LFA [Official] Lexus LF-A Supercar (Production Version)

[Bartek S.]

I saw this car car at Montreal car show. Total waste of money. Should cost same as Nissan GT-R. Lexus is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay to expensive.

 

[Levi68]

I saw this car car at Montreal car show. Total waste of money. Should cost same as Nissan GT-R. Lexus is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay to expensive.

I hope you're joking. If not I advise you to (re)read this thread from page 1 to 57.

 

[330CIZHP]

I saw this car car at Montreal car show. Total waste of money. Should cost same as Nissan GT-R. Lexus is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay to expensive.

That post is laughably bad. No offense, but you must be completely clueless to make such ignorant statements. You are not the first one to make such statements either. If you wish to argue this out then let's go, but let me warn you it will not be pretty.

 

[Bartek S.]

Sorry for offense but I stand for my opinion. Waste of money. For it's cost you have many better cars on a market. Lexus is overrated and overprice.

 

[330CIZHP]

Sorry for offense but I stand for my opinion. Waste of money. For it's cost you have many better cars on a market. Lexus is overrated and overprice.

But, you said it should cost only as much as a Nissan GTR. Didn't you?? That is to say, "a 100% bespoke 500 only limited edition car built with carbon fiber monococque chassis should be sold for $90K". Correct??? How many other carbon fiber supercars can you count that cost only this much??

Regarding the so-called "better performing cars" , which one's are the speaking of?? SLS AMG?? R8 V10 GT?? GT2 RS?? 458 Italia?? LP570-4?? Aventador??

 

[Levi68]

Sorry for offense but I stand for my opinion. Waste of money. For it's cost you have many better cars on a market. Lexus is overrated and overprice.

The only cars you can get are the cheaper but also more banal Porsche 911 GT3, a perfect but univolving Lamborghini Aventador or to stay the closest to the LFA you have the Ferrari 599 GTO which is the best compromise. I see only Three cars, not "Many". So to correct your statement "for its cost you have many cars" which are not necessarily better.

 

[Mafalda]

It really has to do with the driver. It is for this reason I am more interested in factory laptimes than in magazines laptimes. What I want to know are the limits of the car, not the limits of the driver, and those that developed the car can reach higher limits than those that had a ride for a few minutes.

I disagree. ok, it's no easy drive @ limit these powerful supercas, but reading this post seems the magazines are useless....
and don't forget how mnfrs's claims are, sometimes, so optimistc... wacth some claimed fuel economy: two tons sendans 18 km/l....

 

[Levi68]

I disagree. ok, it's no easy drive @ limit these powerful supercas, but reading this post seems the magazines are useless....
and don't forget how mnfrs's claims are, sometimes, so optimistc... wacth some claimed fuel economy: two tons sendans 18 km/l....

I do say magazine reviews are useless, but they are not the best for laptimes. I prefere independent laptimes or factory laptimes, as they are the best, hopping there was no cheating.

 

[DeDe]

I do say magazine reviews are useless, but they are not the best for laptimes. I prefere independent laptimes or factory laptimes, as they are the best, hopping there was no cheating.

Nothing gives a clearer picture about a sportscar's real capabilities than Sport Auto's Supertest with Horst von Saurma's Ring-times.
Same magazine, same driver, same track, same testing methodes.
There's a racing-driver (also a former motorbike-racer) with limited attempts for the best time. Simple as that.

He knows every inch of the Ring and he also knows the cars before the Nürburgring-Time attack, because of the previous testings (acceleration, braking, slalom, Hockenheim, road testing, etc).
There's only one thing that he can't control: the weather.

For me his articles and laptimes are the standard, since I'm interested in an independent racing driver's opinion.
Yes, independent. He races with Porsches, but that doesn't makes him a biased factory-driver. Like the one you are talking about.

 

[Mr Robert]

Yes, factory times are useless for comparisons. They are, however, great for people who needs to justify themselves. Factory times are pure marketing, nothing else.

 

[Guibo]

Nothing gives a clearer picture about a sportscar's real capabilities than Sport Auto's Supertest with Horst von Saurma's Ring-times.
Same magazine, same driver, same track, same testing methodes.

He knows every inch of the Ring and he also knows the cars before the Nürburgring-Time attack, because of the previous testings (acceleration, braking, slalom, Hockenheim, road testing, etc).

Have to respectfully disagree. A sportscar's real capabilities simply cannot be realized in 2 flying laps of the 'Ring (of which only 1 is timed). This was made clear when Sascha Bert knocked 6 seconds off of HvS's time in the 458 despite a passenger and the full course timing. Even F1 teammates, driving cars that are for sure scrutinized to a stricter standard, can show variations in qualifying time; and then even larger variations in time as the race wears on (slightly different conditions, different fuel loads, tires in varying degrees of wear, etc). Some become faster; some are slower than their qualifying times.
Knowing every inch of the 'Ring does not mean that he knows how each car will respond to certain inputs at its true limit. As we have seen with some cars, the initial limit of tire-scrubbing understeer or oversteer is not actually the true limit of the car. It takes many laps to trust that the car can deliver more than what the initial signs indicate. And the lowest lap time does not mean a "perfect lap." It might just mean the one in which fewest mistakes were made. We have seen plenty of agressive driving by the likes of Suzuki in the GT-R (12 seconds faster than HvS in the same "time attack" lapping session in 2007), Makinen in the WRX STi, Motoharu Kurosawa in the 964 Turbo (he was also faster than HvS in the NSX-R), and Akira Lida in the LFA; the likes of which I have never seen from von Saurma. HvS gets within 1-5 seconds of Porsche's claimed times almost without fail; yet Porsche often reports that these times were recorded while running in traffic during industry days.

What the Sport Auto tests do show is how various cars might compare overall, given a good driver, decent weather, and just a handful of laps. It gives you the picture that, say, a McLaren MP4-12C is for sure faster than a C63 Black Series. It doesn't determine where the true limits of each car lies.

 

[Levi68]

Nothing gives a clearer picture about a sportscar's real capabilities than Sport Auto's Supertest with Horst von Saurma's Ring-times.
Same magazine, same driver, same track, same testing methodes.
There's a racing-driver (also a former motorbike-racer) with limited attempts for the best time. Simple as that.

He knows every inch of the Ring and he also knows the cars before the Nürburgring-Time attack, because of the previous testings (acceleration, braking, slalom, Hockenheim, road testing, etc).
There's only one thing that he can't control: the weather.

For me his articles and laptimes are the standard, since I'm interested in an independent racing driver's opinion.
Yes, independent. He races with Porsches, but that doesn't makes him a biased factory-driver. Like the one you are talking about.

Of course the best thing is to compare cars the same day with the same driver. The problem with Horst von Saurma is not that he is biased, but that he is familiar to Porsches and can do the best laptimes. Other drivers can't get better laps then him.

 

[DeDe]

Sport Auto Supertest is not for true limits, it is for true comparison. To show how all these cars can compare to each other with the same standards (driver, track, testing-methode, etc.). It shows us how close a professional driver can get to the car in a short time-period, how fast he can be with the car after those laps.

Factory-times are useless, because one of the most important factors is always different: the driver. And that's why HvS and his Supertests are getting my vote.

The problem with Horst von Saurma is not that he is biased, but that he is familiar to Porsches and can do the best laptimes.

So Levi, being familiar with Porsches makes you slower in all other cars. Or? Is this really your answer for all the times you found "slow"?

 

[330CIZHP]

True that the driver is the same. However, realistically it does not give an unintentional, unbiased and fair assessement of how the cars compare. The dynamics of cars vary so hugely as some rely on electronics for their line while others require far more driver control. The time it is going to take to get comfortable pushing the car to the limits is going to vary in every car. Ofcourse, he feels the most confident and comfortable in Porsches because he drives those for a living. He must be.

Case in point, a 450 HP 997.2 GT3 RS 6 speed 1 second quicker (albeit on R slick compound tires) than arguably a more uncompromising 571 HP LFA with an automated transmission truly shows a huge discrepancy. While it is spot-on for the Porsche's official claims, it is just in a different league for the LFA.

Guibo pointed out already the huge discrepancy between Saurma's lap times and Sascha Bert's lap time. I doubt Bert had anymore time to get familiar with the cars yet, his lap times have been consistently much quicker than Saurma's lap times in non-Porsche cars.

Sport Auto Supertest is not for true limits, it is for true comparison. To show how all these cars can compare to each other with the same standards (driver, track, testing-methode, etc.). It shows us how close a professional driver can get to the car in a short time-period, how fast he can be with the car after those laps.

Factory-times are useless, because one of the most important factors is always different: the driver. And that's why HvS and his Supertests are getting my vote.

So Levi, being familiar with Porsches makes you slower in all other cars. Or? Is this really your answer for all the times you found "slow"?

 

[DeDe]

True that the driver is the same. However, realistically it does not give an unintentional, unbiased and fair assessement of how the cars compare. The dynamics of cars vary so hugely as some rely on electronics for their line while others require far more driver control. The time it is going to take to get comfortable pushing the car to the limits is going to vary in every car. Ofcourse, he feels the most confident and comfortable in Porsches because he drives those for a living.

Case in point, a 450 HP 997.2 GT3 RS 6 speed 1 second quicker (albeit on R slick compound tires) than arguably a more hardcore 571 HP LFA with an automated transmission truly shows a huge discrepancy. While it is spot-on for the Porsche's official claims, it is just in a different league for the LFA.

- I don't know what the word "harcore" means to you, but I found the GT3 RS quite hardcore...
- And there's a keyword in you sentence: "R slick compound", which makes HUGE difference in tracktimes.
- At the gearbox: according to AMS the GT3 RS's manual gearbox is good for shifting times down to 0,12 seconds.

Guibo pointed out already the huge discrepancy between Saurma's lap times and Sascha Bert's lap time. I doubt Bert had anymore time to get familiar with the cars yet, his lap times have been consistently much quicker than Saurma's lap times in non-Porsche cars.

AutoBild Sportscars spent several days with the cars and with Bert at the Ring, because of the changing weather. Also, while HvS always tests the cars without the driving aids, Bert ran his best with the electronics ON (458).

 

[Guibo]

Sport Auto Supertest is not for true limits, it is for true comparison. To show how all these cars can compare to each other with the same standards (driver, track, testing-methode, etc.). It shows us how close a professional driver can get to the car in a short time-period, how fast he can be with the car after those laps.

Factory-times are useless, because one of the most important factors is always different: the driver. And that's why HvS and his Supertests are getting my vote.

So Levi, being familiar with Porsches makes you slower in all other cars. Or? Is this really your answer for all the times you found "slow"?

What it might mean is that a sportscar buyer might think he is just as fast or faster in a rear-engined Porsche on the basis of HvS laps, yet on a winding road or track, he might not be. The very fact that HvS has decades of experiencing in driving/racing Porsches would not necessarily be apparent to those using the mags as a comparison of what they might be able to achieve.
Not sure how it can be called a "true comparison" when we don't even know the particulars of the track (surface conditions, weather, etc). There's a reason why these mfrs don't pull just anybody off the street and any random day when recording their fastest laps. The supertest does well to remove some variables, but not all of them.

AutoBild Sportscars spent several days with the cars and with Bert at the Ring, because of the changing weather. Also, while HvS always tests the cars without the driving aids, Bert ran his best with the electronics ON (458).

Bert also had many more cars to test during that session than HvS, so the familiarization period could be similar (or even less, with so many cars).
But let's focus on the weather for a bit: It was changing, as it often does at the 'Ring. We are now left with 2 likely scenarios to consider:
1) The 'Ring laps, even (or especially) by mag tests such as Sport Auto don't make for great comparisons of true ability as there is only a short window of opportunity by which a car's true potential can be realized (even assuming the driver can take it to 100% which it most certainly has not been shown by HvS), and
2) the 7:32 of that 458, and all of the cars in that test, could realistically have been improved upon; that's even without factoring in the longer circuit length and the weight and caution afforded to a journalist passenger.

 

[330CIZHP]

Even if the shift times for a manual could be very quick in the GT3 RS (I don't doubt they can be), the whole execution start to finish in a modern automated manual will still be quicker.

The simple fact of having to lift off the throttle in a 6 speed manual transmission puts it at a huge disadvantage compared to a modern automated manual transmission where the transmission disengages one gear and then engages the next gear without closing the throttle bodies.

You should review Akira Iida's lap time video and see how often he downshifts and how quickly they happen (especially at the end of the lap in his life saving engine braking when he was coming down from 300 km/h downhill after Dottinger Hoe). I doubt it would be anywhere near as efficient or instantaneous in a manual transmission.

- I don't know what the word "harcore" means to you, but I found the GT3 RS quite hardcore...
- And there's a keyword in you sentence: "R slick compound", which makes HUGE difference in tracktimes.
- At the gearbox: according to AMS the GT3 RS's manual gearbox is good for shifting times down to 0,12 seconds.


AutoBild Sportscars spent several days with the cars and with Bert at the Ring, because of the changing weather. Also, while HvS always tests the cars without the driving aids, Bert ran his best with the electronics ON (458).

 

[Levi68]

So Levi, being familiar with Porsches makes you slower in all other cars. Or? Is this really your answer for all the times you found "slow"?

No, being familiar to Porsches makes you reach higher limits. It is not the other cars that are slower, but the Porsches that are faster.


Not all drivers can reach the limits of all cars.

 

[Guibo]

Posting this where it belongs...

Guibo, know very well why you wrote "the 458 with S. Bert can do better: in that comparison, there was also the GT-R, once again failed the manfr's claims. Then you have invented this story, because" if the 458 could be improved , then the GT-R could the same... "
Guibo a fan of ferrari? strange this is new. we want to remember your comments about Supertest of California? or your role in the threads "how ferrari spins"? or the MT comparsos "Ferrrai questionable practices" cause they changed the tyres pressure (...0.14 bar). Sorry, can you post me the link with your comment about the Aventador @ Balocco: they've changed the tyres (not the tyres pressure....): two hotlaps with used tyres, two laps with new ones... the link, please
am I a Butcher? yes, but some Mr "two meters and two measures", as you
and now, let's talk about the LF-A

Is it insulting to you that the GT-R can be as fast as the 458? We have already seen from the Motor Trend test that the GT-R, even on non-optimum tire pressures, can lap just as fast as the 458 on MPSS and optimized pressures. If I say that the 458's time can be improved upon, why would I not say the same for the GT-R? How much "invention" is necessary to understand that ~5-6s can be deducted from a 20.8km circuit timing to make it comparable to the 20.6km timing that SA uses? How much invention is necessary to explain why HvS doesn't do his laps with a passenger?? This is not "invention." This is common sense. And when I say "common," I mean common to those who don't live their lives with Ferrari-branded blinders on.
Once again, you refuse to answer the direct question: Do you honestly think Bert's time in the 458 is the absolute 100% best of the 458?

Show me the link to me doubting the California's time (and not, as it actually turned out to be, a remark on the effectiveness of DCT transmissions and utter garbage spouted by hp/wt zealots like yourself). I did the same for the SLS as well as the 458:
"The key to the California, 458, and even SLS's good 'Ring times does not have to do with power. All can be answered by the application of technology."
SUPERCARS.NET - Comprehensive Specifications, Galleries & Forums since 1996
I did the same for the 997.2 w/DKG. Why do you still refuse to understand this, mafalda?

What is my role in "how Ferrari spins" threads? Is it the same as the author of that article, who has spent his own money on 2-3 Ferraris? How many Ferraris have you spent your money on, mafalda? I just agreed with Harris that Ferrari does some shady things that they don't even have to do. It makes them look paranoid and silly because, by their own admission, most paying customers don't care for Ferrari being on top in such tests. Only the fanboys do.

0.14 bar...haha, now it changes. Before you were saying .01 bar. Which begs the question: Even if it is .14 bar (which it is not; it was 0.2 bar in the Scuderia test at Bedford), why would Ferrari even do this if it doesn't make a difference?? Clearly, it does make a difference! Any race engineer will tell you why, but you still to this day cannot understand why.

Aventador @ Balocco? Were those tires of different sizes than standard (as in 599 @ Bedford)? Did they threaten Aventador customers and press if a customer car is used? Were they photographed with engine diagnostic/tuning equipement? I've called out other companies before, mafalda. NOT JUST FERRARI. McLaren's use of two cars in tests (and where they still came up short on the day that mattered). TVRs and Mercedes' cheated-up SL55 with a prototype engine. It doesn't mean I hate them. Perhaps it means I hate fanboys who refuse to see the big picture.

"Drei Runden auf Zeit" - "Three rounds for time" - That is in that article. He's not an idiot or amateur, if he says 3 laps for timing, he probably warmed up the tyres on a previous lap.

Btw. it's hard to believe that they spent that 2 hour-period between the photoshooting and the actual timing with drinking coffee or watching the traffic.

Accept the fact that this "hurry-hurry-lapping of HvS" is only an internet legend, which already lost its source.

A warmup on a previous lap would indicate that 4 laps are used for timing. Which is something he does not say. Nor does he say that all 3 laps are timed. It just says that there is a period of lapping for photography and practice, separated by a period of 3 laps (not 4) during which the fastest time is set. It doesn't necessarily mean that all are timed.
There wouldn't have to be a 2-hour period between photoshooting and the actual timing. Arriving at the track at 5 and starting the 3-lap timing session does not mean they are standing around watching traffic for two hours. During that entire time, they could be prepping the test and photo vehicles and crew, then doing the filming/photography, then the final prep of the test vehicle as the last of the tourist lappers leave the track.

 

[Bridster]

I have seen the issue - the issue, whether it is better to compare factory laps or magazine laps - being discussed so many times that I am quite surprised that no-one has yet taken it upon himself to try to delve into it a bit deeper.

In fact, I am lying, I am not surprised at all.

...and the reason why I am not surprised is because the issue is fairly complicated, although by complicated I mostly mean that nobody really knows what exactly they are arguing about and neither the magazines nor the manufactures have any idea what exactly they are doing in their tests. The idea of finding the absolute potential of a car by putting in a driver that is extremely familiar with it and having him run endless laps until he gets it just right sounds simple enough, but what relevance does this time hold? Sometime in the future it will probably happen that the fastest laps won't be achieved by drivers, but by computers that will be literally milimetrically precise and seconds faster than even the best drivers. You will then have as close to the true potential of the car as to make no difference, so yeah, job well done, this is the result of our engineering excellence... Except that by then the manufactures might as well (and most likely would) start building cars specifically so that they are easier for the computer to drive faster, in ways that would be absolutely useless to any human driving it, or even sacrificing some features made for humans in order to post the fastest lap time. Soon after this the merits of the absolute performance would matter only to few enthusiasts who might perhaps run a series where some of these now prototypes compete against each other.

Now, knowing which car is faster by the virtue of having them run by computers isn't bad in itself, but then there is the problem with assigning value to that computer found speed. In normal circumstances you would - and you do - automatically think that, yeah, it's faster, therefore it's better. However, the only reason why you would think that is because you - again automatically - assume that any speed you see any car achieve in any test is the speed you might achieve after some training yourself, and you are conditioned to think so automatically solely because in most cases it appears to be true. You see yourself driving a particular car faster than some other car and thus, in you mind, this appoints this car a certain value. Of course, in the case of cars ran by computers, the lap times achieved would tell you virtually nothing about how fast you can go, so faster wouldn't mean better.

Intuitively you know this, but your intuition might not be as good while dealing with the factory lap times, which are still made using people, even though they are professional racing drivers and the lap times they achieve after a multitude of attempts and after being backed up by teams of engineers and mechanics aren't achievable by you either. The gap isn't simply big enough yet for you to escape your conditioning. The associations are still there. But with computers, there aren't. The point I am really making here is that simply faster, without any context, isn't really better, the way of absolute performance isn't - as a basis for comparing lap times - ultimately the best, and the only reason you might think that it is, is because the differences between you and the one driving haven't yet proven themselves, in your mind, to be big enough. In other words: what you call speed is always just the speed you might do, even though you know you wouldn't.

Part 2 - about how having one driver test a handful of cars isn't that great either, and more - coming later...