extreme lengths that Ferrari go to ensure the best results. If you have any other evidence of other marques pressuring owners into not allowing their cars to be tested (corroborated by the C&D test over a decade ago), then I'd like to hear it. Do you have any such instances?
OK, I'll help you out: Show me a grievance by a respected journalist saying that Porsche intervened when a customer car was to be used for a test. Show me an instance where Porsche asked what track the comparo would be at, so that they could send a car and crew beforehand to set up the car just right. Show me an instance where Porsche, like Ferrari, changed the tires for the wet portion of track testing as in Evo's Car of The Year test.
If a 458 is slower in the 1/4 mile by 0.3s and 3 mph, does that make it a slow car? Not at all. Please do me a favor: quit looking at things in only black vs white.

I never said the Enzo can never be faster on the 'Ring, so why that is even a question here reeks of you derailing the topic. The topic, which you can't seem to address is: What was the time of the factory-supplied Enzo?

- Murci and autocar: mystery laptime, a Murci 580 cannot do better tha a Zonda S, 599 GTB and Murci LP640 almost fast like a Murci LP670sv
-996TT and F430: supertest means Nurbur..
- Usually SLR is slower than CGT, @ nardò 0-300 was 2s faster...

Did Chris Harris drive all of those other cars too at the 'Ring? If not, you're comparing apples to oranges.

 

[martinbo]

Don't pay too much attention to mafalda, Guibo - just head off to the EVO forums and you'll see that he/she makes a non-sensical nuisance of him/herself there too...

 

[Mafalda]

Don't pay too much attention to mafalda, Guibo - just head off to the EVO forums and you'll see that he/she makes a non-sensical nuisance of him/herself there too...

I'm sorry, but Guibo did not follow your advice, but he continued to answer me on another forum.
and now I'll do some more "nuisance": after Evo, Autocar has also pulled out of the hat a small, useless controversy with Ferrari. but surely it's just a coincidence ...
The problem with buying supercars is

 

[Guibo]

I'm sorry, but Guibo did not follow your advice, but he continued to answer me on another forum.
and now I'll do some more "nuisance": after Evo, Autocar has also pulled out of the hat a small, useless controversy with Ferrari. but surely it's just a coincidence ...
The problem with buying supercars is

I did that there to try to spare this forum your inane conspiracy theories.
I don't see anything remarkable in that article. Guy who's taking delivery of both cars in question wants Sutcliffe's opinion on a matter, which Sutcliffe wouldn't have answered like that unless he'd driven both cars.

What is not a coincidence is that you've failed to answer my questions again. C'mon. Just give us the name of one manufacturer who goes to all the lengths that Ferrari have done, documented by various sources throughout the years.


And it's not like Autocar & Sutcliffe are completely new to Ferrari's shenanigans.
http://www.supercars.net/pitlane/pics/185365/2128381d.jpg
@ 1:34
http://www.autocar.co.uk/car-video/best-handling-car-2010-video/

I wonder if they were kind enough to put that same fuel in all of the cars in test...

 

[Mafalda]

I did that there to try to spare this forum your inane conspiracy theories.
I don't see anything remarkable in that article. Guy who's taking delivery of both cars in question wants Sutcliffe's opinion on a matter, which Sutcliffe wouldn't have answered like that unless he'd driven both cars.

What is not a coincidence is that you've failed to answer my questions again. C'mon. Just give us the name of one manufacturer who goes to all the lengths that Ferrari have done, documented by various sources throughout the years.

I always answered the important questions. If I did not do it, or I missed, or they were stupid questions.
eves so, you still have to explain to me how to drive a GT-R, since two different drivers (Hvs and Bert) on two different versions (MY09 and MY10) have made virtually the same laptime (7.38 and about 7.37) .
but maybe now I understand how to do less than 7.30 (see photo)

This is the a first drive of MP4 (4R) ("Auto " is not yet available online): there is no trace of veiled polemics, or strange comparatives "Croma beats MP4 because its trunk is larger"
Google Traduttore
and on paper (avaible today), 4R writes "Mc claims incredibly figures, and we bevile it" (and 4R writes too " a full test'll be avaible soon )

 

[Guibo]

I always answered the important questions. If I did not do it, or I missed, or they were stupid questions.
eves so, you still have to explain to me how to drive a GT-R, since two different drivers (Hvs and Bert) on two different versions (MY09 and MY10) have made virtually the same laptime (7.38 and about 7.37) .
but maybe now I understand how to do less than 7.30 (see photo)

Wrong, you have not answered the important questions. It's obvious to me that you did not read Harris's comments with an open mind. The issue is not whether other manufacturers might tweak their cars. The issue is the extreme (and downright weird/paranoid) lengths that Ferrari go through to ensure they come out on top. You say they are no different from any other manufacturer. Well, this raises a very important question: If they are no different from any other manufacturer, then can you name me a single manufacturer who goes through the same lengths that Ferrari does? I put out Porsche as an easy example. You should have easily answered that question by now. I have a good hunch why you haven't: It's because you cannot honestly say Porsche go through such measures. This much was evidenced in the latest eCOTY issue where both Porsches were left to contend with the wet track on their factory Cup tires, while Ferrari changed the tires on the 458.
And that gets to the another important question raised by Harris: Is it really honest of Ferrari to represent a car as cabale of doing something when it turns out you need to actually purchase 2 Ferraris? You'll need one that's optimized for dry or track handling, and another for wet conditions. Because when you buy a 458, Ferrari sure as hell don't throw in an engineering crew or F1 support truck full of spares and tires.

As for lap times in the GT-R: different days, different conditions, different drivers. Even within Nissan's test crew, they saw lap time differences of 10-15s. Even the same driver can see differences of 10s in the same car (ex: W. Rohrl in the CGT). When HvS drove the GT-R the first time, Toshio Suzuki drove as well on the same day. Same conditions (slightly damp in some corners). Yet Suzuki outdrove him by 12 seconds. To this day, I have yet to see anyone drive the GT-R with the same level of comittment that Suzuki has. If you know of someone, and can show a video or something to prove it, then I'd like to know who that is. Bert? He was on a full course lap, and had the weight of a passenger and no doubt that passenger's well-being in mind. He's not going to go for a full on banzai time attack like Suzuki.
There's really not a big difference between '09 and '10 versions, is there?

 

[Mafalda]

about harris, I just noticed this strange coincidence, that the controversy was during the launch of the MP4. and I'm reminded of other odd little controversy, in addition to the typical british-sarcasm, when the Ferrari scrambled McLaren, Williams and Jaguar.
If Harris sees something strange, he could tell, but I can not?
if Ferrari has found that the tires were too stressed out for a wet test, did well to want to change, otherwise not.
Lorenzo Facchinetti (Auto chief driver) is agree to me: there's nothing strange, becasuse after a long run, sometimes tyres are too stressed... and sometimes lamobrghini do the same thing .
of course, Harris is right to complain if you think something is wrong. But (Open mind?) all those who have read the article by Harris, they understood that: The ferrari is dishonest, others not, and they are poor victims of Sauron-Ferrari. but what is worse is that Ferrari cheating everytime...
By the way, I've already posted some tests "suspects ", as you see, I also look for answers from you
I do not know which manufacturer is dishonest, or what is the most honest, I do not pretend to know ... Why I have not your arrogance, and certainly the Ferrari are not saints, but I think it's not correct talk about the "Comet Halley", implying that lambo, porsche, nissan cars selected at random to be given to the press .... you can believe what you want. but don't forget there are two tests (Enzo and 430S) that contradict Harris.