Chris Harris on Ferrari's media-manipulation

[Guibo]

ImageShack® - Online Photo and Video Hosting
Manthey's team known about the "re-guiding the flow of air". They have a dyno with all the specific caracteristics of forced-air tubes behind the intent to extract the full potential of the 911s.

Fair enough. Do you have a dyno of that same car at 25 ºC? Do you know how many km's on the engine? How about a dyno for the 600 hp one?

 

[F40 LeMans]

Fair enough. Do you have a dyno of that same car at 25 ºC? Do you know how many km's on the engine? How about a dyno for the 600 hp one?

No, I've just the Supersprint dyno without the re-guiding the flow of air. Tested around 25°C and corrected for less than 1 kw. On their 2nd car tested it lost just 4 or 5 kw with 35°C in the room.
This car seems to be not affected by air temperature.

Regarding the Autocar 360M. Even Porsche sent a 996 Carrera 1997 with incredible performance. Really. Something of fast, but never said.

 

[Guibo]

No, I've just the Supersprint dyno without the re-guiding the flow of air. Tested around 25°C and corrected for less than 1 kw. On their 2nd car tested it lost just 4 or 5 kw with 35°C in the room.
This car seems to be not affected by air temperature.

Regarding the Autocar 360M. Even Porsche sent a 996 Carrera 1997 with incredible performance. Really. Something of fast, but never said.

So basically you have no direct before & after dyno to show the actual effect of temperature on the same car.

Their 996 may have been fast but it wasn't faster than a GT3. Unlike the 360M which was faster than the CS. Do you see Porsche complaining about customer cars being used? Intevening with customes? Do you see them sending 2 cars for different disciplines? Do you see them calling ahead of time to set up a car before a comparo takes place? You are still quite certain they are just like Ferrari?

 

[F40 LeMans]

Double post, so I write here:

"That in Ferrari aren't Saints I said yet!"

 

[F40 LeMans]

So basically you have no direct before & after dyno to show the actual effect of temperature on the same car.

Their 996 may have been fast but it wasn't faster than a GT3. Unlike the 360M which was faster than the CS. Do you see Porsche complaining about customer cars being used? Intevening with customes? Do you see them sending 2 cars for different disciplines? Do you see them calling ahead of time to set up a car before a comparo takes place? You are still quite certain they are just like Ferrari?

Are you sure that CAR was not fast car for 20"29 @ 269 with 13 degrees C when the QR press car 21"12 @ 255 then corrected dynos (as your method but now not relevant) and the owner explain for fast car? No you can't, is the owner saying or corrections is not the best method?
Why that case of corrected dyno sould not be relevant compare to other Gt2 then Auto's corrected dyno was relevant for the SA GT-R car?

Are you sure that only Ferrari send fast press cars? No you can't, we are talking about methods, or it is just the 360 example a problem? Then I agree is fast.
If it is just one could be a case, if other Ferraris tested are fast then they all factories send fast cars.

 

[Guibo]

Are you sure that CAR was not fast car for 20"29 @ 269 with 13 degrees C when the QR press car 21"12 @ 255 then corrected dynos (as your method but now not relevant) and the owner explain for fast car? No you can't, is the owner saying or corrections is not the best method?
Why that case of corrected dyno sould not be relevant compare to other Gt2 then Auto's corrected dyno was relevant for the SA GT-R car?

Are you sure that only Ferrari send fast press cars? No you can't, we are talking about methods, or it is just the 360 example a problem? Then I agree is fast.
If it is just one could be a case, if other Ferraris tested are fast then they all factories send fast cars.

I'm not aware of CAR having tested a GT2 to that speed. Do you have the article? Post it up.
Owner saying without having dyno- or performance-tested is not proof of 600 hp.
Regarding corrections of dynos, it is stated in SAE standard that turbocharged cars are not to be adjusted for atmospheric conditions. This implies that in hot conditions, a car with iterative closed-loop turbo system like the GT2 will automatically compensate boost and timing to a prescribed minimum. What this does not imply is that this minimum must be maintained even when cold, dense air is being rammed into the intake.
The point of the SA GT-R was that it was not faster than the Auto dyno-tested GT-R. If one car is dynoed at 489 PS, we do not have to conclude the other must be 520+ PS. What is the precedence? You have no dyno, you have no performance of a 520 PS GT-R. Where does the guess come from, if not pure bias against Nissan and suspicion of cheating (as Auto have displayed by dyno'ing that GT-R).

In the case of Ferrari, I have yet to see a customer 360M, F430, or 599 matching or beating a factory Ferrrari press car in acceleration. We see the 599 beating the SLR in 100-200 by more than 0.5s in AMuS, yet in a test between customer cars, the SLR is visibly, comfortably faster. You have already explained why: ECU tuning behind octane used.
Nissan sends cars that are noticeably faster than customer cars? Where? Nissan has sent GT-Rs that trap at 111 and 115 mph timed by Vbox. Customer cars have been trapping 119-122, averaged over the final 66'.
We have already one customer 2011 GT-R that has pretty much matched all press GT-Rs so far. Plenty of customer ZR1s have matched/beaten magazine times too.

Please, try again: "Do you see Porsche complaining about customer cars being used? Intevening with customes? Do you see them sending 2 cars for different disciplines? Do you see them calling ahead of time to set up a car before a comparo takes place? You are still quite certain they are just like Ferrari?"

To say Ferrari are not saints is not the same as recognizing and acknowledging that there is a fundamental difference to what they're doing vs what other companies do in 3rd party, independent testing of what are supposed to be stock production cars (ie., no ECU tuning behind fuels self-provided, no changing out wheel sizes to reduce understeer, etc). You still cannot see the difference? If not, then we are done here.

 

[F40 LeMans]

I'm not aware of CAR having tested a GT2 to that speed. Do you have the article? Post it up.
Owner saying without having dyno- or performance-tested is not proof of 600 hp.
Regarding corrections of dynos, it is stated in SAE standard that turbocharged cars are not to be adjusted for atmospheric conditions. This implies that in hot conditions, a car with iterative closed-loop turbo system like the GT2 will automatically compensate boost and timing to a prescribed minimum. What this does not imply is that this minimum must be maintained even when cold, dense air is being rammed into the intake.
The point of the SA GT-R was that it was not faster than the Auto dyno-tested GT-R. If one car is dynoed at 489 PS, we do not have to conclude the other must be 520+ PS. What is the precedence? You have no dyno, you have no performance of a 520 PS GT-R. Where does the guess come from, if not pure bias against Nissan and suspicion of cheating (as Auto have displayed by dyno'ing that GT-R).

In the case of Ferrari, I have yet to see a customer 360M, F430, or 599 matching or beating a factory Ferrrari press car in acceleration. We see the 599 beating the SLR in 100-200 by more than 0.5s in AMuS, yet in a test between customer cars, the SLR is visibly, comfortably faster. You have already explained why: ECU tuning behind octane used.
Nissan sends cars that are noticeably faster than customer cars? Where? Nissan has sent GT-Rs that trap at 111 and 115 mph timed by Vbox. Customer cars have been trapping 119-122, averaged over the final 66'.
We have already one customer 2011 GT-R that has pretty much matched all press GT-Rs so far. Plenty of customer ZR1s have matched/beaten magazine times too.

Please, try again: "Do you see Porsche complaining about customer cars being used? Intevening with customes? Do you see them sending 2 cars for different disciplines? Do you see them calling ahead of time to set up a car before a comparo takes place? You are still quite certain they are just like Ferrari?"

To say Ferrari are not saints is not the same as recognizing and acknowledging that there is a fundamental difference to what they're doing vs what other companies do in 3rd party, independent testing of what are supposed to be stock production cars (ie., no ECU tuning behind fuels self-provided, no changing out wheel sizes to reduce understeer, etc). You still cannot see the difference? If not, then we are done here.

But you know how are saying me now?

Are 3 YEARS you are trying to prove me something, with correction factors, dyno corrected, videos, other GT-Rs test, google maps evalutations, calculations etc, about a GT-R mule WITHOUT any dyno or info about that SPECIFIC mule car?

Now, you are saying me:
Owner saying without having dyno- or performance-tested is not proof of x hp.

Please, try again: "Do you see Porsche complaining about customer cars being used? Intevening with customes? Do you see them sending 2 cars for different disciplines? Do you see them calling ahead of time to set up a car before a comparo takes place? You are still quite certain they are just like Ferrari?"

read up the post n. 104

Means admitting that they are no good behind their method with the automotive press, but you are not based to say they are using tricks, because they send fast press cars as the others.
And it's comprensible. Knowing a lot about their press car.

If not, then we are done here

If we are done here, you are done 3 years ago with the other point, because you have not a rag of proof about specific info about that mule. If, NOW FOR YOU, having no-dyno, no prove nothing..

So.. tell me about their GT-R engine mule power rated? (after 3 years)

The power of their 599GTB press car is about 655 PS

 

[martinbo]

Guibo, you're the only one posting a rational argument here. Others can't see through the red mist it seems and post anything of factual relevance or post any supporting evidence.

The debate is now circular.

It's quite clear to me that whilst many manufacturers go to certain lengths to ensure that press cars are prepared to an extent in order to achieve a favorable test outcome, it is Ferrari that goes to the greatest lengths to ensure that media-delivered results are beyond those that would ordinarily be deemed as optimal in customer cars.

Ferrari's mystique and reputation is founded upon the publicity garnered from the media publishing superlative performance testing results. Consequently it's quite understandable why Ferrari would go to greater lengths in order to safeguard their reputation. They need to manipulate the testing process because it's the media that ultimately delivers the message of Ferrari's purported superiority with the most credibility - not YouTube.

 

[Guibo]

read up the post n. 104
Means admitting that they are no good behind their method with the automotive press, but you are not based to say they are using tricks, because they send fast press cars as the others.
And it's comprensible. Knowing a lot about their press car.

It's not just me saying they're using tricks. It's Evo (swap of front wheels to reduce understeer in the 599), Autocar (setting the car up specifically for that track ahead of time, then further fettling when the initial time could not beat the GT3 RS), and you (providing press with factory Enzo with more power and less weight than customer cars; ECU tuning for higher octane fuels used). Are you now denying that you ever said these things?

But you know how are saying me now?
Are 3 YEARS you are trying to prove me something, with correction factors, dyno corrected, videos, other GT-Rs test, google maps evalutations, calculations etc, about a GT-R mule WITHOUT any dyno or info about that SPECIFIC mule car?

If we are done here, you are done 3 years ago with the other point, because you have not a rag of proof about specific info about that mule. If, NOW FOR YOU, having no-dyno, no prove nothing..

No, your contention was that the mule must have had more power in order to set that time. Yet trap speed on DH straight at the same point with a customer car (Series 1 on Bridgestones with slick lead-up corner, on the 2nd lap) was within ~2kph of the mule driven by Suzuki. If we conclude the mule had more power, then guess what? So did the customer car. Where are the tricks?? You have nothing to base your 520+ hp claims on.
What do we know of the mule cars? The S1 mule GT-R was beaten by a Turbo on an autobahn pull (TopGear). The mule GT-R tested by C&D was no faster than customer cars, no faster than press cars subsequently tested by Euro press (some of which dyno'ed at 489 PS). On this, we must conclude 520+ hp? How so?

 

[F40 LeMans]

Guibo, you're the only one posting a rational argument here. Others can't see through the red mist it seems and post anything of factual relevance or post any supporting evidence.

The debate is now circular.

It's quite clear to me that whilst many manufacturers go to certain lengths to ensure that press cars are prepared to an extent in order to achieve a favorable test outcome, it is Ferrari that goes to the greatest lengths to ensure that media-delivered results are beyond those that would ordinarily be deemed as optimal in customer cars.

Ferrari's mystique and reputation is founded upon the publicity garnered from the media publishing superlative performance testing results. Consequently it's quite understandable why Ferrari would go to greater lengths in order to safeguard their reputation. They need to manipulate the testing process because it's the media that ultimately delivers the message of Ferrari's purported superiority with the most credibility - not YouTube.

So guy, because I can't see through the red mist, tell me how? with more powerful engine than the other?

I'm still waiting Guibo posting rational prouve that they send faster cars than the other..

with correction factors, dyno corrected, videos, other GT-Rs test, google maps evalutations, calculations etc,

martimbo: this is rational for you to conclude something about a car knowing nothing of it? or it's just because I can't see through the red mist

 

[Guibo]

So guy, because I can't see through the red mist, tell me how? with more powerful engine than the other?

Because you cannot accept the other parts of the argument: interfering with customer & press when customer cars are to be used, sending cars ahead of time to set a car up for a track test, fettling with it until the car returns the prescribed result, sending 2 cars for the best possible outcome of road vs track (but not both in one car), changing out tires at just the right moment in a group test when no other manufacturer does so (eCTOY), modifying ECU parameters (particularly when documented while out in the test field) to perform to a specific octane of a self-provided fuel, etc.
Your contention is that while Ferrari are no saints, they are no different from any other manufacturer. How, please do tell, does any other manufacturer do all of the things that Harris charges Ferrrari of doing?

I'm still waiting Guibo posting rational prouve that they send faster cars than the other..

Unless you were selectively comatose, you could not have missed the factory F430 being much faster than customer ones. You did admit the 360M (faster than 360CS, faster than 996 GT2, faster than customer F430s and even some factory ones) was too fast.
Did you miss my point that the customer GT-Rs are recording similar (and even faster) 1/4 mi traps than the press cars? Did you miss my point that Nissan have provided GT-Rs that trapped 111 and 115 mph? If they too are in the field, as you contend, modifying ECU parameters with self-provided fuels, why are these cars about as slow as M3s and Mustangs??
Did you miss my point that the customer ZR1s are matching/beating the press cars in 1/4 mile traps and 0-1 mile traps?
Did you miss your own admission that they modify ECU parameters for a certain octane (apparently not used by the other manufacturers in test). It's one thing to do this while at the factory (are Ferrari incompetent to do so?). It's quite another when out in the test field. This points strongly to dissatisfaction with settings as provided from the factory, and points strongly to, as you say, ECU parameters unavailable to the standard customer. How can this not be considered media manipulation?

 

[F40 LeMans]

It's not just me saying they're using tricks. It's Evo (swap of front wheels to reduce understeer in the 599), Autocar (setting the car up specifically for that track ahead of time, then further fettling when the initial time could not beat the GT3 RS), and you (providing press with factory Enzo with more power and less weight than customer cars; ECU tuning for higher octane fuels used). Are you now denying that you ever said these things?

Yes, I'm saying the send fast car. When I sayd? 3 or 4 years ago. But they not use tricks about this point. They use high blueprinted cars as the others (for the 5th time)

No, your contention was that the mule must have had more power in order to set that time

.
No, my contention was it will have...? why we know nothing about it?

 

[Guibo]

Yes, I'm saying the send fast car. When I sayd? 3 or 4 years ago. But they not use tricks about this point. They use high blueprinted cars as the others (for the 5th time)

See above post. Blueprinting an engine is not the same as tuning the ECU to work with self-provided fuel (possibly much more than 102+ octane?). High blueprinting is why a GT-R is as slow as M3/Mustang.

No, my contention was it will have...? why we know nothing about it?

If you know nothing about it, then why jump to 520+ hp conclusion?? Why not just look at the available data, and draw a reasonable conclusion?

 

[F40 LeMans]

Because you cannot accept the other parts of the argument: interfering with customer & press when customer cars are to be used, sending cars ahead of time to set a car up for a track test, fettling with it until the car returns the prescribed result, sending 2 cars for the best possible outcome of road vs track (but not both in one car), changing out tires at just the right moment in a group test when no other manufacturer does so (eCTOY), modifying ECU parameters (particularly when documented while out in the test field) to perform to a specific octane of a self-provided fuel, etc.
Your contention is that while Ferrari are no saints, they are no different from any other manufacturer. How, please do tell, does any other manufacturer do all of the things that Harris charges Ferrrari of doing?


Unless you were selectively comatose, you could not have missed the factory F430 being much faster than customer ones. You did admit the 360M (faster than 360CS, faster than 996 GT2, faster than customer F430s and even some factory ones) was too fast.
Did you miss my point that the customer GT-Rs are recording similar (and even faster) 1/4 mi traps than the press cars? Did you miss my point that Nissan have provided GT-Rs that trapped 111 and 115 mph? If they too are in the field, as you contend, modifying ECU parameters with self-provided fuels, why are these cars about as slow as M3s and Mustangs??
Did you miss my point that the customer ZR1s are matching/beating the press cars in 1/4 mile traps and 0-1 mile traps?
Did you miss your own admission that they modify ECU parameters for a certain octane (apparently not used by the other manufacturers in test). It's one thing to do this while at the factory (are Ferrari incompetent to do so?). It's quite another when out in the test field. This points strongly to dissatisfaction with settings as provided from the factory, and points strongly to, as you say, ECU parameters unavailable to the standard customer. How can this not be considered media manipulation?

And why you want to I don't accept the (black) point, if I don't think so? I AGREE this point, about they "arent in right", but THEY DON'T TRICK FOR ENGINES POWER no more than the others.

 

[Guibo]

And why you want to don't accept the (black) point, if I don't think so. I AGREE this point, about they "arent in right", but THEY DON'T TRICK FOR ENGINES POWER RATED. BECAUSE THEY ALL SEND POWERFUL CARS BY THE FACTORIES.

Again, see my above posts. Customer GT-Rs and customer ZR1s are returning speeds as fast or faster than the press cars. Reasonable conclusion: If the factory sends powerful press cars, then they are also sending powerful customer cars. Now, the question is: Where are the powerful customer Ferraris? The lack of data (available data suggests just the opposite: customer cars are slower, and you even explicitly state this in the case of the 599), combined with Ferrari meddling when customer cars they don't approve of just might be used, combined with ECU fettling while in the test field, points to a clear difference in the press vs customer cars.

 

[F40 LeMans]

Again, see my above posts. Customer GT-Rs and customer ZR1s are returning speeds as fast or faster than the press cars. Reasonable conclusion: If the factory sends powerful press cars, then they are also sending powerful customer cars. Now, the question is: Where are the powerful customer Ferraris? The lack of data (available data suggests just the opposite: customer cars are slower, and you even explicitly state this in the case of the 599), combined with Ferrari meddling when customer cars they don't approve of just might be used, combined with ECU fettling while in the test field, points to a clear difference in the press vs customer cars.

Right, but it's like Lambo and Porsche.

 

[F40 LeMans]

Guibo, you're the only one posting a rational argument here. Others can't see through the red mist it seems and post anything of factual relevance or post any supporting evidence.

The debate is now circular

Until you don't "get" the point, like Guibo has now (including Lambo and Porsche), you are FU**ED yet behind your red preconcepts

If you know nothing about it, then why jump to 520+ hp conclusion?? Why not just look at the available data, and draw a reasonable conclusion?

Infact I'm trying to ask you from years if customer cars and press cars are around 490 PS (so well within their tolerance), how you know if they are not "high blueprinted" their mule?

The reasonable conclusion for me is: a lot of Ferrari, Lambo and Porsche factory press cars are for sure high blueprinted engine cars (for martinbo: I mentioned Ferrari too )

I tried to whip you with 530hp, then 520, then 510... Give me your conclusion for sure about GT-R mule. Yes, not, maybe...

 

[Guibo]

Infact I'm trying to ask you from years if customer cars and press cars are around 490 PS (so well within their tolerance), how you know if they are not "high blueprinted" their mule?

The reasonable conclusion for me is: a lot of Ferrari, Lambo and Porsche factory press cars are for sure high blueprinted engine cars (for martinbo: I mentioned Ferrari too )

I tried to whip you with 530hp, then 520, then 510... Give me your conclusion for sure about GT-R mule. Yes, not, maybe...

It's reasonable to assume yes, GT-R mules are blueprinted. But is the difference between mules and production-spec cars that great? The available data suggests no. If we conclude from performance numbers that mules are blueprinted, then we can also conclude customer cars are likewise blueprinted: They are more or less the same! There are even customer cars hitting 121-122 mph uncorrected in the 1/4 mile, averaged over the last 66'. Compare that with C&D's for-sure blueprinted GT-R (VBoxe'd instantaneous @ 119.1 mph uncorrected). Is the mule so fast?
Why do you feel you have to whip people about hp numbers? The data are already provided. For example, when C&D tried to explain their GT-R differences:
http://www.supercars.net/pitlane/pics/175997/2142466c.jpg http://www.supercars.net/pitlane/pics/175997/2142466d.jpg
We also know that Stage 1 modified GT-Rs (ECU tune + exhaust) produce about 520+ hp and are for sure as fast as a 997TT, even faster. Yet, TopGear's GT-R 'Ring mule was slower on the autobahn. Draw the reasonable conclusion.

Right, but it's like Lambo and Porsche.

Not exactly. Motor Trend's customer LP560-4 recorded 100-150 in 9.7s. This is slower than C&D's tested LP560-4 by 1.1s (done in 55-degree weather), but very much similar to QR's LP560-4 (99.4 - 149.1 mph in 9.17s).
In the same Motor Trend test, the customer F430 did 100-150 in 18.8s. Compare with QR time with factory F430 (99.4 - 149.1): 10.04s. Is quite a larger difference. All cars are with sequential gearboxes.

 

[F40 LeMans]

Motor Trend's customer LP560-4 recorded 100-150 in 9.7s. This is slower than C&D's tested LP560-4 by 1.1s (done in 55-degree weather), but very much similar to QR's LP560-4 (99.4 - 149.1 mph in 9.17s).

I don't exclude that.

 

[F40 LeMans]

In the same Motor Trend test, the customer F430 did 100-150 in 18.8s. Compare with QR time with factory F430 (99.4 - 149.1): 10.04s. Is quite a larger difference. All cars are with sequential gearboxes.

I forgot that Autocar tested a customer F430 F1 and did 100-150 in 12.1s. When QR tested the 1st factory car did (99.4 - 149.1): 10.5s. Half second slower than the second car.
It seems there is much more difference between customer cars than customer compared to factory cars. During the production there could been built some slower cars, it also happened for Nissan with GT-R slow as the M3.

When Autocar tested their customer Scuderia did 100-150 in 9.6s and this was helpful for the factory's F430s to value. Draw the reasonable conclusion about their power output.

As for the V12, when Autocar tested the factory 550 Maranello did 100-150 in just 13.2s, later TopGear tested a customer 575M F1 and 11.8s.

This means that (looking the factory 599 GTB yet) they use in every case no more than "blueprinted" engines for power output on their factory cars, but nothing to conclude about something like pumped engines.

What happened at that 360M, I really don't know, but I think it will be not a good idea pointing out an example like just a single case.

What is important for you it's just to spit shit from everywere on forums (even 6speedonline.com and supercars.net) never correct your mistakes behind your preconcepts. If now you will be a man, it would you.